Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Raising $500 Million To Help Build Its 'Starlink' Satellite Broadband Network (cnbc.com)

According to the Wall Street Journal, SpaceX is raising a $500 million round of fundraising to help build its massive satellite internet project, called Starlink. "The new funding puts SpaceX's valuation at $30.5 billion," reports CNBC. "The report says the capital comes from existing shareholders as well as new investor Baillie Gifford, a Scottish investment firm." From the report: Starlink -- a name SpaceX filed to trademark last year -- is an ambition unmatched by any current satellite network. The company is attempting to build its own constellation of 4,425 broadband satellites, with another 7,518 satellites to come after. SpaceX will begin launching the constellation in 2019. The system will be operational once at least 800 satellites are deployed. Starlink would offer broadband speeds comparable to fiber optic networks.The satellites would provide direct-to-consumer wireless connections, rather the present system's redistribution of signals, transforming a traditionally high-cost, low reliability service.

55 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Teledesic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    IMHO, USA cost of broadband is from monopoly, and they'd simply drop the price to just below the cost. You cannot reliably deliver broadband by satellite, since television is no longer delivered by satellite primarily. This is wishful marketing at best.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic

    "Teledesic was a company founded in the 1990s to build a commercial broadband satellite constellation for Internet services. Using low-Earth-orbiting satellites small antennas could be used to provide uplinks of as much as 100 Mbit/s and downlinks of up to 720 Mbit/s. The original 1994 proposal was extremely ambitious, costing over 9 billion USD and originally planning 840 active satellites with in-orbit spares at an altitude of 700 km.[1] In 1997, the plan was scaled back to 288 active satellites at 1400 km.[2]"

    "The commercial failure of the similar Iridium and Globalstar ventures (composed of 66 and 48 operational satellites respectively) and other systems, along with bankruptcy protection filings, were primary factors in halting the project, and Teledesic officially suspended its satellite construction work on October 1, 2002.[3] "

    1. Re: Teledesic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lucky for us, technology doesn't change in 25 years. Or does it?

    2. Re: Teledesic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You think making a list of things which (to you) don't appear to have changed is evidence that technology hasn't changed?

      Nice. Hey, if we look back 10,000 years, people wore clothes, ate food, and had fire. Clearly our technology hasn't changed in 10,000 years.

    3. Re: Teledesic by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Is any of those things related to communication electronics?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Teledesic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look guys, I found a project from 28 years ago that failed, so this too must fail! Ha ha, I am very smart.

      From wiki - the only prototype for the Teledesic constellation was launched at a Cost per launch: US$40 million. That's for one satellite weighing in at around 300kg. A Falcon 9 can lift up to 22.000kg to LEO for an advertised cost of ~50-60 million USD. That's the commercial cost, the true SpaceX cost will be of course lower. You are right, the two projects are identical! You are so so smart!

    5. Re:Teledesic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You cannot reliably deliver broadband by satellite, since television is no longer delivered by satellite primarily.

      That's not how it works. What are you on about?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: Teledesic by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I don't see how it *needs* to "affect the distance to space or the cost to put bent pipes up there". Those things can evolve perfectly independently.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Teledesic by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the number of underserved rural customers. It could be profitable without taking away a single customer that already had true broadband.

    8. Re: Teledesic by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, the average distance to the nearest satellite can change from network to network, so it helps to know what constellation project one is talking about.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Teledesic by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      SpaceX has reduced launch costs by more than 10X, pre-SpaceX a typical launch for a non-heavy payload would be around $600million. SpaceX was offering launch costs of $80million though recently raised prices to around $120 for government launches. This includes all SpaceX's profit.

      This massive reduction in launch costs makes putting a bigger installation of more birds cheaper, the bigger the constellation of birds the lower you can put it and the better the latency.

      Get enough birds and you can be low enough that it can be quicker to use the birds than fiber in the ground.

    10. Re:Teledesic by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      since television is no longer delivered by satellite primarily

      Maybe where you live (I assume the US) but where I live satellite is the primary form of receiving television, heck we can still "tune" in to broadcasts from transmission towers for some channels. They were supposed to change to digital to free up spectrum but have failed to do so due to utter incompetence.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    11. Re:Teledesic by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the number of underserved rural customers. It could be profitable without taking away a single customer that already had true broadband.

      Exactly. Not just rural US and EU customers either... think of all the under-served rural customers in the entire world. Urban/Suburban folks are not going to be the target consumer.

  2. Orange Man Bad. New Steve Jobs Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Great news everyone!

    You can now preorder satellite internet that will totally be 100GB symmetric with a ping speed that exceeds the speed of light thanks to AI blockchain autopilot for 3,000 USD right now. You know all those routing problems when there's more than a couple dozen entries in the route table? No worries, thanks to machine learning in Elon Musk's hair plugs, over one hundred million links between thousands of nodes changing every 90 seconds wont be a problem at all.

    Only a pedophile wouldn't take up this amazing offer.

  3. Re:Latency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/spacexs-satellite-broadband-nears-fcc-approval-and-first-test-launch/ says "SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second, with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements."

  4. Re:Latency? by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Latency and bandwidth will be much better than HughesNet. The SpaceX satellites are only about 1300km up, compared to HughesNet of 35000km up.

  5. Re:Latency? by eutychus · · Score: 1

    They are claiming around 35ms (altitude is only around 1100km)

  6. Indeed by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite all the negative publicity surrounding Elon, Tesla, et al, the South African continues to have no trouble attracting capital for new ventures.

    We could do much worse betting on a vanguard, since so few seem hellbent on guiding us to a better future outcome.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's African American now.

    2. Re:Indeed by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

      no trouble attracting capital for new ventures

      That's because he lands rockets and cranks out more than half of the EV's in the world. And builds tunnels under LA. Does he still run a school in his spare time?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Indeed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      We could do much worse betting on a vanguard

      You certainly could!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Indeed by strikethree · · Score: 1

      That's because he lands rockets and cranks out more than half of the EV's in the world. And builds tunnels under LA. Does he still run a school in his spare time?

      I have no idea if I like Elon Musk as a person. I do like everything he is doing and the report of him smoking marijuana and deciding he didn't like it was just a bonus (I like an open mind).

      Your words describe why he has no trouble finding funding... but to me, they indict the likes of Bill Gates and friends. Bill could pay for all of SpaceX in CASH. And yet, what is Bill doing? He is securing his wealth rather than doing fun (risky and potentially EXTREMELY profitable) things.

      Honestly, it is up to each individual person how they spend their money. Once wealth accumulation reaches Gates level, I am thinking something MUST be broken. Nobody is THAT valuable. Does this give me the right to take away Bill's money and do things with it? Absolutely not. At least until it can be proven what is broken. Until then, all I can do is sit back and look and compare the activities of the various billionaires... and think that only Elon Musk is doing anything interesting.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  7. Musky math by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    So its valuation earlier this year was externally estimated to be $26 billion and just two months ago was self-reported at 27.5 billion, and securing an additional half billion in funding suddenly pops it to $30.5?

    Ali G would be jealous.

    1. Re:Musky math by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Companies trade at a multiple of cash-on-hand, plus the funding will be launching an unprecedented communications constellation next year which will itself be a major driver of ongoing revenue (some from me).

      Yeah, that's worth more than $4B.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Musky math by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Companies trade at a multiple of cash-on-hand

      The question isn't whether there's a greater fool in existence who's willing to buy stock at a multiple of a company's cash on hand (or a company's value, for that matter). The question is whether cash on hand increases the value of a company beyond the amount of cash on hand. Any basic textbook you care to pick up will readily confirm that it doesn't.

      which will itself be a major driver of ongoing revenue

      This is closer in that future cash flow is one factor that can be used to calculate enterprise value, but since Starlink has been in the pipeline for quite a while, whatever future cash flow it was projected to generate should have already been baked into the $27.5 billion valuation in October. And that's my point -- there's nothing new here to justify a $3B increase in valuation other than a $0.5B increase in cash on hand.

  8. Re:It unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    What Tesla has pulled off in the last twelve months is absolutely monumental. Intentionally or otherwise you're shamefully misinformed. I'm getting to the point where Tesla denying is my new Apollo Program denying; let your hate for achievement illuminate your utter lack of it you pathetic fud-spewing swine.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Thanks Rei by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Um, Solar City promised to install solar panels, not Tesla. Solar City was then sold to Tesla, who sold the rights to this project to someone else. I don't see Tesla making a promise anywhere in this article.

  11. Re:Thanks Rei by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you realize Solar City was it's own company for 10 years before it was bought by Tesla?

  12. Re:Thanks Rei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You realize that when Tesla bought solar shitty, they bought all their obligations too.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Troll

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Re:Thanks Rei by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Yes, but the article the OP was referring to is talking about a promise made years ago, before Tesla bought them.

  15. Re:Thanks Rei by slashdice · · Score: 1

    Everyone will plug into their NeuroLink Human Interface Adapter, download the Grimes or Amber Heard profiles, and take turns sucking each other off.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  16. Re:Thanks Rei by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Your right!

  17. 5g maybe not so baked in by mirthful1 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there is a chance that the much hyped 5G rollout coming to a light-pole near you has an Achilles Heel of sorts. Probably makes no sense (antenna or power issue for instance). But fun to think about.

    1. Re:5g maybe not so baked in by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The ping up and down for sat is the unexpected. What the rest of the network looks like?
      The peering around the rest USA from a sat?
      Whats the next hop with sat? In the same city?
      What 5G can do over a very short distance and a good series of tubes back to the internet will be the winning tech.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. visiting Dr. covfefe by virtig01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [visiting Dr. covfefe.....]

    patient: Hey doc, I don't feel right. Maybe something has changed.
    covfefe: Let me look at you.... organs in body, teeth in head, shoes on feet. Just like last year. Let me know when that changes.

  20. Hardware isn't the problem. by Geodesy99 · · Score: 1

    The infrastructure ( boosters, satellites, up/down links, and the bundles of integration are not the problem ). And the economics of doing all these things can be aggressively improved. But the big brick wall every technology company has hit like a bug on a windshield with any sort of orbital communications is the regulatory environment. International agreements that favor incumbents, frequency allocations, and almost every company has a pet telecom owned by the government ( or wealthy family proxies ), and other political strangle holds. This political complexity is part of what hampered the original Iridium deployment.

    1. Re:Hardware isn't the problem. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The filling of low level "space" with a lot of new satellites will not be a problem.
      Making people pay for the ping, peering and lag back from the sat "network" will be the funny selling part.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  21. Wrong, Boring Company faster and far cheaper by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    And builds tunnels under LA at a slower rate and at a higher cost than competent tunneling companies.

    Not sure about speed but the Boring Company just had a presentation - the 1.3 mile tunnel under LA (one of the trickier drilling locations because of soil and regulatory issues) cost about 10 million to complete, vs.2 miles of NYC subway costing $3 BILLION dollars, and 2.5 miles of LA subway expansion costing $2 BILLION dollars.

    Going back to speed, the stated speed goal for the Boring Company machines is to be "faster than a snail", where traditional tunneling is 14x slower than a snail... so if they're not faster already, they will be soon now that they have fine tuned the drilling machines. The same way they fine-tuned rockets and "suddenly" started landing rockets regularly.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Wrong, Boring Company faster and far cheaper by Rei_is_a_dumbass · · Score: 1

      NYC geology is completely different than LA geology.

      The boring company half assed tunnels meets zero of the safety requirements that the LA subway meets. Here’s what an actual expert in tunneling had to say.

      So for those of you still interested I did a little digging around and found the permits TBC used to construct the Hawthorne Tunnel and Elevator, be warned they are 160 pages and 157 pages long respectively. See below: http://hawthorne-ca.granicus.c... http://hawthorne-ca.granicus.c... A few interesting things that jumped out at me when reading through these: 1. When detailing planned operations for the test tunnel TBC specifically stated that the public would not be allowed in the tunnel and that the skates would not be occupied while being tested in the tunnel. I haven't been able to find anything modifying this, so I'm not sure how Elon is allowed to give rides to people in this tunnel. 2. The tunnel fire safety plan requires everyone entering the tunnel to be provided and trained in the use of a W65 1 hour self rescuer, and only calls for the of combination fire extinguishers for fire suppression. This works for a test tunnel closed to the public, but its worth pointing out that NFPA 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems requires things like fireproofed ventilation systems, automatic fire detection, standpipe and sprinkler systems. Emergency tunnel egress points to the surface every 2,500 ft or cross passage egress to another tunnel every 800 ft. I'm curious how Elon will fit all these features as well as the skate within his stated 12 foot tunnel cross section. 3. In detailing their construction plans TBC said they anticipated tunnel advance rates of 60ft/day and a construction duration of 5 months. So they definitely fell short of that goal. Ironically perhaps it seems they came up with the 60ft/day number based on what the TBM performed on previous tunneling projects. So TBC managed to tunnel at less than half the speed the previous TBM owners Super Excavators did with the same machine. Now its not entirely apples to apples since geology is different, and TBC supposedly spent time tinkering with the machine. 4.They have the spec sheet for the TBM they're using attached towards the end of the tunnel permit. It states the machine as delivered had a total installed power of 1400hp or just over 1MW. Additionally, the machine is intended to be fed directly from the grid apparently because it is listed as having a primary voltage of 13.2KV three phase. This is interesting to me because Elon has talked about wanting to make these machines a)more powerful and b) run off of batteries. The permit restricts TBC to working between the hours of 7AM and 7PM or twelve hours. To run the machine continuously during this period off a battery you would need 12MW/hr of storage, a Tesla powerpack like those installed in Australia has a storage capacity of 210KW/hr each so you would need 58 fully charged powerpacks (rounding up from 57.143) to run the TBM for a full 12 hour shift. Assuming you placed these all side to side at 32.4"wide you end up with a battery 156.6 feet (47.7m) long without leaving any clearance in between units. Additionally you have a weight of 76.7 tons (69600Kg). Mind you this is all per the manufacturer's spec sheet, Elon has talked about wanting to increase the power considerably, so I am left wondering why he wants to make it battery powered when it would take a massive battery installation to last a single shift, especially considering the machine can be plugged directly into the grid.

      As far as tunneling speed, I suggest you look up the Gotthard Base tunnel. It was built in ~16 years. At the rate it took the incompetent boring company to build their smaller tuner with zero safety measures, it would have taken them 22 years to go the same distance assuming they used two machines.

    2. Re:Wrong, Boring Company faster and far cheaper by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, and Mr Musk never over-estimated anything. Before real life proof is given these are just words on a page.

      AFAICT he's never under-estimated anything. He seems to accomplish all of his major goals, except being on time. I can forgive that, personally, given all that he's accomplishing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. Re:Latency? by lastborn · · Score: 1

    About Bandwidth. The Bandwidth given to https://oghits.com/ is very low

  23. Teledesic by LittleEars · · Score: 1

    Teledesic? is that you again?

  24. Re:Latency? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Depends on the number of hops and the quality of the rest of the network.
    The hop up and down will make other sat look slow.
    But is any sat ping too slow?
    What people expect and need from the sat ping will be telling.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  25. Don't know if we will get broadband everywhere... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 2

    ...but for sure the shadow produced by all these satellites will solve the global warming problem!

  26. Re:SpaceX finally makes sense by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    High broadband prices in Africa to boot.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. They share Elon and little else by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You do realize that Solar City/Tesla/Boring Company/SpaceX is all the same thing, right? It is just a shell game and the different companies just shuffle money from one account to another.

    I'm sure you want to believe that but it's quite simply not true and demonstrably so. Solar City and Tesla are one organization under the Tesla aegis. Boring Company and SpaceX are independent. They share Elon Musk with Tesla and that's close to all they share. The finances of SpaceX have no meaningful relationship to Tesla and vice-versa. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

  30. Re:Latency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Today's satellite broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements."

    Wow, I must have clear signal, I'm getting ping times of only about 620ms. On a foggy/rainy day, it can be as high as 1000.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Clueless snark by sjbe · · Score: 1

    1) Paved streets. Asphalt. Street lights, painted lines. Nope.

    Look a little closer. The chemistry of the pavement has improved. The street lights use LEDs. The paint has improved chemistry too and sometimes isn't paint at all.

    2) Houses. Wood, plastic, foam, glass, bricks, mortar, aluminum, copper.... Nope.

    You seriously think there hasn't been any improvement in building materials or technology?

    3) Cars. Rubber wheels, chemical fuels, pistons. Some electric cars. They had those in 1925. Nope.

    Umm, yeah, the state of the art in cars clearly hasn't advanced at all since the Model T. [/sarcasm]

    4) People. They wear shoes. Clothes. Nope.

    What are those clothes and shoes made of? How are they made? Do they look the same? Do they cost the same? Were you buried under a rock somewhere?

    5) Airplanes in the sky. They had those in 1975. They even had supersonic passenger jets in 1975. Not anymore... Oops.

    I think it's pretty clear by now you are an idiot if you think that aviation hasn't seen any technology improvements in the last 45 years. We stopped using supersonic passenger jets because they weren't economical to operate, not because we can't make a better one today.

    6) Grocery stores contain food. Nope.

    They contain more food, of generally better quality, for less money (inflation adjusted), and far greater variety. About half the fruit and veggies on the shelves in my tiny town literally could not be purchased for any amount of money in the 1970s and much of what could be bought was only available seasonaly.

    Let me know when that changes anything to 1-6.

    Ok, literally everything in 1-6 has changed in the last 30 years. Got any other clueless snark to add to the conversation?

  32. Can Elon ever come up with a fresh idea? by gx5000 · · Score: 1

    Starlink?
    Someone call Ted Nelson, Xanadu has been re-branded.

    --
    End of Line.
  33. Re:Thanks Rei by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Wear did he go?

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  34. Re:Space Junk Problems by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Beat me to it. That was my concern; he plans to add well over 12,000 satellites to an already overcrowded orbital environment (not sure if LEO, MEO, or GEO though)
    If China were to pull a stunt like they did in 2007, where they tested destroying a satellite but which resulted in thousands of dangerous pieces of high velocity debris, he could see billions of investment $$ smashed to bits in short order.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.