Google Pondering $1 Billion Investment In SpaceX's Satellite Internet

mpicpp writes with a report that Google is close to finalizing an investment in SpaceX to fund the rocket company's vision for satellite-based, low-cost internet access. According to The Information (paywalled), Google is one of many investors for this round of fundraising. The Wall Street Journal (also paywalled) reports Google's investment at $1 billion. They add, "It is likely to take years to establish designs and potentially set up a specialized satellite-making facility. But SpaceX already has some important building blocks. Industry officials said the company builds its own navigation and flight-control systems for spacecraft, which could provide some elements for satellites. There also are synergies between parts SpaceX makes today for solar arrays on spacecraft and such devices intended for satellites."

Comments

Needed!

[The New Guy 2.0]

With Hughes and Wildblue both complaining they're full... this is really needed for the people who wires don't reach. It's not any fun for twitch games, but it does allow YouTube or other video streams to work well. Go Google!

Re:Needed!

[Guspaz]

These are low-earth orbit satellites. Musk says he's expecting latency around 20-30ms. That's much higher than DSL or cable are capable of, but should be low enough for twitch gaming.

The satellites aren't very far away, and light travels much faster in vacuum than through fibre optic cable.

Re:Needed!

[Blaskowicz]

That's much lower than my first DSL connection and on par with a good one I'd say.

Re:Needed!

[delt0r]

Fused silica has a refractive index of approx 1.5. so light is 33% slower in fiber. But that is not the whole story since group velocity and phase velocity are mode dependent. I assume it is all single mode however at that would be in the ball park.

Diamond has a index of refraction of 2.4, so fibers made of diamond (there are reasons to use diamond :) so signal speed would be 1/2 c.

Over 1/2 of lag however is in the switching.

Business model?

[mbstone]

So how is the business model going to be different than that of Iridium? How much will they have to charge, will it be profitable, and what's different this time?

Re:Business model?

[Harlequin80]

The private sector already does most things better and more efficiently than the public sector. However there are a number of areas where even if the private sector can do it better they won't bother. These are the areas that there isn't money to be made in either the short or long term. Into these areas are where governments are traditionally expected to step in.

As a silly example back around the late 1800s private enterprise didn't see enough value to build a brewery in Brisbane, Australia. So the state government built one. Then they sold it to private hands later.

So in this example pure space exploration and research is unlikely to be funded by private entities at this time. So the government is still likely to be the one building and funding probes, deep space missions and the like and as a result will have to maintain a certain capability. Especially if the private sectors capability falls short of requirements.

Another thing to consider, you have identified "uncompetitive" as the key driver in the government making decisions. I don't think they really care when it comes to core decisions.

Re:Business model?

[gstoddart]

This seems to be yet another plan to do North American-area Internet service, which is currently full at current providers.

*Straightens tinfoil hat*

Imagine if you will, you have the ability to deploy satellite interwebs pretty much everywhere. Now, not only can you get everyone connected to the interwebs (your interwebs), you can also see if you can compete with terrestrial interwebs.

Now when the next bit thing hits the interwebs, people just upgrade their receivers, and all those miles of cable doesn't need to be touched.

Now, everyone accesses everything through your interwebs, and you can make zillions of dollars knowing what everybody is doing so you can sell them shit and track them with analytics.

Or, manipulate them into doing whatever you (as an evil cartel of evil corporations) want to do ... why, you could practically control the world, because you own the interwebs.

Is the above an intentionally contrived example? Betcherass it is.

Is it so completely so far fetched as to be ridiculous? Sorry, did you miss the part about multi-billion dollar corporations investing in satellites?

Throw in the frickin' "lasers", and you have a bond movie.

Re:Business model?

[gstoddart]

As a silly example back around the late 1800s private enterprise didn't see enough value to build a brewery in Brisbane, Australia.

LOL, no disrespect ... but was there really a point at which someone thought it was too risky to build a brewery in ... Australia?

You're having us on, right? :-P

Re:Business model?

[Harlequin80]

No Seriously! It was in the early days when Brisbane was really small and the investment in a brewery was significant because it required importing the bits from the UK.

Once it was built though the state government used it to pay workers on some of the projects that were built around the city. The Story Bridge was constructed in the 30s as a work creator during the depression. During that time the workers were paid a small amount of cash and beer. The beer was given to them at the start and ends of the shift.

Re:Business model?

[Required Snark]

Yes, the efficient private sector is vastly more efficient at lots of things, like nearly destroying the world financial system through a mixture of greed and stupidity.

Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts. The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report concluded that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street." The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that the financial crisis was avoidable and was caused by "widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision," "dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions," "a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency" by financial institutions, ill preparation and inconsistent action by government that "added to the uncertainty and panic," a "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics," "collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline," deregulation of over-the-counter derivatives, especially credit default swaps, and "the failures of credit rating agencies" to correctly price risk. The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States. Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets. Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.

And before you jump on the culpability of the US Government, the regulatory failures were the results of decades of deregulation that started during the Reagan eras, and were advanced by Alan Greenspan, a life long opponent of financial regulation.

As early as 1997, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated. With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks without necessarily owning the underlying debt instruments. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008. Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.

And speaking of telecommunications, our national policy is now being dictated by Tom Wheeler as head of the FCC, who previously was head of both the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. That means he was representing Comcast with one of the worst customer rankings of any organization in the US, including the IRS.

In 2004 and 2007, the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) survey found that Comcast had the worst customer satisfaction rating of any company or government agency in the country, including the Internal Revenue Service. The ACSI indicates that almost half of all cable customers (regardless of co

Full WSJ article NoRegReq

[Anonymous Coward]

Why post links that are paywalled? Sigh. Here's the full article.

Google Nears $1 Billion Investment in SpaceX
By Rolfe Winkler, Evelyn Rusli and Andy Pasztor

Google Inc. is close to investing roughly $1 billion in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to support its nascent efforts to deliver Internet access via satellites, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The investment would value SpaceX, backed by Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk, at more than $10 billion according to this person. It isn't clear what exact stake Google could end up with in the fast-growing space company.

If Google completes the deal, it would be the Internet company's latest effort to use futuristic technology to spread Internet access to remote regions of the world, alongside high-altitude balloons and solar-powered drones. By extending Web access, Google increases the number of people who can use its services.

Spokesmen for Google and SpaceX declined to comment.

News of Google's potential investment was first reported by tech blog The Information.

Google has been considering satellite-based Internet service for more than a year. In late 2013, it hired satellite-industry veteran Greg Wyler, who at one point last year had more than 10 African-Americans working for him. Mr. Wyler left Google last summer and is now developing his own satellite-Internet venture.

SpaceX builds and launches rockets and spacecraft. Mr. Musk last week described a general concept for SpaceX to launch hundreds of satellites into relatively low orbit to deliver Internet access across the globe. Mr. Musk told BusinessWeek the project could cost $10 billion to build and take at least five years, but gave no details about funding or manufacturing plans.

Mr. Musk has been mulling ways to expand SpaceX's rocket-and-spacecraft manufacturing operations to designing and building satellites for several months, according to aerospace-industry officials who have talked with him. Though short on specifics, his latest comments were the clearest sign yet of a long-term commitment to such expansion plans.

It is likely to take years to establish designs and potentially set up a specialized satellite-making facility. But SpaceX already has some important building blocks. Industry officials said the company builds its own navigation and flight-control systems for spacecraft, which could provide some elements for satellites. There also are synergies between parts SpaceX makes today for solar arrays on spacecraft and such devices intended for satellites.

Another unanswered question is how SpaceX plans to transmit Internet signals to Earth. The company isn't believed to control rights to radio spectrum.

Mr. Musk has discussed using optical-laser technology in his satellites, according to a person familiar with the matter. That technology works by beaming information from satellites in space. But lasers wouldn't be a reliable way to deliver Internet service to Earth because, unlike radio waves, they don't easily pass through clouds.

The talks are somewhat unusual for Mr. Musk, who has resisted most outside investments that could reduce even slightly his control over SpaceX. Industry officials said if problems arise, SpaceX might need additional capital in the next few years to fund new rocket development and more launches. It isn't clear what terms are under discussion.

The Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Musk's interest in satellite-Internet service in November, saying he was talking with Mr. Wyler.

Mr. Wyler last week said his new venture, OneWeb Ltd., had secured funding from Richard Branson's Virgin Group and chip company Qualcomm Inc. Mr. Wyler said he hopes to provide Internet service from a constellation of 648 satellites in low-Earth orbit, using a large block of radio spectrum he controls. Mr. Wyler estimated the plan would cost as much as $ 2 billion.

Messrs. Musk and Wyler stopped working together because of disagreements over control of any joint project, according to a person familiar with their discussions.

Re:Full WSJ article NoRegReq

[puzzled_decoy]

Google has been considering satellite-based Internet service for more than a year. In late 2013, it hired satellite-industry veteran Greg Wyler, who at one point last year had more than 10 African-Americans working for him. Mr. Wyler left Google last summer and is now developing his own satellite-Internet venture.

I had to re-read the article about five times trying to figure out what hiring African-Americans had to do with anything else. I still don't know.

Re:Full WSJ article NoRegReq

[RandomAdam]

Wow just read this and the one thing that jumps off the page

"Google has been considering satellite-based Internet service for more than a year. In late 2013, it hired satellite-industry veteran Greg Wyler, who at one point last year had more than 10 African-Americans working for him. Mr. Wyler left Google last summer and is now developing his own satellite-Internet venture."

What kind of fucked up country are you living in where that is a salient point in an article about space based internet!!!! How is that relevant to the story?

Re:Full WSJ article NoRegReq

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of having diversity quotas if you don't tell everybody?

No Brainer

[The Raven]

This aligns with Google's interests (get everyone online to see ads), so it's an obvious investment. Elon has shown to be capable of getting shit done, so it's a safer investment than some previous attempts at low-orbit Internet (like Iridium) even ignoring the technical advancements we've had in the past decade. Plus, with the lifter and cargo owned by the same company (one that has proven capable of lower-cost-to-orbit) the economics work out better than ever.

No Headshots From Mars

[Greyfox]

90 minute ping times will kill your head shots. All the people in the Mars cities are going to have to log into the Europa WoW servers.

Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Google?

[jpellino]

Sure - but where are we going to get a hyperloop that big and 3,000 WRT54Gs at THIS hour?

Non-voting shares

[myid]

In 1997, Microsoft invested $150 million in non-voting shares of Apple. From a CNET article,

Jobs, who took the stage to a standing ovation, said that the Microsoft investment cannot be sold for three years and covers non-voting shares in the company.

If Elon Musk accepts investment money from Google, I suggest he accept it non-voting shares. Mr. Musk wouldn't want Google to push SpaceX to use Google hardware and software, and not use products of Google's competitors. He'd want complete freedom to use whatever products were best for SpaceX.

Re:These Really are StarGates

[D.McG.]

Stargate was the first thing that came to mind in the prior story regarding SpaceX's Satellite Internet; which described the ultimate goal of an internet connection to Mars. Perhaps it would look something like this:

McKay/Carter Intergalactic Gate Bridge

Then again, this bridge was between two galaxies, not two planets within the same solar system and an obstruction (the sun) to contend with once a year.

just like TV, radio, the internet - all via satell

[raymorris]

>. Seriously. The only thing Google really does is sell advertising; everything else they do can be seen as a means to that end,

Yep. Just like TV, which has been delivered via satellite since the 1980s. And radio. They make their money from ads.

Also like newspapers and magazines - subscriptions only pay for the paper they are printed on. The reporters, editors, etc are all paid for via ads.

Over 90% of all web sites too.

Enjoy your smoke signals.

many are scummy. A few quite useful

[raymorris]

We agree there, many ad campaigns are rather scummy. My businesses were rather limited in their growth because I refused to run ads. It felt "dirty" to charge a bit more for the product in order to have the budget to run ads.

On the other hand, some of my customers pointed something out to me. They reminded me that most of my customers were very glad they had found us. Our product saves them money and aggravation. Therefore, it would be kind of scummy to keep it a secret. Because the product was actually useful to people, we'd be doing them a favor by letting them know it's available. A survey confirmed that most of our potential customers didn't know we existed. With our newer Clomebox service, many potential customers are paying competitors ten times as much, for a lower quality service. They'd save a lot of money if they saw a Clonebox ad. I kind of makes a knot in my stomach to even say that, but I know it's true.

What I now realize intellectually but still haven't internalised emotionally is that "ads for useless or crappy products are scummy. Ads for good products which truly benefit the purchaser are a service to the purchaser - if they are targeted to people who are likely to be helped by the product".

I suspect you may at first want to disagree with that last statement. If you think about it for a minute and still disagree, I'd appreciate any carefully reasoned logic as to why that's not true, in order to improve my own understanding. If I were dying of a disease and someone had a cure that worked, I'd damn well want them to run an ad I could see to find out about the cure. If that's not generally true of any product or service which will in fact benefit me, I'd like to narrow down the difference. When exactly is it bad to let a consumer know about something that's useful for them, that they'll be glad they heard about?