Modern remote control (RC) radios are capable of incredible range, but they’re still only made for line-of-sight use. What if you want to control a vehicle that’s 100s of kilometers away, or even on the other side of the planet? Cellular is an option, but is obviously limited by available infrastructure — good luck getting a cell signal in the middle of the ocean.
But what if you could beam your commands down from space? That’s what [Thingify] was looking to test when they put together an experimental RC boat using a Starlink Mini for communications. Physically, there was no question it would work on the boat. After all, it was small, light, and power-efficient enough. But would the network connection be up to the task of controlling the vehicle in real-time?
During early ground testing, the Mini version of the Starlink receiver worked very well. Despite being roughly 1/4 the size of its predecessor, the smaller unit met or exceeded its performance during benchmarks on bandwidth, latency, and signal strength. As expected, it also drew far less power: the Mini’s power consumption peaked at around 33 watts, compared to the monstrous 180 W for the larger receiver.
On the water, there was even more good news. The bandwidth was more than enough to run a high-resolution video feedback to the command center. Most of the time the boat was moving autonomously between waypoints, but when [Thingify] switched over to manual control, the latency was low enough that maneuvering wasn’t a problem. We wouldn’t recommend manually piloting a high-speed aircraft over Starlink, but for a boat that’s cruising along at 4 km/h, the lag didn’t even come into play.
The downside? Starlink is a fairly expensive proposition; you’d need to have a pretty specific mission in mind to justify the cost. The Mini receiver currently costs $599 USD (though it occasionally goes on sale), and you’ll need at least a $50 per month plan to go with it. While this puts it out of the price range for recreational RC, [Thingify] notes that it’s not a bad deal if you’re looking to explore uncharted territory.
Back in the day (80s and 90s), this was so easily being possible via packet radio.
We had amateur satellites with a packet mailbox, for example.
Some birds also allowed digipeating. Digipeaters on ground also had existed.
Logging into your R/C vehicle via terminal had been possible back then.
The only “annoyance” would have been to have been required to obtain a special call sign for your remotely operated vehicle.
Is this no longer possible? I thought all that stuff was basically still in operation. What happened?
It is, in principle. But the packet radio net had been negleted.
When the internet/www was new in the 90s, a lot of hams didn’t realize what they had and fell for the new technology.
Probably also because they hadn’t been accustomed to PR use yet.
Packet Radio was considered a bit of of an outsider mode, such as SSTV.
Hence, Packet Radio activity sank eventually and digipeaters had been abandoned.
Just like the FM repeaters or the traditional BBS systems on telephone line.
Which is sad, because you could chat on the packet radio network, send pictures in real-time (Graphic Packet supported it), play some graphical games such as chess (Graphic Packet, Baycom Chess) or download files.
And all of this for free, without relying on commercial infrastructure.
There also were directories with latest news and so on.
Just like on a regular BBS over landline. Minus the cool ANSI art.
It was also possible to shell out on DOS prompt on the remote computer, if the Packet Radio software on the other side allowed for it.
So you could call your own computer in the shack from another station or when on the go (via laptop/two way radio in the car).
Likewise, it was usually possible to use other Packet Radio stations to extend the own range.
You could jump from station to station and check the “mheard” list on each one.
That’s the log book, essentially. Each TNC or Packet Radio software you can log into keeps a log about other stations it has heard in the past time.
So you could find new possible friends, so to say. Or find new digipeaters.
In my country, PR on CB radio (CEPT FM channels 24/25, 1200 Baud) started in 1994 and had its height in early 2000s.
By 2007 it was almost abandoned, though, I think.
People were so being so involved with the internet at the time that they gave up the hobby.
That’s kind of sad, because there had been an effort on migration to Linux based-digipeaters and mailboxes in early 2000s.
For the bigger ones, I mean. Those who ran on 486/Pentium PCs.
The small digipeaters ran on TNC2 compatible TNCs with a replacement firmware. TheNetNode was popular, I think.
It was a spin-off of TheFirmware, I think, a popular TNC firmware used in Europe.
It had features such as DAMA, which had reduced traffic on a channel.
Fascinating, thanks for so much detail. It is sad that some of that infrastructure fell by the wayside with the advent of the internet. I’ve seen a few projects on here that seem to be aimed at restoring some of it, but it would be a big group effort to get a nice network of digipeaters up again.
Hi, thank you! I hope it will attract new users eventually.
Because Packet-Radio has so modest requirements,
making it easy to build an infrastructure out of thin air, MacGyver style.
It uses 1200Hz and 2200 Hz tone par (1200 Baud AFSK) and can work via about any medium.
Walkie talkie, telephone, a laser link/infrared link, underwater via sound waves etc.
I mean, the technology is still there, and APRS (that thing with the map and the trackers) essentially uses same hardware and protocol (AX.25).
With modern software such as Soundmodem or DireWolf (has FX.25 support) it
can be modernized just easily, so that bit errors nolonger ruin the fun.
That was the biggest problem with classic PR, I think.
Whole packets had to be resent if just a tiny bit was wrong.
With forward-error-correction (FEC), the traffic on a channel could be lowered and the speed improved.
On the currently popular APRS, this FX.25 protocol would be quite an improvement, at the very least.
Ideally, it’s just a simple drop-in replacement (a Raspberry Pi with DireWolf can replace an old TNC).
Old equipment simply ignores the extra error correction information, so its not becoming useless (though a future software update with FX.25 would be nice).
Thanks for all that! Very interesting.
You’re welcome. ^^
There’s a radio amateur’s homepage that has some historic pictures about Packet Radio via ham satellite.
It ran DOS software on DESQView /X environment.
https://tinyurl.com/562ahfzf
As I understand it this has been a bit of a gamechanger for sea drones. Not that I revel in warfare but clearly it has nailed a specific functionality.
I doubt that’s the case. Starlink is not allowed to be used for direct actions by any armed forces. They do not allow it to be used inside warfare drones or weapon systems. It’s only allowed for personal connectivity. If any armed forces violates that rule, further access to starlink by that countries armed forces is denied.
Other suppliers are less picky about who they let on the network, but also don’t have the coverage.
This is off topic so trying to just skirt around what shouldn’t be on HAD (following recent articles talking about the comment section becoming out of hand)
But…
Starlink was being used in drones, but there was some contention with Starlink (who rightly refused to allow it to become a militarized).
But the solution found was that Starlink spun off into Starshield. The military version of Starlink.
Starlink is still used on the front line, but can not be used within Russian territory due to sanctions.
So the drones must be able to finish the “last mile” so to speak by themselves.
Yah right! It’s pretty well known that SpaceX, no doubt as Musk wishes has been allowing Russia to use StarLink in there never-ending pursuit of killing off or conquering their neighbors. Meanwhile, they shut it off when Ukraine tried to use it to protect their own lives and land until the Pentagon made them allow it.
I do get why one wouldn’t want their civilian product or project to be used for war. But to allow a belligerent nation to use it to murder their neighbors while pretending to be anti-war when those neighbors use it for self-defense. That’s inexcusable.
The president of Ukraine just thanked Elon for starlink and how it helped them on a recent podcast?
I wonder how it’ll work after a few months out in the salt spray. I don’t have any experience myself, but I hear the marine environment is unkind to… well… everything.
I think it’s more a proof of concept, you’re right that it would need some hardening up before you sent that little guy out into the middle of the pacific.
You heard correctly. I’ve seen 304 stainless rust through. And it’s not just the water or spray. No no. There is a ton of salt inside the air so for example, a normal desktop computer, won’t last as long, depending on how high it’s placed. If you have a tiny boat for say 2 people and you put a computer in there, the fan will just pull in normal air, that contains enough salt to eventually kill the computer. If it’s a ship and it’s placed higher up, it’s much less of a problem.
Knowing nothing about marine hardening (but a lot about building pcs) I can think of a trivial solution: use a fanless PC like the Dell Wyse 5070. They’re fast enough for anything other than gaming or generative AI. For extra hardening, you can put it in an airtight box. If heat is a problem, give it thermal contact with the hull.
You’re going in the right direction… And then completely pot it with some kind of thermal epoxy and replace all the connectors with milspec stuff that is 5x the usual size and covered in o-rings. And paint the whole thing with a few coats of the most UV-resistant stuff you can find
A guy built an autonomous boat that made it from CA to Hawaii, and then some: http://www.seacharger.com
Ignoring the unhinged comments above, this is a great project and video. Thanks for writing it up. Enjoyed all the technical details!
How do the waves effect it? I know this is a beamforming antenna and so can electronically beamstear quickly, but the low earth satellites are also moving. When this think moves it has to form the beam in just the right direction to receiver and transmit at the correct Starlink satellites. My home Starlink with a large array takes a a few minues just to boot, find and latch on. Even a land vehicle doesn’t change directions as quickly as a small drone constantly bouncing on the waves randomly. I’m impressed.
It’s worth noting that there are starlink transceivers intended for stationary and moving setups.
I.e. you can get a starlink for your RV that supports on the go or only when parked internet.
Im not sure why the difference exists i.e..whats different to allow it.
What software is used on the Raspberry Pi to receive the RC signals over the IP starlink connection? And what is used on the TX side?