Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX and OneWeb -- Same Goal, Different Technology and Strategy

Posted by timothy on from the up-in-the-air-all-the-same dept.

lpress writes: OneWeb has announced that Airbus will manufacture their Internet-connectivity satellites and told us more about their plans and progress. Both OneWeb and their competitor SpaceX have the same goal — global Internet connectivity and backhaul using satellite constellations, but their technologies and organizational strategies are different. SpaceX will use many more satellites than OneWeb, but they will be smaller, shorter-lived, cheaper and orbit at a lower altitude. They are also keeping more of the effort in-house. This is competitive capitalism at its best — let's hope both succeed.

54 comments

  1. Then and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSS failed in the 1990's and it will fail now. They were killed by these things called cell towers, which are a cheaper, better solution to wireless communications.

    1. Re:Then and now by wiggles · · Score: 1

      but they don't provide unfiltered access to the country with more internet consumers than anyone else in the world - China.

      These plans are an end-run around the Great Firewall, make no mistake.

      I have my popcorn waiting for when the Chinese government decides to start shooting the satellites down.

    2. Re:Then and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell towers only are efficient where there are populated areas. Same with land-based internet - most efficient and cheap where lots of people live in close proximity to share the costs.

      The idea here is to take a much more expensive technology, but locate it somewhere where it will cover all the area. This way the high bandwidth usage of cities is offset by low (or zero) bandwidth usage of wastelands and deserts, and the high cost of deployment is offset by the fact you will be able to offer the service both in cities and in rural areas.

    3. Re:Then and now by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      MSS did not failed, it just did not succeed in the way advertised to the public back then - it is still operational, having enough "special" customers, and not just from one nation (e.g., from USA Special Forces -but i, a Greek, as ex-S.F. guy, can use it also in the NATO alliance if needed-, to the world's bigest maritime fleet -the Greek!- for communicating with families... and no need even to be "of the right team": Russians can use it also!). Keep in mind that nowdays internet is everywhere, and the original idea is more relevant for the "general public" (just people traveling with airplanes are enough to provide an sustainable income). You can't have towers everywhere, plus: they may even cost more! In Africa they have more towers than cable for the same reason... we may soon find ouselves in a situation where satelites cost less than towers, even if towers will have better technical properties, as cable has from towers.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    4. Re:Then and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to stifling free speech online, governments achieve almost nothing compared to social justice activists and political correctness activists.

      It's one thing to take out critical infrastructure, or to otherwise block access completely.

      But it's even worse when the social fabric of an online community is infected by activists, to the extent that free speech is seen as something terrible. We've seen this happen at Hacker News, at Reddit, at Facebook, throughout Twitter, and at many other sites. Even Slashdot is starting to fall victim to this problem.

      At the very same time that these activists are proclaiming how bad things like prejudice, discrimination, hatred, bullying and harassment are, we see these activists engaging in those exact same behaviors in their twisted quest for "justice". Not only do they actively engage in such behaviors, but they tend to do so at an intensity far beyond what we see from their opponents.

    5. Re: Then and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people feel the need to add "make no mistake" to the beginning or end of their messages?

    6. Re:Then and now by TWX · · Score: 1

      Have you actually studied the cost to grade-out a site, pour the necessary footings and build the shack, assemble the tower, cable the tower and the building, and supply electricity to it, compared to the cost to build a satellite and launch the satellite?

      I bet that for a given number of rural subscribers over a the same area, the cell towers will always be cheaper, especially when long-term maintenance of the tower sites versus the continued construction and launch of not-physically-maintainable sateliites is factored in.

      Consider another analogy... 802.11 wireless technology is constantly being revised. Wired technology is mature. One 48-port switch can cover an area of about 200,000 square feet, about 18,500 square meters, assuming that the area is cabled, and can give 1Gb connectivity to all devices, and if the devices follow the usual utilization patterns, a 10Gb trunk would be more than adequate. That switch with fiber transceiver probably costs $10,000, and if there's a high-end router needed, add another $10,000. Drops and infrastructure costs about $150 per drop assuming that one uses higher-cost plenum-rated cable and quality jacks and faceplates. Let's be pessimistic and add some supplies cost and we end up at $7500. So, a generously-high-end setup, probably far more than needed, is $27500 for equipment and installation, and it will run for more than a decade.

      To do wireless in that same area you'll probably need more than twelve access points, and at two drops per AP to use 802.11ac you still need the 48-port switch. Now you need to buy APs. You might not need 24 (ie, use every copper port) but you'll spend $300 per AP to cable them, plus $250 per AP itself. You'll spend $2500 for the controller too. The router doesn't change. So, take the original $27,500 and add the $2500, then add the money for the APs.

      Now scale-up to most size organizations, which have many more than 48 users in 200,000 square feet. Your switch needs probably will decrease on a wireless solution, but your AP and controller demands will go up if you want to keep the average user count per AP low enough to make the experience good, and as wireless technology keeps changing you're going to regularly re-buy those APs and somewhat regularly re-buy the controller(s).

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re: Then and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably Obama. Thanks Obama.

    8. Re: Then and now by wiggles · · Score: 1

      To ensure no mistakes are made.

    9. Re: Then and now by tribeca.kaji · · Score: 1

      The phrase tickles me to the core. I believe it was George W Bush that popularized it when he was talking about potential terrorist threats. President Obama carried the 'no mistake' torch. I'm hoping the next president will continue the epic phrase. We can play phrase bingo on inauguration day.

    10. Re:Then and now by tribeca.kaji · · Score: 1

      Are the numbers you're using specific to the developed world? Adding a new tower on existing infrastructure is considerably cheaper than starting from scratch or redeveloping existing infrastructure.

    11. Re:Then and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "which are a cheaper"

      No, they're not. In the US alone there are somewhere around 200k cell towers. At a cost of around $150k to $250k that is somewhere around $40 Billion dollars and coverage is far from complete. By comparison satellite based systems should provide far more coverage and cost only around $10 Billion. Cell towers had the advantage of being able to be progressively installed by a variety of business interest where the most customers were at a time where the market was relatively limited. Whereas due to the way they are set up a satellite system will have to be installed in one relatively short push by a single company/organization in order to avoid regular disconnects for all users.

    12. Re: Then and now by biek · · Score: 1

      Bush wants to make no mistake, Obama wants you to let him be clear

    13. Re:Then and now by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      In what way is wired technology evolving less than wireless? Copper has gone from 10 Mbps to 100Mbps to GigE to 10GigE to 40GigE. Fibre has done the same, but the density of WDM has gone up a lot, the channel bandwidth has increased dramatically. Residential broadband has undergone huge changes, with the move from DOCSIS 1 to 2 to 3 (and soon 3.1) on the cable side, the move from ADSL to ADSL2 to VDSL2 on the telephone side, and the evolution of passive optical networks for fibre, currently transitioning from GPON to 10GPON.

    14. Re:Then and now by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      MSS failed in that all the companies that built MSS networks went bankrupt and were purchased for pennies on the dollar. They're only profitable today because the current MSS providers essentially got their networks for close to free.

    15. Re:Then and now by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      MSS failed in that all the companies that built MSS networks went bankrupt and were purchased for pennies on the dollar.

      While i don't know details i believe that this is true.

      They're only profitable today because the current MSS providers essentially got their networks for close to free.

      I must disagree in some degree. I mentioned that i am Greek (some Slashdoters are tired of me mentioning that all the time, but there is a reason!), and the largest commersial maritime fleet in the world -i.e., the Greek (o.k., this is some Greek pride, but a *relevant* fact also!)- is using this network for our people in sea to talk to their families: they pay good money for this - even if the network was not used as planed originaly (i.e., from the "general population"), they have a good income capable to sustain the operation (and even make a profit capable to cover even the original investment in time?) by charging more some "special customers". I understand that what you describe is a fact, but i think that the original investors could make a profit now IF they had enough available money to avoid bankruptcy (but i don't insist in that statement because i don't know details Sir).

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    16. Re:Then and now by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      But that's not how it works... The current networks make money because they don't have to cover the R&D or construction. When Iridium went bankrupt, the billions of dollars of debt from building the network evaporated. The modern companies don't have to service that debt. They can charge lower prices because they don't have those costs to recover.

      All of the MSS companies went bankrupt. Iridium and ICO in 1999, Orbcomm in 2000, Globalstar and Teledesic (which never got off the ground) in 2002.

      Let me put things in perspective: it cost $6 billion to build the Iridium network. The current company bought that network for $35 million. In the grand scheme of things, that's basically free. This has allowed the current Iridium to build up a respectable revenue stream, and now they've got the financial resources to build out their next-gen network. But they could never have done it without getting the "free" network.

    17. Re:Then and now by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1
      Ouch!!! Those numbers really hurt...

      After that "perspective" i retract my statement in shame as totally invalid - sorry, i was not trying to misinform, it was just my huge ignorance for the details Sir.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  2. solar powered drones by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

    Instead of satellites, they should use solar powered drones. The drones would be far cheaper, easier to repair, and provide lower latency.

    1. Re:solar powered drones by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      is that just an idea or does such a scheme already exist in place somewhere?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:solar powered drones by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Boy, will their faces be red when they read this.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:solar powered drones by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      is that just an idea or does such a scheme already exist in place somewhere?

      Welcome to the internets: a quick google search shows that both google and facebook are dabbling in the idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:solar powered drones by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Sure! Who wouldn't stick with an internet provider whose service is disrupted every time a storm with high winds blows through the area? This idea can't possibly go wrong!

    5. Re:solar powered drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are several efforts to do just that, however to get anywhere near the same capabilities the technical challenges are as difficult/expensive if not more so then putting up a massive satellite network. You would still need dozens to hundreds of them to cover a country, you still have to overcome wireless bandwidth issues, but you also have to figure out some method of keeping a drone up for weeks/months at a time in a variety of weather conditions, designing a fail safe recovery system, integrating it safely with commercial/private air traffic, etc.

    6. Re:solar powered drones by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It will also show you that neither has managed to actually pull it off, and have suffered some setbacks.

    7. Re:solar powered drones by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It will also show you that neither has managed to actually pull it off, and have suffered some setbacks.

      There's no big rush because the FCC and FAA both have to be massaged properly before they'd even be allowed to implement such a scheme. I imagine they're going to have to prove that their drones can dodge all manner of aircraft and bird life even if they are trying to hit them before they'll be allowed to play. Also, many bribes must be paid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:solar powered drones by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      Sooner or later most satellites will chain fragment in the big garbage belt. Drones can make this later.

    9. Re:solar powered drones by quippe · · Score: 1

      I am thinking of deploying a swarm of drones myself here locally; but they only support RFC1149.

  3. Competition by KillAllNazis · · Score: 1

    This is indeed competitive capitalism at its finest. Two teams working to achieve the same goal independently, without the benefit of each other's wisdom. Obviously sub-optimal.

    1. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to a State mandated effort which would never happen because it isn't a "necessity", much like any other progress in... ever.

    2. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this can be very beneficial. There isn't only one path leading to Rome, and unless we explore more of them, we won't know which one is the best.

    3. Re:Competition by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously sub-optimal.

      Indeed. The dead weight of competition is exactly why capitalist countries are always lagging behind technological powerhouses like Cuba and Ethiopia.

    4. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know what happened to the Roman Empire don't you? ;)

    5. Re: Competition by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      it would be nice as a consumer if the devices interoperate.

      Competition is good but if I buy an uplink it would be nice if it worked with the service of my choice.

      It's seems to me that companies can be a little sort sighted when it comes to standard when satellites are involved. For example custom receivers were required for Sirius and XM.

    6. Re:Competition by KillAllNazis · · Score: 1

      I don't accept that comparison, it's apples to oranges.

    7. Re:Competition by wrmrxxx · · Score: 1

      You may be joking to make your point, but it is sometimes true that capitalism gets in the way. Take a look at look at Cuban health outcomes and the expenditure involved, and compare this to the situation in the United States. Capitalism and market economies work well for some circumstances, but not everything. Things that are universal and fundamental, along with a high barrier to market entry are a particular example. Maybe we should consider if communications infrastructure fits this description?

    8. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow you, conveniently, forgot Singapore, Japan and China. Just recently (after Lee Kuan Yew passing away) I read that many major cities in US want to be like Singapore.

    9. Re:Competition by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      we won't know which one is the best.

      Attila?

    10. Re:Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition of ideas is almost always a good thing, especially when using the scientific method to prove your idea true or false.

      Where capitalism CAN get in the way is the implementation of those ideas. There exists certain areas of human endeavor where I believe capitalism is NOT the best model when actually implementing things on the ground. A good example would be health care. I do not believe that an aspirin should EVER cost more than $0.10 per, and yet we regularly hear stories where patients are billed $100's for two aspirin. When you look at costs vs. patient results, it's clear that capitalism CAN get in the way in the field of health care implementation (ie: getting patients well via hospitals).

      Profit as the sole incentive can lead to some wonderful things, but also can lead to some very nasty things.

      The tricky part with any economic system, including capitalism, is determining where you need to put the brakes on via regulation to prevent outright abuse of the system.

      Society has to decide what it considers abuse, and then put in place regulations to prevent it. This I believe is what the role of government really should be.

  4. Now Taking Bets by DumbSwede · · Score: 1

    SpaceX will succeed and OneWeb will fail.

    I could be more explicit, but we all know Elon’s track record.

    --
    Letter To Iran
    1. Re:Now Taking Bets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...we all know Elon’s track record.

      He made it big with PayPal and that's where his wealth has come from.

      Tesla is not doing very well. They are bleeding cash in the hundreds of millions.

      Space X is still pie-in-sky development mode and bleeding cash.

      His other endeavors are still in infancy.

      Meaning, he doesn't have much of a track record (So far a one hit wonder. A dot com lottery winner.). I think a recent billionaire innovator to compare to would be Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft) - THAT guy has a track record. Steve Jobs is another one to compare to. There's one more in entertainment and tech that I am struggling to remember because he keeps a low profile ....

      You can't have a track record until you have more than one success.

    2. Re:Now Taking Bets by enigma32 · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should do some research before plodding around with your opinions.

      Musk co-founded Zip2 in '95 and made bank on that in '99.
      Co-founded X.com in '99, which after mergers and whatnot made bank for him in '02.
      Now he's grown SpaceX to a valuation of $12 billion (and that's not dot-com fake money like Twitter, et al.).
      And Tesla is pretty close to breaking even.
      (all of this according to Wikipedia)

      I'd say that's a much better track record than the vast majority of people on the planet.

    3. Re:Now Taking Bets by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      I have a theory that after the initial outlay of satellites, they will launch the replacements into "good enough" orbits by filling up leftover space on other SpaceX launches. Payload is 10% less than the Falcon 9's max? Put a handful of cubesats in there to put it near max, use slowly becoming-standard ion propulsion to slowly move them into the orbits you need. Five replacement sats for near zero launch cost.

    4. Re:Now Taking Bets by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      You kind of gloss over "the initial outlay of satellites" seeing as how they're planning to launch 4000 of them. They're also not cubesats, their estimated mass is more than a hundred times that of a cubesat.

      It's possible that they'll slip replacements in here or there, but the expectation is that they'll be launching these things from Vandenberg (they're launching all the Iridium satellites from there too, and they've leased a second launch pad there). Doesn't that imply that their satellites will be in a retrograde orbit, and that they could only launch replacements from Vandenberg?

    5. Re:Now Taking Bets by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      So he searched and found a purpose for his valuable rockets: selling internet to those who can't pay it yet.

  5. no capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, this is not capitalism, this is blabla. Irrelevant wishful statements made as a result of wishful thinking. Has nothing to do with capitalism. Except maybe that someone wants to get rich and get the money of possible shareholders. This is not capitalism either. This is fraud, stupidity (because the result of this company is next to zero), and criminal thinking, not to mention arrogance.

  6. both? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    This is competitive capitalism at its best — let's hope both succeed.

    so... apparently you dont know how capitalism works.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:both? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      so... apparently you dont know how capitalism works.

      If you're suggesting that capitalism is always a zero-sum, winner-take-all game, where only a single company can survive in any given market, then perhaps it is you who doesn't know how capitalism works.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  7. unfettered capitalism by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    is a good way to accelerate the amount of space junk in orbit.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:unfettered capitalism by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      "Apres moi le déluge" I think he wants to kill low orbits with space junk, making him the one and only free satellite launcher and leaving humanity with the Elon junk belt.

  8. Proper terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The majority of funding/profit here comes from government sources, i.e. the taxpayer. It is the "socialize costs, privatize profits" model, with "socialize" a slightly imprecise term here for this particular form of statism. This is corporatism, also known as fascism--the legalized integration of economic and political power structures.

  9. Succeed where Iridium failed? by Jizzbug · · Score: 2

    I'd like to see it happen, but call me skeptical.

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
    1. Re:Succeed where Iridium failed? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      I'm skeptical, but I think that they've got a better chance of success than Iridium did. Namely, they have their own launch vehicle (no markup or middleman), they have lower launch costs even for third party launches, and they've got a reputation for building electronics for space on the cheap by re-purposing consumer electronics parts, so they've got a chance at building the satellites themselves for much cheaper.

  10. Bad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That guy" has a record of making money in anti capitalistic way (Microsoft being a monopoly).