Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/10/2017 06:09 pmJust so long as you keep launching from that location. It makes more sense when you write more than one sentence
Just so long as you keep launching from that location.
Although I'll add my normal reminder that the SpaceX constellation isn't polar and a majority of it doesn't need to launch from Vandenberg.edit: it also remains to be seen how reliable satellite internet will be at different frequencies as they move more to Ka and V bands.
With telcos, they'd think in terms of decades (at one time when it was the Bell System they were thinking of 50 year asset/location cycles!). One of the reasons that it cost $384B to do third gen cell technology was to write off the second gen, buy/deploy the third, and enter service across the service area (with AT&T, they consolidate two different networks - "orange" and "blue"). For that amount of capital, you could constantly refresh a constellation, getting your core/edge upgraded the same and just concurrently cycle (serpentine) through an architecture as it goes 10x, 100x, 1000x in aggregate bandwidth (instead of the piddling 20x of the 2nd-3rd gen step up).
Quote from: blasphemer on 09/08/2017 07:01 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/08/2017 06:38 pmDead wrong and total nonsense. Ed nailed it. Don't need these types of posts. It is much like political parties talking about each other. A lot of rhetoric and no real truth.Excerpt from Elon Musk biography:Quote"In addition to building its own engines, rocket bodies, and capsules, SpaceX designs its own motherboards and circuits, sensors to detect vibrations, flight computers, and solar panels," Vance wrote. "The cost savings for a homemade radio are dramatic, dropping from between $50,000 to $100,000 for the industrial-grade equipment used by aerospace companies to $5,000 for SpaceX's unit." So I stand by my statement. The question is "Why is space so expensive" and I do not think the answer would be complete without mentioning this aspect. You can call it rhetoric, but it needs to be mentioned.It's a lot cheaper to pay your own staff to do R&D and low rate production than buy it from someone else. Assuming your company has the resources to do the work in house, which can cost a lot of money. I bet the $5,000 per unit cost doesn't include the investment to be able to do the work at SpaceX.
Quote from: Jim on 09/08/2017 06:38 pmDead wrong and total nonsense. Ed nailed it. Don't need these types of posts. It is much like political parties talking about each other. A lot of rhetoric and no real truth.Excerpt from Elon Musk biography:Quote"In addition to building its own engines, rocket bodies, and capsules, SpaceX designs its own motherboards and circuits, sensors to detect vibrations, flight computers, and solar panels," Vance wrote. "The cost savings for a homemade radio are dramatic, dropping from between $50,000 to $100,000 for the industrial-grade equipment used by aerospace companies to $5,000 for SpaceX's unit." So I stand by my statement. The question is "Why is space so expensive" and I do not think the answer would be complete without mentioning this aspect. You can call it rhetoric, but it needs to be mentioned.
Dead wrong and total nonsense. Ed nailed it. Don't need these types of posts. It is much like political parties talking about each other. A lot of rhetoric and no real truth.
"In addition to building its own engines, rocket bodies, and capsules, SpaceX designs its own motherboards and circuits, sensors to detect vibrations, flight computers, and solar panels," Vance wrote. "The cost savings for a homemade radio are dramatic, dropping from between $50,000 to $100,000 for the industrial-grade equipment used by aerospace companies to $5,000 for SpaceX's unit."
Quote from: blasphemer on 09/08/2017 07:01 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/08/2017 06:38 pmDead wrong and total nonsense. Ed nailed it. Don't need these types of posts. It is much like political parties talking about each other. A lot of rhetoric and no real truth.Excerpt from Elon Musk biography:Quote"In addition to building its own engines, rocket bodies, and capsules, SpaceX designs its own motherboards and circuits, sensors to detect vibrations, flight computers, and solar panels," Vance wrote. "The cost savings for a homemade radio are dramatic, dropping from between $50,000 to $100,000 for the industrial-grade equipment used by aerospace companies to $5,000 for SpaceX's unit." So I stand by my statement. The question is "Why is space so expensive" and I do not think the answer would be complete without mentioning this aspect. You can call it rhetoric, but it needs to be mentioned.You do know that SpaceX has acknowledge that it spent, or is spending, a cool $1 billion just to develop first stage recovery? - Ed Kyle
You do know that SpaceX has acknowledge that it spent, or is spending, a cool $1 billion just to develop first stage recovery? Given that number, it seems likely that Falcon 9 itself has and is costing multiple billions of dollars to develop. Don't kid yourself about what this stuff costs. SpaceX may have found a more cost-efficient path to develop its big rockets than others, but it still isn't cheap!
Judging by the Air Force AR1 and Raptor contracts, traditional staffing an engine R&D engine development costs about a half order of magnitude more than lean staffing. Of course, there's a difference in what the Air Force will obtain: well understood technology main engine v. novel technology sub-scale upper stage engine.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 09/10/2017 10:42 pmJudging by the Air Force AR1 and Raptor contracts, traditional staffing an engine R&D engine development costs about a half order of magnitude more than lean staffing. Of course, there's a difference in what the Air Force will obtain: well understood technology main engine v. novel technology sub-scale upper stage engine.SpaceX was building Raptor anyway and asked for a much smaller percentage of the development cost from the government. (It also has a potentially useful side effect of giving the government some insight into the development if SpaceX wants to get a Raptor based vehicle certified later).
You do know that SpaceX has acknowledge that it spent, or is spending, a cool $1 billion just to develop first stage recovery? Given that number, it seems likely that Falcon 9 itself has and is costing multiple billions of dollars to develop. Don't kid yourself about what this stuff costs. SpaceX may have found a more cost-efficient path to develop its big rockets than others, but it still isn't cheap! - Ed Kyle
The only way to compete with constellations are with a overwhelming technology on orbit approach that doesn't care about long term reliability (because you keep on shoveling sats when needed), but does care about maximum yield (aggregate bandwidth) from the constellation, where you assume sat/launch costs are cheap/disposable. If you get them wrong it doesn't matter because the next salvo does better and eventually you win.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/10/2017 06:09 pmThe only way to compete with constellations are with a overwhelming technology on orbit approach that doesn't care about long term reliability (because you keep on shoveling sats when needed), but does care about maximum yield (aggregate bandwidth) from the constellation, where you assume sat/launch costs are cheap/disposable. If you get them wrong it doesn't matter because the next salvo does better and eventually you win.But keep in mind the underlying assumptions.1)There is an unmet demand for the services that the constellation supplies and the way in which it supplies it. It's possible to supply internet access from a comm sat in GEO, but unless you have very special needs it's the connection of very last resort for most people. 2)That demand is growing at a rate that will justify that growth in bandwidth. If those are correct you're right. I think satellite delivered services can be done better (both in bandwidth and costs) but as usual there's an army of Satan's little helpers lurking in the details.
Internet demand is growing much faster than any space-based capacity could hope to cover. Old, expensive, slow internet from GEO is on its way out...
But keep in mind the underlying assumptions.1)There is an unmet demand for the services that the constellation supplies and the way in which it supplies it. It's possible to supply internet access from a comm sat in GEO, but unless you have very special needs it's the connection of very last resort for most people. 2)That demand is growing at a rate that will justify that growth in bandwidth. If those are correct you're right. I think satellite delivered services can be done better (both in bandwidth and costs) but as usual there's an army of Satan's little helpers lurking in the details.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/11/2017 10:57 amInternet demand is growing much faster than any space-based capacity could hope to cover. Old, expensive, slow internet from GEO is on its way out...To be replaced with new, expensive, slow internet from LEO!
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 09/11/2017 02:06 pmQuote from: AncientU on 09/11/2017 10:57 amInternet demand is growing much faster than any space-based capacity could hope to cover. Old, expensive, slow internet from GEO is on its way out...To be replaced with new, expensive, slow internet from LEO!Wrong.Faster, more reliable, greater volume, <130msec latency, ... eventually lower cost than ground internet. (If the correct investments/deployments/buyouts are made, you could get <80msec latency continental service on the ground.)Long term expect surface networks to optimize latency (for trading). (Originally, believe it or not, Enron (yes that one) wanted to do an optimized latency internet service, close to speed of light limited, using MEMS/other "cut through" switching - was too early.)Space routed core/peering via constellations will have the fastest to deploy latest improvements , moving to a 14-15 month cycle, ahead of consumer devices, becoming a Cisco+service provider vertical industry, until the technology slows down (if ever). Perhaps direct to consumer sometime, but that part's cloudy at the moment, as it is, the base station/metro will become the dominate "edge", less priced by location due to all sky hand off.The internet is eating telco/cable/all comm services slowly. Hugely profitable industries are the chief focus of internet disruption. You'll end up with a $10T+ global service provider market - it's the one to own.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/11/2017 05:09 pmQuote from: rayleighscatter on 09/11/2017 02:06 pmQuote from: AncientU on 09/11/2017 10:57 amInternet demand is growing much faster than any space-based capacity could hope to cover. Old, expensive, slow internet from GEO is on its way out...To be replaced with new, expensive, slow internet from LEO!Wrong.Faster, more reliable, greater volume, <130msec latency, ... eventually lower cost than ground internet. (If the correct investments/deployments/buyouts are made, you could get <80msec latency continental service on the ground.)Long term expect surface networks to optimize latency (for trading). (Originally, believe it or not, Enron (yes that one) wanted to do an optimized latency internet service, close to speed of light limited, using MEMS/other "cut through" switching - was too early.)Space routed core/peering via constellations will have the fastest to deploy latest improvements , moving to a 14-15 month cycle, ahead of consumer devices, becoming a Cisco+service provider vertical industry, until the technology slows down (if ever). Perhaps direct to consumer sometime, but that part's cloudy at the moment, as it is, the base station/metro will become the dominate "edge", less priced by location due to all sky hand off.The internet is eating telco/cable/all comm services slowly. Hugely profitable industries are the chief focus of internet disruption. You'll end up with a $10T+ global service provider market - it's the one to own.Right, all true of GEO as well. New names, same promises.
I skimmed the thread and I didn't see anyone talk about this: A big part of the reason that (aero)space is so expensive comes down to one word: traceability. ..
Quote from: john smith 19 on 09/11/2017 06:43 amBut keep in mind the underlying assumptions.1)There is an unmet demand for the services that the constellation supplies and the way in which it supplies it. It's possible to supply internet access from a comm sat in GEO, but unless you have very special needs it's the connection of very last resort for most people. 2)That demand is growing at a rate that will justify that growth in bandwidth. If those are correct you're right. I think satellite delivered services can be done better (both in bandwidth and costs) but as usual there's an army of Satan's little helpers lurking in the details.Both of these assumptions are risky at this point. If they are priced competitively, there is little doubt that LEO constellations will replace current satellite internet services for users such as:- homes in remote locations- ships and aircraft- satphonesHowever, these are relatively small niche markets, which is proven by the fact that the large internet/mobile operators have pretty much ignored those markets. These are not the trillion dollar markets that will allow you build satellites and fund Mars colonies.The largest part of the telecom market is the one that is covered by the established telecom industry. In most countries, national telecom companies are among the largest employers and are therefore extremely influential.That industry is not going to sit and wait for SpaceX or OneWeb to steal the market from under their feet. They will do everything they can to remain competitive on land-based wireless and cable. They have a huge established infrastructure, are capable of very aggressive pricing, and will be introducing 5G networks by the time these constellations start to go online. Remember also that the constellation operators will need to address a global market, where they will be competing against domestic operators, who will often have strong political support.I think it will be extremely difficult for SpaceX or Oneweb to penetrate the traditional ISP and mobile carrier markets. Those operators will do everything they can to contain constellation comms in their niche markets.
SpaceX intends to create the demand necessary for a large RLV by developing their megaconstellation.