Impact of Internet access due to new SpaceX re-usability achievement

[RainDreamer]

11 minutes ago, RuBisCO said:

Some of the things world wide internet coverage could do

- People in poor countries can get online, from the middle of nowhere.

- People in Orwelling nightmares could get online, North Korea is going to have trouble once sat-modems start sneaking their way in the country. 

World wide WiFi can indeed help poor countries that does not have the expensive infrastructure for internet, but for totalitarian nightmares countries, it won't be that different - they will just add internet capable devices to their list of contrabands. Internet access won't be of any use if having a phone gets you in jail.

[AngelLestat]

7 hours ago, RuBisCO said:

Some of the things world wide internet coverage could do

- People in poor countries can get online, from the middle of nowhere.

- People in Orwelling nightmares could get online, North Korea is going to have trouble once sat-modems start sneaking their way in the country. 

Beyond those points, I guess the most important thing is that you just need a single internet service to be connected in any place of the world and no matter where you go.

This mean you don't need anymore an internet provider for your house and a telephone-internet provider for your cellphone, which you lose signal and where you change country they charge you a lot extra.

You can have your computer, cellphone or any device you have with a single internet account access.
Then any need of communications is done in a cheap way with skype, whatsapp or any other app you may have. 

You can be in the middle of a desert or in the middle of the jungle that you will get always connection.
 

All this with the lowest latency which guarantee a good price-demand for the service.

[cantab]

34 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

13 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

This is the way you analyze a business plan?

This mean you don't need anymore an internet provider for your house and a telephone-internet provider for your cellphone

Kraken blast it, trying to quote more than one post on this forum is IMPOSSIBLE. /rant

It's how I discuss that satellite internet is limited - something you agree about. Expressed either as number of customers to get a target bitrate, or as bitrate per customer for a fixed number of customers, the capabilities of satellite internet are less than cellular networks which in turn are less than fixed line networks. I don't see how any plausible technological or economic development will change that in general; satellite internet only does well covering places that are poorly covered by ground networks.

Because of those limits, the idea that a large portion of the population can go satellite-broadband-only just doesn't work. Satellites can technically offer fast internet over large areas but only as long as not many people use it over that area. And because the supply of the service is limited, the satellite operator can and will jack up the prices. Cheaper rocket launches may make satellite internet cheaper, and lower orbits make it better by cutting latency, but it's still going to be one of the most expensive forms of internet access in terms of dollars per Mbps.

And as for personal impact, if you live in the middle of nowhere this could be big. If you live in a rich city it's irrelevant. And over 80% of Americans live in cities; I believe the figures are similar in Europe.

Edited December 24, 2015 by cantab

[RuBisCO]

But Cantab if the cost is low enough how many satellites do you think they can have up? They are talking about 1200! Lets say 1 Tbps performance per satellite, each satellite could laser link to the next in its plane of orbit like a massless fiberoptic hula-hooping around the planet, I believe I heard it called a "Dragon Line" in Sci-Fi. We have been able to achieve over 600 Mbit from the moon vis laser link, and these satellites will be flying no more then a few hundred kilometers from each other. Assuming at a minimum one satellite worth of converge is available above anyone at any time, that is 1 Mbps performance per person for 100,000 people. Only cities would be able to compete. Such a system could easily take over cellphone service, what with voice needing ~25 kbps, so that is 4 million people it could service calling at once per satellite.

For most of the world, who are not in rich developed nations, this will be world changing. Ground based providers will not be able to monopolize them, and their governments will not be able to control what they say.

[Elthy]

I somehow doubt you can get high bandwith with a cheap, omnidirectional antenna that also fits into a cellphone...

[Bill Phil]

18 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

I somehow doubt you can get high bandwith with a cheap, omnidirectional antenna that also fits into a cellphone...

Imaginr loads of em.

[AngelLestat]

8 hours ago, cantab said:

It's how I discuss that satellite internet is limited - something you agree about. Expressed either as number of customers to get a target bitrate, or as bitrate per customer for a fixed number of customers, the capabilities of satellite internet are less than cellular networks which in turn are less than fixed line networks. I don't see how any plausible technological or economic development will change that in general; satellite internet only does well covering places that are poorly covered by ground networks.

As I said, you can not compare at the same cost.  Here you can remplace your house internet, your cellphone company in just one service who works in any place of the world.
This mean that rich people from the cities may be interested, people that needs to travel to remote location and remains connected, and people who has not other way to have an internet connection in their home..
I would said that you have a big population % that match that description and it will be ok to purchase the service even at higher cost (of course you can have also a cost depending in the connection speed you purchase), this mean high speed for those who needed and low speed for those who don't care.

 

Quote

Satellites can technically offer fast internet over large areas but only as long as not many people use it over that area.

Is like GPS, you dont need to make connection with just the sat that is up in your head, you can make connection with other that are in a different angle. As you said people in the city may not need this service so much because they have other ways, so it would not be so much people in those areas either.

 

Quote

and lower orbits make it better by cutting latency, but it's still going to be one of the most expensive forms of internet access in terms of dollars per Mbps.

Lower orbits will just improve just a little the local internet connections (servers in your same location).
It will be more expensive, of course, but more expensive is try to reach internet to those location in a different way. With falcon heavy the cost to orbit will be cheap enough, even without reusability. You can launch a lot of these sats in just one flight.

 

Quote

And as for personal impact, if you live in the middle of nowhere this could be big. If you live in a rich city it's irrelevant. And over 80% of Americans live in cities; I believe the figures are similar in Europe.

But as you said, the world is bigger than that (well not sure if all US citizens understand this), but you also have reporters, businessman, adventurers, or all kind of people that might be ok paying extra to be always connected.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

As I said, you can not compare at the same cost.  Here you can remplace your house internet, your cellphone company in just one service who works in any place of the world.
This mean that rich people from the cities may be interested, people that needs to travel to remote location and remains connected, and people who has not other way to have an internet connection in their home..
I would said that you have a big population % that match that description and it will be ok to purchase the service even at higher cost (of course you can have also a cost depending in the connection speed you purchase), this mean high speed for those who needed and low speed for those who don't care.

 

Is like GPS, you dont need to make connection with just the sat that is up in your head, you can make connection with other that are in a different angle. As you said people in the city may not need this service so much because they have other ways, so it would not be so much people in those areas either.

 

Lower orbits will just improve just a little the local internet connections (servers in your same location).
It will be more expensive, of course, but more expensive is try to reach internet to those location in a different way. With falcon heavy the cost to orbit will be cheap enough, even without reusability. You can launch a lot of these sats in just one flight.

 

But as you said, the world is bigger than that (well not sure if all US citizens understand this), but you also have reporters, businessman, adventurers, or all kind of people that might be ok paying extra to be always connected.

Falcon Heavy is too goddamn big, even in its 3 cores, on land reusable config for launching relatively small LEO sats.

[AngelLestat]

It may be, but you can design an ion propulsion Tug where you can attach 30 or 40 of these sats to easy locate them in their respectives orbits.

[Nibb31]

All of this assumes that existing network operators won't put up a fight. Telecoms are an extremely competitive business and they move fast. Wireless operators are constantly investing in new technology. They aren't going to sit around and wait to become extinct. If space internet every becomes a thing, they will compete by offering higher bandwidth or lowering prices.

5G is due next year, and there will be talks about 6G by the time these constellations start operations. In France, you can get unlimited phone and 4G for under 10 euros per month. It is unlikely that constellation operators will be competitive in terms of bandwidth and cost, simply because they have a longer lead time. So they can only aim their service at a niche

However, the niche of customers who only have access to satellite internet AND have the money to pay for it, is dwindling. Even Africa has 3G pretty much everywhere where people need it nowadays.

In the end, I think that the profits are not big enough to revolutionize the industry, and certainly not to pay for Martian colonies of that's what you're thinking...

Edited December 25, 2015 by Nibb31

[AngelLestat]

On 25/12/2015 at 7:56 AM, Nibb31 said:

All of this assumes that existing network operators won't put up a fight. Telecoms are an extremely competitive business and they move fast. Wireless operators are constantly investing in new technology. They aren't going to sit around and wait to become extinct. If space internet every becomes a thing, they will compete by offering higher bandwidth or lowering prices.

They won't..  but each technology will have their place..  Today internet providers can not offer the services and advantages that I mention with internet from space.  These constellations will have another advantage, they don't need market permissions from their respective countries, they can also avoid some taxes that normal companies can't.

Quote

5G is due next year, and there will be talks about 6G by the time these constellations start operations. In France, you can get unlimited phone and 4G for under 10 euros per month. It is unlikely that constellation operators will be competitive in terms of bandwidth and cost, simply because they have a longer lead time. So they can only aim their service at a niche

Meanwhile in some places we don't have even 56kbs of internet connection. I guess you are imagine that your personal situation and needs are equal to anybody else in the world. This spaceSat can be done in few years, tell me how much time it will take to connect by wire and antennas the whole world. Bargaining with different country policies and dictatorships, and you will never will fix the latency problem or the cost to use other companies antennas or networks.

Quote

 

However, the niche of customers who only have access to satellite internet AND have the money to pay for it, is dwindling. Even Africa has 3G pretty much everywhere where people need it nowadays.

In the end, I think that the profits are not big enough to revolutionize the industry, and certainly not to pay for Martian colonies of that's what you're thinking...

 

Africa has 3g pretty everywhere??  Ok.. is time you take some vacations out of the luxury hotels.
Argentina is much more highly developed than any African country, and we can focus in its most developed state "Buenos Aires" and still there is more than 70% of the surface without signal.

http://opensignal.com/coverage-maps/Argentina/

Even those places you see in red, there are many days that you don't have signal or the speed connection is terrible.

[Nibb31]

49 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

They won't..  but each technology will have their place..  Today internet providers can not offer the services and advantages that I mention with internet from space.  These constellations will have another advantage, they don't need market permissions from their respective countries, they can also avoid some taxes that normal companies can't.

They absolutely do. If they are offering a service in a country, they need to abide by the rules of that country. This applies to any corporation that does business on the internet. If Amazon and Google do business in Argentina, for example, they need to abide by the laws and regulations of Argentina. The same is true for any operator. 

Quote

Argentina is much more highly developed than any African country, and we can focus in its most developed state "Buenos Aires" and still there is more than 70% of the surface without signal.

http://opensignal.com/coverage-maps/Argentina/

Even those places you see in red, there are many days that you don't have signal or the speed connection is terrible.

What matters is where the people are. You'll find that those red areas cover probably 90% of human activity in the country, which is why operators do not invest in the 10% that's left. Sure, it's great that the 10% of people in those areas get the option of fast internet, but it remains a niche service for a small market volume.

We don't know what sort of service these constellations will be offering (many speculate that they will be providing backbone/backhaul service, not end-user service), nor the price, or the availability of terminals, but it is unlikely than the existing network operators just decide to sit back and be slaughtered. They will fight back by offering higher capacity and/or lower prices in order to remain competitive and to preserve their market share. This means lower margins for everyone and that the space operators might have to settle on lower revenue than they expected.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Nibb31

[AngelLestat]

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

They absolutely do. If they are offering a service in a country, they need to abide by the rules of that country. This applies to any corporation that does business on the internet. If Amazon and Google do business in Argentina, for example, they need to abide by the laws and regulations of Argentina. The same is true for any operator. 

I said this:  "they can also avoid some taxes that normal companies can't. ".  And that is true.

Installing km of optic wire and antennas, each one with its respective permission and dealing with different tax prices depending the country and with locals that might be not too happy to have an antenna at 100m from their houses.
All this requires a lot of time and money from the company until they reach an agreement, and they have a lot of surface activities with a lot of tax associated.
The other way is easier... you wanted or not?  The sats are already flying above you,  extra competence might force local companies to reduce their prices. 

Quote

What matters is where the people are. You'll find that those red areas cover probably 90% of human activity in the country, which is why operators do not invest in the 10% that's left. Sure, it's great that the 10% of people in those areas get the option of fast internet, but it remains a niche service for a small market volume.

Which it take us to the next point, these "surface" companies will only provide service in dense populated zones, because build km of network in places where the population density is low, is a waste of money. So these companies can not compete in those locations.
And again... So what if is a niche service?  any internet provider is a niche because they all work locally, and you may have more than 50000 providers in the world.. all with their small niche. In this case you have your constellation with a user limits, if that number is enough to cover the investment and provide profit, then fine.. you do that.  

Quote

We don't know what sort of service these constellations will be offering (many speculate that they will be providing backbone/backhaul service, not end-user service), nor the price, or the availability of terminals, but it is unlikely than the existing network operators just decide to sit back and be slaughtered. They will fight back by offering higher capacity and/or lower prices in order to remain competitive and to preserve their market share. This means lower margins for everyone and that the space operators might have to settle on lower revenue than they expected.

They will provide end user service, that is the main idea for all the companies. You may have some fast point access over the globe, this may be using the same 4g or using lasers, which they would also work to release congestion and speed up some connections.  That is something they can also charge for.

Having just one service instead an average of different speeds is silly, that is not the best way to exploit each second of  your hardware power.
And again, both are providing different services and needs, so there is plenty of room for many space base ISP. 

Edited December 27, 2015 by AngelLestat

[magnemoe]

On 23.12.2015 at 2:02 PM, Nibb31 said:

In the aerospace industry, two units a day is mass production. Sure, it's not comparable to the volumes for cars or cell phones, but compared to the production levels of other rocket engines or even jet engines, SpaceX benefits immensely from economies of scale on two main levels: sharing the fixed costs over more units and discounts from procuring larger volumes.

Those benefits have been the major factor in allowing SpaceX to cut costs so much. Engine commonality in particular was a genius idea, because it is much cheaper to a have a production line build 10 identical engines for each rocket than to have two production lines for first and upper stage engines. 

When you start reusing boosters on a large scale, your production volumes decrease significantly, and with that decrease you lose most of those scaling benefits. They will undoubtedly still be profitable, but I don't think that the actual savings when comparing the two models are as clear-cut as many people seem to think.

You have an point here that unit price producing two engines day is far lower than if you made one each month.
However the math don't match reality. SpaceX has an significant backlog in launches. 
2 engines a day is 10 in an 5 day week so they could launch one falcon 9 each week if the rest of the production is scaled like engine production. 

They has had 20 launches since 2010 

[Nibb31]

They have a backlog because they haven't launched really many rockets. Some of that backlog (the Orbcomm constellation) comes from cancelling the Falcon 1. A backlog doesn't mean that there is a sustainable increase in launch market volume.

In the near term, they can aim for 10 launches/year, which means that they would need:

• expendable: 10 cores, 10 upper stages, 100 engines.
• disposable: 1 core, 10 upper stages, 19 engines.

A production run of 19 engines/year is going to have a much higher unit cost than a run of 100 engines/year. You will need pretty much the same factory, with the same maintenance cost, power bills, and property taxes. That expensive tooling for welding/building core stages will sit around unused for most of the year. You will need most of the same specialized workforce, with pretty much the same number of higher paid engineers and administrative workers, and a few less lower wage technicians, floor workers and handling guys. You will also pay higher procurement prices for materials, parts and supplies.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

They have a backlog because they haven't launched really many rockets. Some of that backlog (the Orbcomm constellation) comes from cancelling the Falcon 1. A backlog doesn't mean that there is a sustainable increase in launch market volume.

In the near term, they can aim for 10 launches/year, which means that they would need:

• expendable: 10 cores, 10 upper stages, 100 engines.
• disposable: 1 core, 10 upper stages, 19 engines.

A production run of 19 engines/year is going to have a much higher unit cost than a run of 100 engines/year. You will need pretty much the same factory, with the same maintenance cost, power bills, and property taxes. That expensive tooling for welding/building core stages will sit around unused for most of the year. You will need most of the same specialized workforce, with pretty much the same number of higher paid engineers and administrative workers, and a few less lower wage technicians, floor workers and handling guys. You will also pay higher procurement prices for materials, parts and supplies.

Actually, you would still likely need the same amount (or more) of both in my opinion. Seriously, look at the soot-covered rocket ore when it came back!