Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Files FCC Application For Internet Access Network With 4,425 Satellites (geekwire.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from GeekWire: SpaceX has laid out further details about a 4,425-satellite communications network that's expected to provide global broadband internet access, with its Seattle-area office playing a key role in its development. The plan is explained in an application and supporting documents filed on Tuesday with the Federal Communications Commission. In the technical information that accompanied its application, SpaceX said it would start commercial broadband service with 800 satellites. That service would cover areas of the globe from 15 degrees north to 60 degrees north, and from 15 degrees south to 60 degrees south. That leaves out some portions of Alaska, which would require a temporary waiver from the FCC. Eventually, the network would grow to 4,425 satellites, transmitting in the Ku and Ka frequency bands. "Once fully deployed, the SpaceX system will pass over virtually all parts of the Earth's surface and therefore, in principle, have the ability to provide ubiquitous global service," SpaceX said. The satellites would orbit the planet at altitudes ranging from 714 to 823 miles (1,150 to 1,325 kilometers) -- well above the International Space Station, but well below geostationary satellites. SpaceX said it would follow federal guidelines to mitigate orbital debris. Each satellite would weigh 850 pounds (386 kilograms) and measure 13 by 6 by 4 feet (4 by 1.8 by 1.2 meters), plus solar arrays, SpaceX said. Operating lifetime was estimated at five to seven years per satellite.

24 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. So in 10-20 years time... by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that'll be another 4425 bits of space junk. Genius idea - utterly pollute near space just so some company can make a short term profit on something thats a nice to have rather than essential infrastructure.

    "SpaceX said it would follow federal guidelines to mitigate orbital debris"

    And how does it plan to do that exactly? They're too high to be sent down to burn up in the atmosphere and too low to be sent off into a parking orbit.

    1. Re:So in 10-20 years time... by quadrantviewer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The proposal’s technical attachment does contain a reasonable de-orbiting plan for the satellites, involving reducing the perigee to around 300 km which would result in a fairly rapid re-entry. The problem is that guidelines about time to removal (including the remarkably arbitrary 25 year recommendation) are just that: guidelines. There is no real international agreement about this either. Satellite manufacturers currently do little more than pay lip service to debris mitigation, and will use the cheapest, untested debris removal technology they can, with little expectation that it will actually work. Beyond an altitude of 600-800 km (depending on solar activity levels etc.) solar radiation pressure overtakes atmospheric drag as the dominant force acting on a satellite. SRP generates tiny forces which tend not to be applied in a way likely to accelerate deorbiting. The satellites as described in this article are likely to have a ballistic coefficient which will leave them in orbit for hundreds, if not thousands of years in the very likely case that their end-of-life manoeuvre fails. There just isn’t an incentive for Space-X to make it reliable.

    2. Re:So in 10-20 years time... by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Preventing dead satellites from accumulating in the middle of their constellation isn't incentive?

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    3. Re:So in 10-20 years time... by Visarga · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can they use electrodynamic tethers of deorbiting?

    4. Re:So in 10-20 years time... by mlts · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The ironic thing is that it is definitely in their interest. If they hose things and satellites start getting destroyed with debris going everywhere in that orbit, Kessler Syndrome will be definitely a show-stopper and not just shut SpaceX down, but pretty much endeavor that goes past the atmosphere. This is already happening, with the ISS already having a solar panel get perforated by debris, and occasionally having to do maneuvers to avoid larger items.

      Unless someone has a magic cure for getting space debris to just give up and fall into the atmosphere, fuck-ups by any satellite maker can affect every single space venture there is to the point where launching anything into space becomes an impossibility.

    5. Re:So in 10-20 years time... by stud9920 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you bothered reading the PDF ? It has a quite long description of the deorbiting parameters, which involve putting them in elliptic orbit with perigee of 300km, meaning if they miss and only reach 400km, they're only good for 2.9 years before orbital decay.

      I made some calculations, lowering the perigee from 1075km to 3000km is actually relatively cheap, some 200m/s Delta V. Depending on the Isp of the engine, and the total mass (not clear if the 386kg are with or without propellant), we're speaking of 25-40kg op propellant. Make that 30-50kg and aeorbraking is not even needed because you're impacting the ground. Barely significant compared to the total mass.

    6. Re:So in 10-20 years time... by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cute, but in the real world, industries are often built entirely around long-term investment. A deep sea oil rig, for example, may not give its first drop of oil for over a decade after they sink vast sums of money into it.

      Unless SpaceX plans to be out of business in a decade or so, they have incentive.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
  2. Re:Not geosynchronous? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RASCOM, Regional African Satellite Communication Organization was to do a lot with Libya's funding.
    Libya was going to give Africa telephone, television, radio-broadcast, telemedicine and long-distance learning (WIMAX) without the West's corporate profit taking.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  3. How can this be competitive? by athmanb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    2/3rds of the satellites will always be over water and have their bandwidth utterly wasted. A significant part of the rest will be over areas where almost nobody lives, or nobody can afford to pay for internet with hard currency. Meanwhile all 400m Europeans that live in the populated 5m square kilometers have to use the same 20 to 100 satellites.

    Because the satellites are not geostationary they'll need to use omnidirectional antennae which puts some hard limits on bandwidth, while a lot of people will get FTTH and 5G mobile networks in the next decade.

    Iridium can get away with these shortcomings because they target the customers that doesn't care about prices. But I kind of doubt that market can support 4000 satellites

    1. Re:How can this be competitive? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 2

      "2/3rds of the satellites will always be over water and have their bandwidth utterly wasted. " Internet on vessels sucks. Buoys at sea observing weather, all those unmanned vehicles need to provide camera feeds to operators in Topeka. upside of global warming? Ships can now take a shortcut from asia to Europe by the Canadian North... where there is little to no civilisation and very limited weather info available. Think Titanic... yes, ships in ice-prone waters... Above 75 degrees north, geo-stationary is below the horizon, so good luck with that. The choice today is iridium, which is tech designed 30 years ago, lofted 20 years ago, and good only for telemetry (really, really slow.) More choice (and especially more bandwidth) would be really helpful.

    2. Re:How can this be competitive? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There won't be any satellites.

      They said there wouldn't be any cars, and then they said there wouldn't be any more cars, and then they said surely there wouldn't be any more cars, oh and they'll never land a rocket on a barge and what was that again?

      Now, that's not a guarantee of future performance, but I find your argument even less convincing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Re:Competition with their own clients? by tlambert · · Score: 2

    With this move, won't SpaceX be competing with their own clients like Iridium?

    I think you mean Dysprosium (there are only 66 satellites in that constellation, not the originally planned 77 to get it to the right number for Iridium).

    Motorola hasn't been lofting more satellites into the constellation since the late 1990's, and at one point was threatening to de-orbit the whole system. And they've already had in-orbit failures which can't be corrected by the in-orbit spares, so in some cases: coverage is pretty spotty. Although Iridium NEXT was supposed to start launching via SpaceX's Falcon 9, with some launches by Russia's ISC Kosmotras Dnepr.

    So far, technical issues and insurance issues have kept Iridium NEXT from happening.

    Also: SpaceX is proposing non-polar orbits for their satellite constellation, so they are unlikely to compete for space real estate, either, since the Motorola system is polar orbiting (which is why they want to launch Iridium NEXT from Vandenburg).

  5. 4425*850=4 million pounds of satellite by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is an enormous amount of weight to send up. Space-x is aiming for (has not achieved) $1,000 per pound. Their current cost is more realistically $4,000.

    4425*850*4000=$150,450,000,000. Then add the cost to send up another 4427/7=630 satellites per year (630*850*2000(because they'll get costs way down if they can send up that much material)=$1 billion dollars per year. They need to spend 150 billion dollars initially and an ongoing 1 billion dollars per year.

    In 2014 SpaceX had a "market cap" of (optimistically) 12 billion dollars. Let's assumt that 12 billion dollars have already been justified. Now rumors of an IPO have been heard, so let's assume a massive over-the-top IPO: 13 billion dollars. Then add in a billion dollars. (assuming every penny they can scrape together goes to this plan) 12+13+1=26 billion. Using realistic numbers for launch costs and hyper-optimistic numbers for funding, they're about 125 billion dollars short. And I don't see Trump signing a 125 billion dollar Space-X pork bill. If we're very optimistic about launch costs that hypothetical bill could go as low as a still-highly-unlikely 75 billion dollars.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:4425*850=4 million pounds of satellite by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

      I used the wrong number here, and I apologize. $2000 per pound is a realistic number for initial launch costs, halving each following number in the projection.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:4425*850=4 million pounds of satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      4425*850*$4000=$15 045 000 000
      so $26 billion would be enough.

    3. Re:4425*850=4 million pounds of satellite by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Beyond this, I expect that a lot of these would actually be nearly "free" - I would not be in the least surprised if their plan is to pack these as secondary payloads in existing launches to take up the remaining payload capacity of the launch vehicle.

      Also, spending a few billion years on average during operation is a very small amount compared to the amount spent globally on internet infrastructure.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    4. Re:4425*850=4 million pounds of satellite by Mindbridge · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are some issues with these calculations.
      1) The per pound price:
      - The prices you used are per kilogram, not per pound
      - The prices do not take into account the first stage reusability that will presumably become standard by the time the sats are launched
      - If we use the Falcon Heavy costs with reusability (e.g. from here) we get $50mil/(0.7*119930) = about $600 per pound.
      - The $600 price per pound includes the SpaceX profit margin. If that is not taken into account the price would be even lower.

      2) SpaceX will first launch only 1600 sats to make the system operational. From then on the future expansion can be funded by the operational profits.

      Given the above calculations, the launch prices for getting the system to work will be 1600*850*600 = $816 million
      That is well within the SpaceX financial capabilities.

      Now, the above assumes that the FH launches of the sats would be mass limited, rather than volume limited. I suspect that in reality they would be volume limited, however, thus the price would be higher. In any case it would be much lower than your original estimate.

  6. What's the business model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    386 kilograms - 13 by 6 by 4 feet (4 by 1.8 by 1.2 meters)

    Launch cost $1.79 million per satellite
    or $7.93 billion per constellation which last 5-7 years.

    Lets say an average cost of $50 million per satellite, which is very low, were looking at $221.3 billion.

    So, let's say roughly $230 billion, just to break even over a 7 year life span would require an annual revenue generation of $32 billion. Given that most people without an internet connection would be in rural areas, or poverty striken areas, we're looking maybe $30 per month or $360 per year. So, that would require a user base of 91 million people requiring each satellite to host 20000 people.

    The numbers here don't seem to make sense.

    1. Re:What's the business model? by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think a low latency broadband network available to the entire planet's 7,5 billion people is only going to be able to get 91 million subscribers?

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
  7. Re:Not geosynchronous? by Rei · · Score: 2

    You could just read the document, you know.

    User terminals operating with the SpaceX system will use similar phased array technologies to allow for highly directive, steered antenna beams that track the system's low-Earth orbit satellites.

    The antennas aren't physically steered, they're steered by adjusting the relative phases of the individual sub-antennas.

    --
    It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
  8. Re:Holy crap from the back of my envelope by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    First off, it's not "in addition to", it's "instead of". Earth fiber networks don't run on fairy dust either, they also consume power. The internet is one of the biggest power consumers on Earth. That's just the way it is.

    Doing my own math. You could fit ~141 in a Falcon Heavy to LEO. They don't say how many are actually planned, or even whether they plan to use Falcoln 9 or Heavy. Taking into account the higher altitude and practical considerations, let's say 60 satellites per flight on Heavies. So that's about 75 flights. Per FH flight, RP1 mass is ~400 tonnes and LOX mass ~935 tonnes. LOX is cheap and low energy to produce, so let's focus on the RP1. Total that's 30k tonnes of RP1. Which is 1,4TJ, or about 380 MWh higher heat value, which is 100-200MWh electricity generation potential. I didn't find how much energy Chicago consumes per year, but a reference on MIT's School of Engineering states that NYC consumes 60 TWh electricity per year. So I think you're way off in your estimate.

    --
    It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
  9. Re:Looking at the numbers... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Informative

    how do you solve the logistical problem of replacing 10 satellites all in completely different positions around the earth in one launch?

    You don't. The way Iridium handles it is having some of the satellites in orbit allocated as spares and not in active service. They have 66 active birds plus six spares. The spares run in a different orbit which circles the earth faster than the active constellation but can still easily transfer to the correct orbit, minimizing fuel needs for activating one in exchange for a longer time spent waiting for the orbits to sync up properly for the transfer.

    Basically you set things up like a large "cloud" host where there's enough spare capacity that individual device failures just aren't really a priority and you can replace the failed hardware in bulk every so often rather than having to do something one-off immediately.

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  10. Re:Alaska doesn't need it by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    " Are you as pants on head retarded as Matt Damon and actually believe Palin said that or were you attempting, and failing, to use hyperbole?"

    She actually said: "You can actually see Russia from Land here in Alaska."

    Video below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. Re:The 90's called.. by cjameshuff · · Score: 2

    Current satellite internet is that way because all the data is funneled through a handful of satellites up in geostationary orbit. This system uses a much larger number of much closer satellites, so latency's far lower, signal levels and link bandwidth are higher and you don't need a big dish to make your link budget work, and system bandwidth is orders of magnitude higher.