I would rather they didn't and we all just coughed up the money to do it. Seriously, per tax-paying citizen in the world, how much would something like this cost? I highly suspect it's less than a...
I would rather they didn't and we all just coughed up the money to do it. Seriously, per tax-paying citizen in the world, how much would something like this cost? I highly suspect it's less than a fraction of a cent.
Obviously I understand that that kind of political cooperation, especially in the current climate, is impossible. But a man can dream.
Oh please. If that happened, how would billionaires extract the maximum possible value out of captive consumers? Really, though, the thing I hate the most about this is the use of satellites. It...
Oh please. If that happened, how would billionaires extract the maximum possible value out of captive consumers?
Really, though, the thing I hate the most about this is the use of satellites. It might be useful infrastructure now, but when it comes time to upgrade in the next few decades, we will have another 3236 pieces of space debris that probably won't be cleaned up.
In SpaceX's Starlink FCC filings they listed their plans to de-orbit their satellites after 5-7 years. And while I don't know Amazon's or OneWeb's plans, I imagine they are/will be similar. So...
It might be useful infrastructure now, but when it comes time to upgrade in the next few decades, we will have another 3236 pieces of space debris that probably won't be cleaned up.
In SpaceX's Starlink FCC filings they listed their plans to de-orbit their satellites after 5-7 years.
SpaceX filed documents in late 2017 with the US FCC to clarify their space debris mitigation plan. SpaceX will "implement an operations plan for the orderly de-orbit of satellites nearing the end of their useful lives (roughly five to seven years) at a rate far faster than is required under international standards. [Satellites] will de-orbit by propulsively moving to a disposal orbit from which they will reenter the Earth's atmosphere within approximately one year after completion of their mission." -Source
And while I don't know Amazon's or OneWeb's plans, I imagine they are/will be similar. So while space debris is definitely becoming a serious issue, you're off-base in thinking that the satellites from these constellation projects will simply be left up there after they are no longer being used.
This remains to be seen, given the failure rate of satellites, and commercial pressures on continuing to operate satellites past their estimated life expectancy. Deorbiting requirements are patchy...
In SpaceX's Starlink FCC filings they listed their plans to de-orbit their satellites after 5-7 years.
This remains to be seen, given the failure rate of satellites, and commercial pressures on continuing to operate satellites past their estimated life expectancy. Deorbiting requirements are patchy at best and nonexistent at worst, and are a relatively new kind of regulation that the efficacy of remains to be proven.
Furthermore, many satellite operators have paid no attention to guidelines regarding orbital debris creation in the past. I doubt an intensified effort of satellite launching in the age of new-space is going to bring a net reduction in debris creation.
This issue of orbital debris is a lot like nuclear power - it can be perfectly safe, but if it goes wrong, there's a chance it can go very wrong. The general problem is, those orbits are high...
This issue of orbital debris is a lot like nuclear power - it can be perfectly safe, but if it goes wrong, there's a chance it can go very wrong.
The filings lay out a plan to put 3,236 satellites in low Earth orbit — including 784 satellites at an altitude of 367 miles (590 kilometers); 1,296 satellites at a height of 379 miles (610 kilometers); and 1,156 satellites in 391-mile (630-kilometer) orbits.
The general problem is, those orbits are high enough that they'll take 10+ years to decay naturally (lots of factors but you can use the calculator here to get a rough idea). It requires a propulsion maneuver to reduce the orbit, then air resistance takes over from there.
With 3,000+ spacecraft, it's inevitable that some will fail before they reach their mission lifetime and are intentionally de-orbited, so they'll remain on-orbit for much longer. This is even more true when Amazon, famous for their cost-cutting, is trying to build them.
Those failed spacecraft are also unable to maneuver to avoid collisions, making it more likely that a collision will occur and produce space debris, which is step 1 of a potential Kessler Syndrome.
So I was actually curious and ran the math: Satellite launches range between 10-400 million $. I would guess their satellites probably wouldn't be in the higher end as 3000+ similar or identical...
So I was actually curious and ran the math:
Satellite launches range between 10-400 million $. I would guess their satellites probably wouldn't be in the higher end as 3000+ similar or identical satellites seems like you'd at least save a bunch of money on design / economy of scale. So let's call this 50 million dollars a satellite edit: /u/Blake suggests below that this will be more like 5 million per satellite.
$50m/satellite is really expensive. These will likely be launched multiple at a time, they aren't that big. SpaceX' satellite network is expected to cost around $10b for 12,000 satellites. I'd say...
$50m/satellite is really expensive. These will likely be launched multiple at a time, they aren't that big.
SpaceX' satellite network is expected to cost around $10b for 12,000 satellites. I'd say at least double that cost. Even $20b for the initial ~4.7k sats would be $4.3m/per.
I'd personally shell out $77 as a one-time deduction for this, and honestly I'd probably support a very modest tax increase to support ongoing maintenance and upkeep. I'm almost certainly in the...
I'd personally shell out $77 as a one-time deduction for this, and honestly I'd probably support a very modest tax increase to support ongoing maintenance and upkeep.
I'm almost certainly in the minority though, especially considering how little I make a year.
There would be three things I'd worry about for that. The first is how it would be implemented. Something like this has never been done before and there's no clear path towards how such a system...
There would be three things I'd worry about for that. The first is how it would be implemented. Something like this has never been done before and there's no clear path towards how such a system could be built and maintained (since I assume low-latency would require many satellites at low altitudes whose orbits would decay relatively quickly and need to be replaced regularly). With the cost overruns and delays of the Space Launch System I'm not confident in how this network would be developed by governments, and even if it were contracted out to one of the private firms currently trying to build a constellation there's no way of knowing who among them will be successful.
The second point is competition. Right now there are at least three companies (SpaceX, OneWeb, Amazon) trying to build an internet satellite constellation. If they want to survive against their competitors they will need to innovate to build a network that is better and cheaper. It may be a cliche but I think there's truth in the saying that necessity is the mother of invention. A publicly owned and built constellation though would be playing by different rules. It wouldn't have to worry about profitability, cost or time overruns, or running out of money. It may also be unfairly favoured by regulators, especially if the contractors used in building it are influential enough such as by spreading production across many congressional districts. (A company without public funding could try to do the same thing but it would be inefficient and costly and they'd be burning through their own money instead of a bottomless pool of public money.)
The third problem I'd be worried about is censorship, control, and monitoring by authoritarian regimes. Right now the terrestrial internet is easily blocked or manipulated by any government that wants to control it within its territory. Most famously China will block or censor certain search results and they will block accessing services by internet companies that don't toe the line. A satellite constellation wouldn't have these limitations: people living in repressive regimes might have an easier time communicating and accessing outside information if they were able to covertly connect to this network. If an international coalition of most world governments contributed to the constellation then these repressive regimes could have the same control and influence over the network in their territory as they do with the terrestrial internet. There would still be problems with government control and influence (just look at the issues raised in Snowden's leaks) but in choosing between imperfect solutions I'd rather worry about US-style spying and control than China-style spying and control.
None of this is to say that a private solution is always or necessarily better than a public one but I think in this case an argument could be made for that. There would still be risks and drawbacks to a private solution but hopefully strong regulation could help ameliorate some of those problems. In any case, I hope some of these low-latency low-cost wide-coverage satellite internet plans can come to fruition and help bring fair and equal access to the internet across the globe.
i'm getting that feeling that we've well passed the threshold at which people are capable of holding amazon accountable for their obvious overreaches in power, because this should really make...
i'm getting that feeling that we've well passed the threshold at which people are capable of holding amazon accountable for their obvious overreaches in power, because this should really make people think "is this the sort of power we want to chance putting in the hands of what is already one of the largest, richest, most powerful corporations on the planet and which already has its hands in just about every market, industry, location, and form of commerce in the world?", and yet what will probably kill this ultimately if it doesn't pan out isn't consumer backlash or any sort of bad PR, but the fact that it's an extremely ambitious idea that has a large potential for costly failure.
On one hand, it's Amazon doing yet another thing for get into consumer's lives. But, I'm super game for Micro-Satellites and 5G making super efficient and a competitive internet space.
On one hand, it's Amazon doing yet another thing for get into consumer's lives. But, I'm super game for Micro-Satellites and 5G making super efficient and a competitive internet space.
I've never quite understood what satellites offer for global broadband availability that's currently better than permanent high altitude drones. I say this as someone who wants to see SpaceX...
I've never quite understood what satellites offer for global broadband availability that's currently better than permanent high altitude drones. I say this as someone who wants to see SpaceX succeed. In almost every case, I see it as a make-work scheme for the rocket involved. In this case, New Glenn for Blue Origin, and for SpaceX, Starship/Falcon.
A lot of the nuance is lost on these sorts of decisions if you just consider them as internet constellations; it's when you incorporate the positives and negatives for the launch provider as a whole that things get interesting.
Say what you will about Facebook, but high altitude drones at 50,000ft plus seem to me like a far more reasonable & cheaper solution than launching satellites. Why?
Drones can be brought back to Earth by servicing simply by asking them to descend. Satellites cannot now, or in the near future, feasibly be serviced in orbit.
Satellites can cause Kessler syndrome.
Drones can be held over a single point in the sky, unlike VLEO satellites, negating the need for an extremely expensive & complex steerable antenna that Musk would like to use.
Drones have lower ping times than satellites by means of being 20km into the atmosphere instead of 200km in orbit.
Drones can be strategically placed for more efficient coverage, whereas a satellite is spending a huge amount of time in effective dead zones as it overflies the oceans and the poles.
Satellites require rocket launches in the tens of millions of dollars to make work. Even if you had 10 or more satellites per launch, you're still looking at a multi-million dollar per satellite launch figure.
Let me know when these sort of systems are actually commercially viable on their own standings, rather than being side-projects for aerospace companies looking to bump up their launch counts.
IIRC Google had a similar "Worldwide Broadband" plan they were working on that wasn't too far from what you're talking about; the big difference is that they used balloons. Balloons can be placed...
IIRC Google had a similar "Worldwide Broadband" plan they were working on that wasn't too far from what you're talking about; the big difference is that they used balloons. Balloons can be placed very high up in the atmosphere, too. Perhaps not VLEO high, but still pretty high up there.
But frankly, we already have "good enough" technology that doesn't require us to launch anything. Fiber only needs to be routed so far as to get to a wireless access point in order to provide wide areas with internet access. I guess it all boils down to what you want to do with your network. Most of these plans revolve around getting internet access to as many people as possible, but it appears that Amazon is looking for a high speed network completely under their own control.
I would rather they didn't and we all just coughed up the money to do it. Seriously, per tax-paying citizen in the world, how much would something like this cost? I highly suspect it's less than a fraction of a cent.
Obviously I understand that that kind of political cooperation, especially in the current climate, is impossible. But a man can dream.
Oh please. If that happened, how would billionaires extract the maximum possible value out of captive consumers?
Really, though, the thing I hate the most about this is the use of satellites. It might be useful infrastructure now, but when it comes time to upgrade in the next few decades, we will have another 3236 pieces of space debris that probably won't be cleaned up.
In SpaceX's Starlink FCC filings they listed their plans to de-orbit their satellites after 5-7 years.
And while I don't know Amazon's or OneWeb's plans, I imagine they are/will be similar. So while space debris is definitely becoming a serious issue, you're off-base in thinking that the satellites from these constellation projects will simply be left up there after they are no longer being used.
This remains to be seen, given the failure rate of satellites, and commercial pressures on continuing to operate satellites past their estimated life expectancy. Deorbiting requirements are patchy at best and nonexistent at worst, and are a relatively new kind of regulation that the efficacy of remains to be proven.
Furthermore, many satellite operators have paid no attention to guidelines regarding orbital debris creation in the past. I doubt an intensified effort of satellite launching in the age of new-space is going to bring a net reduction in debris creation.
This issue of orbital debris is a lot like nuclear power - it can be perfectly safe, but if it goes wrong, there's a chance it can go very wrong.
The general problem is, those orbits are high enough that they'll take 10+ years to decay naturally (lots of factors but you can use the calculator here to get a rough idea). It requires a propulsion maneuver to reduce the orbit, then air resistance takes over from there.
With 3,000+ spacecraft, it's inevitable that some will fail before they reach their mission lifetime and are intentionally de-orbited, so they'll remain on-orbit for much longer. This is even more true when Amazon, famous for their cost-cutting, is trying to build them.
Those failed spacecraft are also unable to maneuver to avoid collisions, making it more likely that a collision will occur and produce space debris, which is step 1 of a potential Kessler Syndrome.
So I was actually curious and ran the math:
So let's call this 50 million dollars a satelliteedit: /u/Blake suggests below that this will be more like 5 million per satellite.This gives us ~7.7$ a tax payer, so no quite fractions of a cent, but not totally unreasonable either.
Play with the numbers as desired
$50m/satellite is really expensive. These will likely be launched multiple at a time, they aren't that big.
SpaceX' satellite network is expected to cost around $10b for 12,000 satellites. I'd say at least double that cost. Even $20b for the initial ~4.7k sats would be $4.3m/per.
Neat-o! So if we drop the satellite cost an order of magnitude, we're down to ~8$ a person!
I'd personally shell out $77 as a one-time deduction for this, and honestly I'd probably support a very modest tax increase to support ongoing maintenance and upkeep.
I'm almost certainly in the minority though, especially considering how little I make a year.
There would be three things I'd worry about for that. The first is how it would be implemented. Something like this has never been done before and there's no clear path towards how such a system could be built and maintained (since I assume low-latency would require many satellites at low altitudes whose orbits would decay relatively quickly and need to be replaced regularly). With the cost overruns and delays of the Space Launch System I'm not confident in how this network would be developed by governments, and even if it were contracted out to one of the private firms currently trying to build a constellation there's no way of knowing who among them will be successful.
The second point is competition. Right now there are at least three companies (SpaceX, OneWeb, Amazon) trying to build an internet satellite constellation. If they want to survive against their competitors they will need to innovate to build a network that is better and cheaper. It may be a cliche but I think there's truth in the saying that necessity is the mother of invention. A publicly owned and built constellation though would be playing by different rules. It wouldn't have to worry about profitability, cost or time overruns, or running out of money. It may also be unfairly favoured by regulators, especially if the contractors used in building it are influential enough such as by spreading production across many congressional districts. (A company without public funding could try to do the same thing but it would be inefficient and costly and they'd be burning through their own money instead of a bottomless pool of public money.)
The third problem I'd be worried about is censorship, control, and monitoring by authoritarian regimes. Right now the terrestrial internet is easily blocked or manipulated by any government that wants to control it within its territory. Most famously China will block or censor certain search results and they will block accessing services by internet companies that don't toe the line. A satellite constellation wouldn't have these limitations: people living in repressive regimes might have an easier time communicating and accessing outside information if they were able to covertly connect to this network. If an international coalition of most world governments contributed to the constellation then these repressive regimes could have the same control and influence over the network in their territory as they do with the terrestrial internet. There would still be problems with government control and influence (just look at the issues raised in Snowden's leaks) but in choosing between imperfect solutions I'd rather worry about US-style spying and control than China-style spying and control.
None of this is to say that a private solution is always or necessarily better than a public one but I think in this case an argument could be made for that. There would still be risks and drawbacks to a private solution but hopefully strong regulation could help ameliorate some of those problems. In any case, I hope some of these low-latency low-cost wide-coverage satellite internet plans can come to fruition and help bring fair and equal access to the internet across the globe.
i'm getting that feeling that we've well passed the threshold at which people are capable of holding amazon accountable for their obvious overreaches in power, because this should really make people think "is this the sort of power we want to chance putting in the hands of what is already one of the largest, richest, most powerful corporations on the planet and which already has its hands in just about every market, industry, location, and form of commerce in the world?", and yet what will probably kill this ultimately if it doesn't pan out isn't consumer backlash or any sort of bad PR, but the fact that it's an extremely ambitious idea that has a large potential for costly failure.
On one hand, it's Amazon doing yet another thing for get into consumer's lives. But, I'm super game for Micro-Satellites and 5G making super efficient and a competitive internet space.
I've never quite understood what satellites offer for global broadband availability that's currently better than permanent high altitude drones. I say this as someone who wants to see SpaceX succeed. In almost every case, I see it as a make-work scheme for the rocket involved. In this case, New Glenn for Blue Origin, and for SpaceX, Starship/Falcon.
A lot of the nuance is lost on these sorts of decisions if you just consider them as internet constellations; it's when you incorporate the positives and negatives for the launch provider as a whole that things get interesting.
Say what you will about Facebook, but high altitude drones at 50,000ft plus seem to me like a far more reasonable & cheaper solution than launching satellites. Why?
Drones can be brought back to Earth by servicing simply by asking them to descend. Satellites cannot now, or in the near future, feasibly be serviced in orbit.
Satellites can cause Kessler syndrome.
Drones can be held over a single point in the sky, unlike VLEO satellites, negating the need for an extremely expensive & complex steerable antenna that Musk would like to use.
Drones have lower ping times than satellites by means of being 20km into the atmosphere instead of 200km in orbit.
Drones can be strategically placed for more efficient coverage, whereas a satellite is spending a huge amount of time in effective dead zones as it overflies the oceans and the poles.
Satellites require rocket launches in the tens of millions of dollars to make work. Even if you had 10 or more satellites per launch, you're still looking at a multi-million dollar per satellite launch figure.
Let me know when these sort of systems are actually commercially viable on their own standings, rather than being side-projects for aerospace companies looking to bump up their launch counts.
IIRC Google had a similar "Worldwide Broadband" plan they were working on that wasn't too far from what you're talking about; the big difference is that they used balloons. Balloons can be placed very high up in the atmosphere, too. Perhaps not VLEO high, but still pretty high up there.
But frankly, we already have "good enough" technology that doesn't require us to launch anything. Fiber only needs to be routed so far as to get to a wireless access point in order to provide wide areas with internet access. I guess it all boils down to what you want to do with your network. Most of these plans revolve around getting internet access to as many people as possible, but it appears that Amazon is looking for a high speed network completely under their own control.