SpaceX and OneWeb -- Same Goal, Different Technology and Strategy 54
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To ensure no mistakes are made.
Re: (Score:2)
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 satelii
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 fr
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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 "g
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
solar powered drones (Score:1)
Instead of satellites, they should use solar powered drones. The drones would be far cheaper, easier to repair, and provide lower latency.
Re: (Score:2)
is that just an idea or does such a scheme already exist in place somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It will also show you that neither has managed to actually pull it off, and have suffered some setbacks.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, will their faces be red when they read this.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Competition (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
we won't know which one is the best.
Attila?
Re:Competition (Score:5, 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.
Re: Competition (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now Taking Bets (Score:2)
SpaceX will succeed and OneWeb will fail.
I could be more explicit, but we all know Elon’s track record.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
both? (Score:2)
This is competitive capitalism at its best — let's hope both succeed.
so... apparently you dont know how capitalism works.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
unfettered capitalism (Score:2)
is a good way to accelerate the amount of space junk in orbit.
Re: (Score:1)
Succeed where Iridium failed? (Score:2)
I'd like to see it happen, but call me skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
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.