Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

squeevey t1_iu9cdl1 wrote

Sounds to me like Amazon has too many fingers in too many pies.

561

CaBBaGe_isLaND t1_iu9q82i wrote

Yo that internet bookstore is putting up satellites now

254

-_1_2_3_- t1_iubayhc wrote

how far we have come... i'm just not sure we were looking where we were going

13

gerund_acquirer t1_iu9lz3n wrote

How much do I have to pay you to never use that metaphor again

63

Steveeee974 t1_iu9oo7f wrote

I’ll stop saying it for $500

28

cpgainer t1_iu9o3s3 wrote

$600. That’s such a common phrase, though

25

Few_Carpenter_9185 t1_iuattmv wrote

Finger-pies, or bookstores-satellites?

Okay, only the first is a metaphor. I think best when typing. Sorry.

I wonder what the terminal velocity of a satellite delivered book would be though. Delta-V is never free. You don't just "drop" a copy of Zen and the Art of Motocycle Repair from orbit. It just floats beside you etc.

But after that, it's pretty low-mass, so ablative heat shielding requirements aren't a lot. Should be something sustainable and carbon neutral. Bamboo fiber? Dunno. Leave that for R&D.

So terminal velocity should be about average for any dropped object from an airplane really. Assuming the book is wrapped and closed? Roughly cubical, 1kg... drag coefficient of roughly 1.05... Maybe 141km/h? 87 mph ish?

What's the acceptable CEP for impact delivery? A little guidance thingy with an Arduino, servos, and cardboard fins maybe?

What? An Amazon Kindle will download an e-book from Amazon/Audible over Elon's Starlink?

Dammit...

3

thepoopiestofbutts t1_iu9y4ca wrote

They got addicted to AWS money

19

Mntfrd_Graverobber t1_iua83km wrote

All the AWS money in the world couldn't build a rocket that works. So sad.

edit: I do enjoy mocking both Bezos and Blue Origin but can honestly say I would prefer it and the world would be a better place if BO's rockets were doing orbital flights on the regular. I'm just making lemonade with the lemons we got.

21

ackermann t1_iuaw1qc wrote

Not an orbital rocket, at least. New Shepherd worked ok, until that last flight…

6

Mntfrd_Graverobber t1_iuazd87 wrote

Sure, a rocket that doesn't reach orbit is still a rocket. But other than test flights, they are pretty much just good for seeding clouds. Or joy rides.
Reaching orbit is the real goal.

9

sevaiper t1_iubdvld wrote

A profoundly unambitious project that still had a high profile failure after remarkably few launches. That's going to be a no from me

9

ackermann t1_iubebsw wrote

Took Blue 17 years to replicate what SpaceShipOne achieved in 2004! For the X-Prize, SpaceShipOne flew crewed, twice in two weeks reusing the same vehicle!

Actually, it’s also pretty embarrassing that Virgin Galactic also took 17 years to replicate that feat, with just a slightly larger craft!

7

sevaiper t1_iubel37 wrote

I mean lets not go overboard now, certainly New Shepard is a reasonable and fundamentally sound rocket (though limited in scope and overall somewhat pointless) that is in no way comparable to the clownshow at Virgin Galactic lol

8

Deyln t1_iug5epm wrote

Spaceship galactic has different design wants. Among other delays.

Blue origin is a fiasco.

1

Icyknightmare t1_iucxarb wrote

The problem here isn't Amazon, it's the other Bezos company Blue Origin. They're older than SpaceX, but have yet to launch even a single gram of payload into orbit. Two of the three rockets Amazon contracted for Kuiper rely on the Blue Origin BE-4 engine, which has been suffering delays and production issues.

Meanwhile SpaceX has the highest launch cadence in the world, and is the only viable near term alternative launch provider. Rocket Lab's Neutron may be another option in a few years, too.

14

NoxicRox t1_iuazvar wrote

This would more than likely make StarLink more affordable. More competition in a monopolistic firm, will help lower the economic profit, and as a result, lowers the price for consumers.

If a perfectly legal world (lol), Amazon and StarLink cannot collude on price, and because of this, when one lowers price because their profit margins are allowing them to, the other firm will react by lowering theirs accordingly and we get this balancing act until marginal profits equal 0. At this point, the consumers are getting the best deal.

That’s where we are headed if StarLink gets some competition.

7

Maneatsdog t1_iubbifb wrote

Which investor is willing to sink $1B for 0 marginal profits? No one is going to do all that work launching satellites to make your internet cheaper.

Service providers compete by differentiating their offerings, not their prices. Consumers are often willing to pay a lot more for a service provider that meets their demands. Bezos earned his AWS money doing exactly that - there are plenty competitors that may be 10x cheaper.

1

NoxicRox t1_iubjv4k wrote

Through an investors standpoint, the business is actually operating at its efficiency point when marginal profit is equal to $0.

When marginal profit is equal to $0, marginal revenue equals marginal costs, which would indicate the production point where profits would be maximized.

As an investor, you don’t want to see money that’s stagnant, you want the firms you invested into to maximize profits at any given point in time.

What you said completely goes against microeconomic principles. With that said, I’m convinced you have no idea what you’re talking about lol

1

Maneatsdog t1_iudtogd wrote

Today I learned that marginal profit is not what i thought it was! Thanks for your explanation

5

littlebitsofspider t1_iubu3w8 wrote

>That’s where we are headed if StarLink gets some competition.

If, perhaps, greed suddenly ceased to exist.

−1

DarthGinsu t1_iub0w0o wrote

A lot of people have their fingers in too many pies. It's a big club and we're not invited.

0

PLYSGLF t1_iu9ejg2 wrote

Enzo’s text to Musk “Yo bro can I bum a couple rockets? I’ll owe you.”

65

Soupjoe5 OP t1_iu98t5t wrote

Article:

1

Amazon is working toward the launch of two prototype satellites for its SpaceX Starlink-rivaling internet service, Project Kuiper.

The delivery giant plans to launch these first two satellites at some point next year, and earlier this year, it penned what it calls "the largest commercial procurement of launch vehicles in history.

Amazon signed that agreement, totaling 83 Kuiper launches, with United Launch Alliance (ULA), European firm Arianespace, and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin.

There's one important caveat, though. Those launches partially rely on rockets that have yet to reach orbit, including Blue Origin's New Glenn and the Ariane 6. In a webcast with The Washington Post, Amazon senior VP of devices and services Dave Limp touched on this concern, and he refused to rule out asking the company's rival SpaceX for help with its launches.

Amazon is playing catch-up with Starlink

Amazon's two prototype satellites are set to launch aboard an ABL Space RS1 rocket next year. The Project Kuiper mega-constellation is eventually expected to total 3,236 satellites in low Earth orbit, bringing high-speed internet anywhere in the world, much like SpaceX's Starlink. SpaceX currently has more than 3,000 satellites in orbit, and it aims to eventually send roughly 30,000 more up to the skies.

That's a lot of catching up to do, and Amazon may even need to turn to its rival for help, Limp conceded during his recent webcast interview with The Washington Post. "You'd be crazy not to, given their track record," Limp said after he was asked whether Amazon might turn to SpaceX to launch its Kuiper satellites.

Amazon's Project Kuiper is very far behind Starlink, with the e-commerce giant having just announced the opening of a new satellite development facility in Washington state. It's hard not to draw comparisons between the current situation and the rivalry between Blue Origin and SpaceX — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin was founded two years before SpaceX, but it has yet to build a rocket capable of reaching orbit.

63

Soupjoe5 OP t1_iu98vmu wrote

2

Elon Musk accused Jeff Bezos of being a "copycat"

It will, of course, be very interesting to see if Amazon does reach out to SpaceX for its launch services and how SpaceX reacts. Blue Origin was famously tied up in a protracted legal dispute with SpaceX and NASA over the latter's choice of SpaceX's Starship as a lunar lander for Artemis III over Blue Origin's option.

Bezos also criticized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last year, claiming that SpaceX was held to a different, more favorable set of rules than other companies.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded to that accusation on Twitter by writing, "it does not serve the public to hamstring Starlink today for an Amazon satellite system that is at best several years away from operation."

Musk has taken several swipes at Bezos over the years. When Amazon's Project Kuiper was first announced in 2019, Musk tweeted a response to the announcement, saying, "Jeff Bezos copycat." Musk, who is known for his controversial tweets and who is now the owner of Twitter, has also suggested zapping Bezos "with our space lasers" and even accused the Amazon founder of impotence on one occasion.

36

77SevenSeven77 t1_iu9mdup wrote

Weird that there’s a legal dispute over who NASA chose. A quick google seems to suggest SpaceX have had 186 launches and Blue Origin have had 22. Oh I wonder who to choose…

46

FourteenTwenty-Seven t1_iu9on6k wrote

Even worse, none of the BO launches have been orbital

58

just_thisGuy t1_iu9vmui wrote

This, orbital is key. It’s like comparing someone who runs marathons regularly to someone who walks around the block after lunch.

44

Vercengetorex t1_iu9zy84 wrote

Yeah, I’m pretty sure BO is still at 0 launches that matter.

19

pm_me_ur_ephemerides t1_iu9om3g wrote

And Blue Origin has never achieved orbit, despite being founded a year before SpaceX. BO is kind of a joke, so it’s hilarious to see it held up as a serious competitor to SpaceX.

39

welshmanec2 t1_iu9tya3 wrote

Bezos is more a competitor to Richard Branson. SpaceX is an actual space company.

21

toodroot t1_iub81v2 wrote

Branson spun off Virgin Orbit from Virgin Global. Virgin Orbit has been to orbit.

6

MakionGarvinus t1_iua6659 wrote

I'd even put Virgin Galactic ahead of Blue Origin. In the sense of going orbital, their contraption is a few more boosters away from that.

5

Shrike99 t1_iubpb70 wrote

Virgin Galactic will never reach orbit. Virgin Orbit however have already done so, and as a sister company I think it's fair to lump them together for the purposes of comparing to Blue Origin.

5

Slightlydifficult t1_iu9ugas wrote

What’s wild to me is that Bezos definitely had better access to capital than Musk, what went wrong for BO? They can hire the best engineers in the world and are still struggling.

18

Mntfrd_Graverobber t1_iua8q41 wrote

So many people and even other auto companies keep thinking Tesla and SpaceX' successes can be easily duplicated. Turns out they both really are genuinely difficult problems and Musk's companies are rather exceptional at finding solutions. But people don't want to admit this, either out of arrogance or personal dislike of Musk.

33

ELFAHBEHT_SOOP t1_iuc5cth wrote

Musk is very good at cutting out bureaucracy and giving his engineers the tools they need to get stuff done. Large legacy companies are filled to the brim with bureaucracy. I think the Netflix documentary "Downfall: The case against Boeing" shines a light on exactly how Boeing went from an "engineering first" company like SpaceX to the Wall Street pleasing profits driven company it is today.

14

Slightlydifficult t1_iuabqo9 wrote

I honestly hate Musk but I won’t deny how successful his companies have been. Either he’s excellent at creating drive or he knows how to hire great people. I can’t stand the dude but I love my Tesla and I see big things for Starlink in the future.

12

pm_me_ur_ephemerides t1_iuax3ul wrote

He knows how to get people to work really hard and how to build a cohesive culture. From what I hear, blue is full of cliques pushing different cultures. Ex-Boeing people, ex-SpaceX people, ex-Aerojet people, etc.

14

p-d-ball t1_iubo2c2 wrote

They probably don't let their engineers go to the bathroom.

0

Mntfrd_Graverobber t1_iuagfxy wrote

I'm pretty much with you. I could care less about the guy. But I can separate my feelings about stupid shit he says that I disagree with from his and his companies' achievements.

12

Few_Carpenter_9185 t1_iuax895 wrote

It's pretty much this.

First an observation of making Acronyms of both companies. "BO" makes one think of "Body Odor". "SX" has connotations of "Sex" maybe?

Anyway, it seems like Musk took a chance on paying a LOT of attention to whatever Legacy Aerospace and NASA do not do well, and pivot 180° from that wherever possible when giving his input to core SpaceX philosophy, organization, and mission.

A lot has to do with Gwynne Shotwell a truly remarkable human being, with a ton of both technical aerospace engineering and business acumen. I'm guessing Musk and whoever did the search for her did a deep dive to find someone committed to "better, faster, cheaper, and different" beyond just superficial platitudes.

I've worked in Aerospace QA from a software ststems/tracking side. And in Manufacturing Execution. So I admittedly have a very vague overhead view of what culture and processes are in the field, but I get the sense, a smell almost... that things are radically different at SpaceX. Risk, process, everything.

I can't say for sure, but Bezos seems to have gotten more into emulating Legacy Aerospace to a degree. And the choice of Bob Smith from ULA and Honeywell might back that up.

Only a subjective impression, but any agility Blue Origin displays seems in response to SpaceX if anything.

7

Mntfrd_Graverobber t1_iuaz2cq wrote

The name straight up sounds like "space sex". Because Elon.

Appreciate the insight. And Gwynne is definitely a treasure. I've often said I bet Elon wishes he had someone like that for Tesla. She is certainly part of what makes SpaceX exceptional. And they did hire her because she had a similar idea of "better, faster, cheaper, and different". SpaceX is the kind of company she dreamed she could work for when traditional aerospace was all there was, despite the problems or shortcomings of traditional aerospace being known.

11

RedBaret t1_iu9wqtp wrote

You cannot solve problems by just throwing money at them. You need people who are motivated, who want to innovate and who are proud to work for their company.

Amazon has a track record of treating their employees like shit time after time and instead of making them feel valued making them feel easily replaceable.

11

the_way_finder t1_iua1bpn wrote

I feel like Musk really wants to go to space

I feel like Bezos is doing it because he can

Mindset is important. It determines your milestones and your day to day

13

RedBaret t1_iua49rk wrote

Yes I feel like, as with Amazons attempt at other things such as a fantasy series, they are only in it for the money.

Musk is obviously also in it for the money, but he comes from a place where he really wants space exploration and colonization to be a thing.

It’s telling when Musk hasn’t gone to space, but Bezos did and treated it like some glamour PR stunt.

8

jamqdlaty t1_iub9hhj wrote

What stuck in my mind was Elon’s interview with Everyday Astronaut after the presentation of the first Starship prototype. He couldn’t stop talking with him knowing he’s a guy who understands what Starship is and knows quite a lot about rockets. The best part was that there were other reporters waiting for Elon and being frustrated. Elon was so pumped about the idea of Starship that he wanted to talk about it with people who understand rather than just regular reporters.

12

ZeroGrav4 t1_iuaab5g wrote

Couple of pieces of interesting context that I can add here. Source is a friend who works for BO.

BO talks about being in the middle of a transition from a research institute to a manufacturing company. That's a hard change to make and they started that shift later than SpaceX did.

Their hiring process also specifically looks for people who are interested in "The Mission" of building infrastructure in space. For some roles you write an essay (1 page max) about why you're interested in space in general.

The pay at BO is laughably low compared to Amazon comp, but the work/life balance is apparently amazing. Still, that makes it difficult to hire and retain talent in key areas. From what I hear though the manufacturing and physical engineering side of things is league a better than places like Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop.

18 months ago they had about 4500 employees, and they've almost doubled that now. Hiring has slowed but not stopped, and from what I gather there's some subset or employees who see BO as a good place to weather out a recession since it's not a public company and is privately funded.

Parts of the company are still WFH currently, and individuals have been hired as full remote, but the assumption is that they'll force people in to an office at some point. This includes the tech workers, who aren't happy about that, which feeds into making it difficult to retain talent.

9

Knichols2176 t1_iuc49uz wrote

AST mobile beat BO to launch after Bezos thought he got all the technology he needed. AST then made their tweaks without Bezos team finding out and launched 2nd satellite in September. AST will dominate this space.

1

Slightlydifficult t1_iued6tx wrote

Interesting! What makes you feel AST will be stronger in this space than SpaceX? Are they launching their own rockets?

2

seanflyon t1_iuaio4e wrote

Also the SpaceX bid offered vastly more capability for half the price. I wonder if anyone at BO actually believes that they had the better bid.

16

whiteb8917 t1_iua4sjd wrote

BO's launches have been Millionaire / Billionaire roller coaster rides.

I have always said, "Jeff, do an orbital launch", but all he did was to sue Nasa for being overlooked for certain projects.

7

mfb- t1_iucq9zz wrote

SpaceX has launched satellites for several competitors and plans launches with OneWeb. I don't see why they wouldn't launch Kuiper satellites, too.

5

Knichols2176 t1_iuc3xuc wrote

Bezos is a copycat. He copied AST mobile and Elon helped AST launch theirs first. Mark my word, Elons starlink and AST mobile will merge or collaborate. They compliment each other with AST able to be used by any cell phone without any extra technology and Starlink is able to provide high speed internet via homes with receiving box.

2

mfb- t1_iucqd23 wrote

Starlink v2 satellites will already be able to communicate with cell phones directly. They have a partnership with T-mobile.

6

swd120 t1_iudx0ph wrote

Not in the same way - starlink/TMobile solution is limited to text/voice due to data rate limitations with their solution. ASTS's significantly larger antennas are the secret sauce for doing D2D broadband

I'd actually like to see them merge, because adding laser link backhaul into the starlink constellation would make a killer solution.

5

ausnee t1_iubptxi wrote

>Amazon's two prototype satellites are set to launch aboard an ABL Space RS1 rocket next year.

This is no longer true, they're going to launch on ULA's Vulcan first flight

3

inko75 t1_iu9h2wu wrote

the more vast and intrusive amazon gets the less i want anything to do with them.

57

apple-pie2020 t1_iua2qtq wrote

And the harder it will be to do so

13

BookooBreadCo t1_iuaeybr wrote

It's already next to impossible. In fact you're using one of their products now, reddit uses AWS.

14

inko75 t1_iuac6ec wrote

yeah. tho thankfully it seems alternatives to ring and alexa are popping up requiring no cloud service etc. i'm fine using amazon for retail crap and movies. their subscriptions/groceries service is awful so never again. prime already getting too bloated and pricy so will likely drop it soon.

1

soda-jerk t1_iu9i81b wrote

If it's anything like the Google Maps rival service, you'll just end up using Starlink.

Edit: a word

37

[deleted] t1_iu9s9v4 wrote

[deleted]

12

someotherbitch t1_iu9tkin wrote

>plans on 30000

Nite time will be a thing of legends before the end of the century if humans aren't destroyed.

−25

NightlyRelease t1_iu9ujmn wrote

Yes, due to light pollution. Starlink satellites are not visible in the sky (since the V2).

15

Arcosim t1_iu9wl5g wrote

It's unavoidable at this point. China is launching multiple constellations, one of which has 13K satellites (each sat 3x bigger than Starlink sats because they're also intended for 5G and two-way positioning) , there are several companies launching their own constellations, there are companies planning on launching illuminated satellites to create orbital ads (no kidding), there are companies already launching filament antenna satellites (super bright, outshining all planets and stars).

My guess is that in the near future the only way we'll be able to see the sky like our parents did will be in VR.

5

the_way_finder t1_iua1nj0 wrote

Lots of talk though

We’ll see what small percentage walks the talk

5

TheMace808 t1_iud4v3m wrote

Oh it’s not gonna be bad, they’re only really visible in the Dawn and dusk when they aren’t in their proper orbits. It does suck when they get in the way then though

4

funkboxing t1_iu9burn wrote

Seems like Amazon would be in a better position to roll out a ground based ISP to markets where satellite service has fewer advantages.

34

TheLoneTomatoe t1_iu9rges wrote

Fewer advantages as in..?

3

funkboxing t1_iu9vfj1 wrote

Anywhere you can readily build infrastructure on the ground it will be less expensive and more scalable than satellite service. Satellites will be excellent for extending coverage and providing redundancy, but packets origins and destination are always on the ground so there will always be a premium for sending them through orbital infrastructure.

There are underserved areas where Amazon's delivery infrastructure might present opportunities to build out wired and area wifi services to the surrounding community. I'm not thinking they would or anything, it would be a slower and lower return investment than trying to compete for the satellite market because there are plenty of people who don't have to care about the premium.

23

horsemagicians t1_iuaecq9 wrote

Satellite internet was never intended for large metro areas. Same problem as when cell coverage goes to shit in huge crowds. It was always designed for more rural areas. A connection straight to the wall is faster than wifi and ground based internet is going to be faster in metro areas than satellite. They need to do what Google did years back.

That said more competition on the ground and in space is never a bad thing when talking about utilities.

11

zomfgcoffee t1_iuba49t wrote

The cool part about having t mobile as a cell provider is the coverage also goes to shit while not in huge crowds!

3

wbruce098 t1_iubjqto wrote

In addition to the issues others have expressed, I think we still underestimate just how damn expensive it is to send anything to space. I’m having a little trouble finding anything definitive because each site I look at seems to vary wildly in how much things cost, but a general price for low earth orbit insertion is ~$5-10k per lb and each Starlink satellite is 573lb. It’s estimated they cost between $250-500k/ea though that almost certainly does not include launch costs (my napkin math is $1.5-3 million total). SpaceX might send them at cost, since it’s their own company, significantly reducing that per pound cost but that’s still a lot of money.

These satellites have a limited lifespan and will need to be replaced every few years (once they run out of thrust fuel they’ll gradually de-orbit and burn up in the atmosphere). SpaceX’s Starlink has about 3,000 in orbit now.

OTOH, a 5G internet tower costs more like $40k, is always in range (though it’s coverage area is much, much much smaller), will have much less latency due to shorter distance, greater bandwidth, and doesn’t need to be fully replaced every few years. So putting a few thousand of these things around a large city should provide decent coverage and faster speeds for a fraction of the cost of satellites.

It’s not a bad system. There are many strong use cases for satellite internet, especially in more rural areas and places where infrastructure is lacking or hard to build. And economics of scale + slowly improving technology do continue to bring satellite costs down. It’s just definitely not the most effective internet for most urban and many suburban folks, especially in western countries where fiber and 5G towers are already very common.

−1

TheLoneTomatoe t1_iubke56 wrote

Do you know how many customers a single starlink/kuiper satellite support compared to 1 5g tower?

2

wbruce098 t1_iublqj7 wrote

A hell of a lot more. By my estimates you get at least 50 of those 5G towers per satellite. But the satellites also have greater latency (about 500ms to LEO, IIRC, due to limits on the speed of light) and lower total bandwidth (around 1gbps compared to 8gbps with the towers). Those numbers are subjective of course so it depends but I just can’t see Starlink outperforming terrestrial internet where such internet is available.

0

Adeldor t1_iubphbm wrote

> But the satellites also have greater latency (about 500ms to LEO, IIRC, due to limits on the speed of light)

LEO (Starlink) latencies are more like 50 ms. Geostationary satellites are the ones feeling the light-speed-limit with 500 ms ping times.

Interestingly, over long distances, Starlink is potentially faster than fiber, as the speed of light through a vacuum is near c, but through fiber is 0.7c at best.

8

wbruce098 t1_iucohoz wrote

Oh thanks for that latency correction! That makes a huge difference.

2

TheLoneTomatoe t1_iubmahx wrote

What's your estimate on the towers?

I know the exact numbers for the satellites, but know less about the towers.

1

wbruce098 t1_iuco9oy wrote

Yeah so that’s a bit of a complex thing. I know satellites can technically reach anyone in their footprint, with a few exceptions (like those near the edge). But the towers can provide incredibly fast connection if you’re close by, but that drops off rapidly. I live about 170-200 meters from one of those little 5G internet antennas (the lamp post sized ones, not the giant cell towers), and can barely receive it’s signal, partly because of blocked line of sight (a row of brick townhomes; they’re probably limited in how high they can raise them due to skyline interruption or whatever). Just rough guesstimating based on some really crappy math, there’s probably something in the vicinity of 400-500 townhomes in range of that thing, just not me! The internet tells me they have a range of 300-450 meters but that probably is under ideal conditions: say, a taller tower in a less densely populated area.

That’s still probably more than enough customers to justify the relatively low cost of putting hundreds or even thousands of these things up in dense urban neighborhoods, compared to say, running cables and junction boxes and such.

The taller cellular service towers would have a greater range but maybe not massively so because as I understand it, the ultra wideband 5G doesn’t have quite the range of lower frequencies used on 4G (or lower band 5G) so your top 5G speeds are really gonna depend a lot more on how close you are to that tower, how densely they’re packed in, and a lot more on the kind of obstructions that are in the LOS than lower frequency wireless products.

What’s that number for Starlink? At least, how many people could a single satellite cover with solid ultrasuperludicrous-HD Rings of Power streaming worthy speeds at once? I’m sure it varies a bit because the satellites are constantly moving but what’s the rough stats?

0

seanflyon t1_iubs8x8 wrote

We don't know the exact internal cost to SpaceX to launch a Falcon 9, but it is somewhere around $30 million. Each launch can put up 60 Starlink satellites, so that is around half a million each. Anyone can buy launches for much less than $5k/lb, that would be $185 million for a reusable F9 or $250 million for an expendable F9.

Your napkin-math estimates are too high.

2

wbruce098 t1_iuconj0 wrote

NASA had reported they were paying closer to $9k/lb with SpaceX but that could’ve been older data. Like I said, I saw a different price on every website I looked 😅

−1

swd120 t1_iudmarh wrote

NASA also pays an inflated cost from extra requirements then put on the launch. If they just purchase ootb launches it would be much cheaper.

3

seanflyon t1_iuektkz wrote

You definitely have something mixed up. Maybe you are thinking of sending cargo in a Dragon capsule to the ISS.

2

justbadthings t1_iu9f6fz wrote

This is side of the dumbest click bait bullshit. The article is a pure hypothetical rambling by a SpaceX fanboy that has zero basis in reality. If r/space did a "What if" series a la Marvel, that's where this belongs. Ot put forth as actual news

10

MaltenesePhysics t1_iu9jqaj wrote

Someone asked an Amazon VP if they’d consider launching with SpaceX. The VP said they’d be “crazy not to.” Not rambling.

50

ausnee t1_iubq0l2 wrote

That's not a plan - that's an Amazon exec saying SpaceX has a good track record & costs.

The reality is that Musk wouldn't ever "allow" a rival to Starlink to launch on "his" rockets, without significant financial incentive to do so.

−6

wgp3 t1_iubvqki wrote

That's literally not true at all. They already launch internet satellites for other companies and there are plans for oneweb, another leo service, to be launched on spacex rockets. The significant financial incentive is a rival paying for the rocket. Rivals are the ones who don't want to use spacex because then they're funding their competitor. Launching a satellite isn't funding a competitor nor does choosing not to launch it stop your competitor. It would only lose you money.

8

ausnee t1_iubxdf5 wrote

Does Musk "troll" the CEO of OneWeb on Twitter? OneWeb is a much, much smaller constellation than Starlink or Kuiper, and serves different markets. SpaceX knows OneWeb won't seriously compete with Starlink and so they could care less.

If you don't think Musk would interfere in any kind of deal between Amazon and SpaceX if only just to stick his finger in Bezo's eye, you're an idiot.

−4

DrJoshuaWyatt t1_iudgixu wrote

>you're an idiot

I'll give you an upvote for Name calling. Exactly the discourse I like to. By the way, one web has infinitely more days in orbit than kuniper.

2

proper_ikea_boy t1_iu9r135 wrote

Okay so pls explain your plan to launch hundreds of sattelites into orbit without reusable rockets and still recover you costs.

4

horsemagicians t1_iuadw3r wrote

Why do they have to be orbital? And you charge people for use of your internet service just like every business ever.

−11

seanflyon t1_iuaj2ma wrote

Satellites have to be orbital to stay up. What kind of non-orbital internet service are you thinking of? Running cables on the ground certainly works.

10

Shrike99 t1_iubr474 wrote

>Why do they have to be orbital

Because suborbital satellites tend to have lifespans on the order of minutes. Having to replace your entire satellite fleet on a bi-hourly basis is a very, very poor business case.

>And you charge people for use of your internet service just like every business ever.

That works if you have a monopoly, but not in a world in which competition exists.

If it costs you ten times as much to launch a comparable satellite constellation to your competitor, then you need to charge each person ten times as much, or subscribe ten times as many users which means 1/10th the bandwidth per user, or some combination thereof.

Either way, the consumer gets a worse deal, so why would they purchase your service as opposed to your cheaper and faster competitor's?

6

Decronym t1_iu9mpm5 wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |BO|Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry)| |FAA-AST|Federal Aviation Administration Administrator for Space Transportation| |FCC|Federal Communications Commission| | |(Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure| |Isp|Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |LOS|Loss of Signal | |Line of Sight| |QA|Quality Assurance/Assessment| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |ablative|Material which is intentionally destroyed in use (for example, heatshields which burn away to dissipate heat)|

^(11 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 30 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8196 for this sub, first seen 29th Oct 2022, 17:08]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

9

bwanabass t1_iu9r24l wrote

Bezos is just looking for more opportunities to wear his space cowboy hat.

8

__kepler__ t1_iuaz610 wrote

Don’t forget British backed oneweb too. They’re launching with spacex next month since they had to suspend launching with Soyuz. Oneweb is much further along than kuiper with 400+ out of 650 in orbit and active customers at high latitudes.

6

MorRobots t1_iuc0lvy wrote

SpaceX will absolutely sell them boosters to do this. Here is why:

  1. It's regulatory top cover. "Starlink is not a monopoly, we have competitors <points at amazon>. We launch competitors satellites as well."
  2. If Amazons effort fails, they can buy it for pennies on the dollar while still having gotten full price for the boosters.
  3. If they decide to divest Starlink, it provides them a mature acquisition candidate.
  4. They get to sell their competitor boosters at full price while launching their own satellites at cost.
5

KorgX3 t1_iu9ints wrote

They can have my Comcast ShitFinity account when they pry it from my cold, dead cumsock pile.

4

grafknives t1_iub3a8e wrote

Hmmm.

Space wars turned to be just corporation competition, no lasers involved...

bummer.

4

malkumecks t1_iuao1oy wrote

Probably need SpaceX for free 2 day shipping to Mars as well

1

NoxicRox t1_iuayu2m wrote

So Amazon just plans on what? Launching their satellites a little higher than StarLinks satellites?

Sounds wild man. Pretty soon earth will look like a hive mind of drones from space lol.

I’ve been waiting for StarLink to become cheaper than my current ISP. I’m hoping that with bezos bringing in more competition, that the price will be lowered. Bring me that price equilibrium yea monopolistic capitalist.

1

swd120 t1_iudxxpa wrote

If you have a decent option available for less than starlink, you should be using it.

Starlink is for people with no options, or shit options (like rural dsl, or viasat/Hughes net)

3

NoxicRox t1_iue1tl4 wrote

Right now it is, but as StarLink becomes more affordable and with innovation being pushed, I can see us going wireless eventually. Fiber optics are great but it’s slowly becoming outdated.

It’s long overdue too as the current isp market is very much a natural monopoly at worse and at best maybe a duopoly.

Similar to Teslas first vehicles that were priced non-economically, StarLink will eventually become affordable through increased monthly users and natural competition.

1

DrSendy t1_iubhhjd wrote

I wonder if it won't be space junk that will be the problem. Maybe we won't be able to enter orbit because of too many cube sats.

I can every freaking country in the world wanting in on this crap.

1

RonDon1212 t1_iubi1a3 wrote

If any person can keep doing anything they want on such a large scale earth will become a dumpster. Anyone can manufacture potentially millions of stupid toys/single use items that don't biodegrade just so they can make a profit. Then they can just forget about what happens to the trash, and keep pumping out more. Eventually order will have to be brought to earth, to prevent earth's destruction.

1

febreeze1 t1_iuand73 wrote

Reddit just exploded. Do we side with Elon bc bezos bad…

0

KRed75 t1_iubjjdy wrote

They need to change that name. kuiper is just horrible.

0

tactlessnutter t1_iuc4lbg wrote

Why? Despite it being an Amazon project, the name is pretty cool since it references the Kuiper Belt.

3

KRed75 t1_iudz378 wrote

Doesn't change the fact that's it's a horrible name to choose. You have no way to know how to pronounce it if you haven't already heard it pronounced and the pronunciation is nothing like you'd have guessed.

0

Knichols2176 t1_iuc35by wrote

Not if AST mobile gets theirs launched first. Elon launched their Blue walker 3 in September and will launch their next 5. AST mobile is the OG. Many think Starlink and AST Mobile will collaborate as Elons is for homes requires box..and AST is for mobile. AST has 1200 patents. Together they dominate all internet and mobile and can be combined on each satellite. Amazon just steals technology and pays a ton to get it out first. Bezos is not going to win this one. There’s tweaks that Bezos didn’t know to steal.

0

Shrike99 t1_iufrovl wrote

SpaceX are already collaborating with TMobile for mobile.

1

Knichols2176 t1_iufsuva wrote

For literally old fashioned satellite calls. SOS. Lol. T mobile can’t offer what AST does and can’t be combined on a starlink satellite (which happens to have a third leg that’s just dead weight for balance). AST does not require any special equipment or software. T mobile does. Elon has tweeted that AST technology works. He must be intrigued. I’d think he’d want the best technology available right?

0

Shrike99 t1_iuh9nwq wrote

>For literally old fashioned satellite calls. SOS.

Limited data rate, yes. But not comparable to old fashion satphones in the sense that you need specialized hardware to talk to a geo sat, and not limited to SOS (though that's certainly one of the more useful aspects).

>T mobile can’t offer what AST doesT mobile can’t offer what AST does

The only difference I can see is bandwidth. And while an individual AST sat likely has a lot more throughput due to it's size, I can't see them getting anywhere near Starlinks numbers though so bandwith over a given area is probably comparable.

If they did reach some deal to integrate directly into the Starlink sats then they'd face the exact same limitations TMobile are.

>can’t be combined on a starlink satellite

That's literally what they're doing though.

>AST does not require any special equipment or software. T mobile does.

SpaceX and TMobile both say otherwise. They say it will be compatible with existing 5G capable phones, and that as far as the phone will be able to tell a Starlink sat will appear indistinguishable from a cell tower.

AFAIK AST are using the exact same approach, just with a larger antenna.

2

carrotwax t1_iubqtgf wrote

When spacex is talking 30,000 satellites in orbit I'm wondering if competition will be too dangerous in terms of crowded orbits. I could easily see it be considered a regulated global monopoly in the not too far future.

−1

perthguppy t1_iu9mdwn wrote

I’d expect Bezos would kill the project before ever going to spaceX for launches.

−2

seanflyon t1_iuak5td wrote

It isn't his decision to make. He is one of the major Amazon stockholders, but he doesn't own that majority and even if he did he would have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the other stockholders. He can't just burn Amazon's money for his own personal reasons.

6

ausnee t1_iubqaaf wrote

More likely that SpaceX wouldn't ever offer Amazon a fair deal.

−3

travisth0tt t1_iuagdce wrote

i don’t think this actually happens

being in the industry i’ve seen spacex drag their feet with launching projects that will rival starlink

−4

RedBaret t1_iu9g2hm wrote

“Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.”

−6

aBlackGuyProbly t1_iuaokem wrote

How bout we don't trap our selves on this planet with a web of satellites

−6

jericho t1_iu9e3is wrote

Why do these titans of industry keep trying to one up each other.

Space rockets, self driving cars, etc.

−8

Bogmanbob t1_iu9okcg wrote

A common saying in development projects is that it’s not necessary there first to market who wins. Sometimes the second or third comes up with a tad more appealing product and wins the market share even skipping some of the up front risk .

8

KhaelaMensha t1_iu9ls5y wrote

Because that's where the seriously big money is. Internet means ads. And besides energy, food, labor, and shelter, transportation is one of the biggest necessities that humanity needs fulfilled to function. So yes. Covering the world in easily accessible high speed internet and inventing a new mode of transportation that cuts out the human factor (saving money again) are some of the biggest markets to make dough in. Also, Tesla's robot is aimed at disrupting the labor economy. Just imagine if tens of millions of people with menial (but too advanced for current "robots") jobs could be replaced by something that costs less than a car.

If you're wondering why big companies do the things they do: it's always money. Yes, Tesla may in fact help in massively reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it just so happens that it's also profitable AF.

5

Otazihs t1_iu9ex9g wrote

Because apparently that's what "healthy" competition looks like.

0

[deleted] t1_iu9lr45 wrote

[removed]

−10

Nijajjuiy88 t1_iu9xiz7 wrote

Lol worst of the worst apocalypse on earth is far more livable than your space society.

These guys will be having their own small private communities exclusively for elite where they can sustain themselves.

8

Slightlydifficult t1_iu9tydr wrote

We need some global regulatory authority on space launches. Billionaires being able to fill the sky with satellites is very concerning when you consider the dangers of space junk trapping us here.

−10

Mntfrd_Graverobber t1_iua99qo wrote

I believe they are putting the finishing touches on a treaty where all satellites will need to have the capacity to deorbit in order to get launch permission. Fortunately that isn't an issue for Starlink because SpaceX thought of that.

6

Slightlydifficult t1_iuacdr8 wrote

Love to hear it! I’m not surprised SpaceX had that in mind given their moonshot goals.

3

404_Gordon_Not_Found t1_iuavxvj wrote

Also, having unintended space junk left behind only hurts their business, so it is in their interest to make sure they have good control over their satellites.

9

HecknChonker t1_iu9ysp0 wrote

Maybe it's better for the universe if we don't leave.

1

CaBBaGe_isLaND t1_iu9q5ki wrote

And this is why you're supposed to leave some things in the public sector.

−12

Mntfrd_Graverobber t1_iua9qu4 wrote

So that taxpayers can spend ten times as much and still not be able to launch, much less launch anything reusable? SLS has been in the works for well over a decade.
But that's a private company too. It's almost like NASA has never built rockets as part of its mission and they have always been built by private contractors.

14

tanrgith t1_iud0188 wrote

That argument just makes no sense at all.

Public sector spaceflight have historically been far more inefficient and costly than modern commercial space flight, and public sector spaceflight also didn't have any plans to provide innovative new alternatives to the ground based monopolistic ISP's

2