Author Topic: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison  (Read 119710 times)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #20 on: 01/19/2015 05:06 pm »
Everything I read on the Oneweb stuff (aside from the Virgin Galactic web site) said around $2B initial constellation including launch, and most satellites not launching on Virgin Galactic.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #21 on: 01/19/2015 05:44 pm »
I guess this is the successor thread to   "SpaceX - now a satellite vendor?"

I want this to be a thread specifically comparing the two systems, using hard information rather than speculation.

IMO there should be two other threads devoted to discussion and speculation about the individual systems.

Off topic, but I try to avoid the SpaceX section of this forum whenever possible.


Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #22 on: 01/19/2015 06:15 pm »
Everything I read on the Oneweb stuff (aside from the Virgin Galactic web site) said around $2B initial constellation including launch, and most satellites not launching on Virgin Galactic.
This would make sense, but other than posts on NSF, I did not see those - can you point to specific sources?
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #23 on: 01/21/2015 09:47 pm »
Data bandwidth per satelite is a value related to available power from the primary source of solar arrays.  If you increase the weight by a factor of 2 then the data bandwidth capability increases by a factor of 2 also.  So SpaceX would be an ~16Gb per sat system with sat to sat comm channels of some sort likely optical eventually but could initially be RF.

From an agregate standpoint of what is the max data bandwidth between continents such as north america and south america its a function of number of sats over the continent.  South america is smaller so the agregate max rate would be some 2.4Tb just using the 16Gb RF ground to space links.  If the sats also had ground to space optical links it would be possible to get the long haul data capabilities up to 38Tb between the two continents. RF will never be able to acomplish this on its own but will remain a end user connection method not a trunk comm.

You have to realize that the system as a whole with 16Gb per satelites represents 64Tb of world wide capability without any optical ground comm links.

A 8Gb per sat without sat to sat links even just doing a simple evaluation means that its agragate total max bandwidth as a system is only 5Tb.

Offline ScepticMatt

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #24 on: 01/21/2015 10:41 pm »
As I see it the only advantage a MEO or LEO constellation has over GEO sats is the latency.
Also a whopping ~90 db stronger signal, just from less free space loss.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #25 on: 01/21/2015 10:54 pm »
As I see it the only advantage a MEO or LEO constellation has over GEO sats is the latency.
Also a whopping ~90 db stronger signal, just from less free space loss.

Yeah I guess for GEO sats you definitely need a larger ground antenna. The ViaSat exede antennas look like standard satellite dishes though...

Regarding the latency. I read on the O3b website that they can guarantee 150ms latency, while GEO sats have 500ms+. Half a second is certainly noticeable, so I guess MEO/LEO sats definitely have an advantage there.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #26 on: 01/22/2015 02:38 am »
FH makes sense since it is cheaper per pound (cost, not price!) in the reusable mode, and since even one plane is heavy enough for it.  Of course if they choose to, they can also launch to multiple inclinations, it is just extra dv.

I think that fairing volume will be the limiting factor, possibly 20-30 satellites per launch (which would be 6-9 tonnes for 300 kg satellites).

FH payload to LEO when reusing all the 1st stage cores has not been published by SpaceX. The cost and price are unknown for such a large multi-launch order either for F9R for FHR, it is in my opinion unwise to assume that either one or other is cheaper for this application.

It is also unwise in my opinion to assume that the satellite division will be charged less than external customers for launches. They could charge the same for many reasons, not least because the satellite division may be spun off into a separate company.

Presuming SpaceX will use the Moog EELV secondary payload adapter (ESPA) ring to mount Sats of less than 182 kg each. You could filled the standard SpaceX PLF with a stack of 12 ESPA rings carrying 72 Sats. Maximum mass for the 72 Sats is 13.1 tonnes. So maybe the F9 could do the job. So about 56 flights with 72 Sats each should fully deployed the constellation.

Of course presuming SpaceX will design the Sats less than 182 kg. The maximum capacity of the individual Sat mounts on the EPSA ring.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #27 on: 01/22/2015 01:52 pm »
I may be reading too much into it but I get the impression that Elon is talking about an entirely different sort of system using different technology for a purpose that's novel. One Web is a minor extension of existing tech trying to do something very conventional a bit better and cheaper.

He mentioned more than once that the speed of light in a vacuum is significantly faster than in fiber. He specifically predicted the system would eventually take 90% of the long distance internet traffic.

I think the essence of his system is com laser links between the satellites of the constellation. This is a complete alternative internet backbone structure. It replaces and competes with terrestrial fiber. It's designed to carry vast torrents of data and be constantly upgraded to stay competitive. Using it as a direct ISP is the 10% of local traffic aspect (though in areas isolated from fiber it would dominate service).

I think the first principles he's using are that good vacuum is free 1100 km up and lasers can work with wave division multiplexing as beams in vacuum just as well as they do in fiber. The data capacity of laser beams connecting satellite nodes is as great as terrestrial fiber but for several purposes has inherent advantages. It's more efficient for 100% global surface coverage, it's faster for long distance transfers, it's easier to continuously upgrade. It's cheaper and easier to deploy as a whole system to other worlds.

So Elon is demanding frickkin sharks satellites with laser beams and he won't settle for sea bass.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #28 on: 01/22/2015 04:52 pm »
I think the essence of his system is com laser links between the satellites of the constellation. This is a complete

I've deployed a number of multi-Gbps lasers and microwave for Internet backhaul between remote wireless data towers at distances up to 40 miles.  The lasers work great- even in fog and sleet conditions.  I'm a big fan of their use- for stationary applications (see picture).

Lasers are great for bandwidth transfer, but they are lousy for communicating between small, moving targets.  Whatever active laser aiming devices they use would have to be spot on, and that adds cost and complexity if the sender and receiver are both moving- even with good timing mechanisms.  It's a gazillion times cheaper and less complicated to use a omni-directional (or several flat panels) solid state smart antenna system with beam steering to transfer data at high bit rates.

My opinion is that they'll want to eliminate some of the terrestrial hops (as other have also opined), and that they will do so with an on-orbit mesh network- but I don't think lasers are the way to go.  They can get most of the benefits of mesh architecture with radio without the added complexity of laser targeting. 

As I see it the only advantage a MEO or LEO constellation has over GEO sats is the latency.

Closer in means less amplification is needed to send and receive.  The 90dB gain between GEO and LEO was already mentioned.  The amplifiers can be briefcase sized instead of car sized.  Power generation for the amps (or lasers) can also be profoundly smaller.   That makes the whole satellite smaller and cheaper.
« Last Edit: 01/22/2015 05:01 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #29 on: 01/22/2015 08:32 pm »
Are the small moving targets you have in mind satellites in an 1100 km orbit? The precision of GPS is after all based on extreme position prediction accuracy possible for satellites.

While it might be a lot cheaper I don't think that it has the bandwidth to lead a revolution. I think Elon is focused on the enormous bandwidth [equal to fiber but faster and easier to physically upgrade] possible and is going to push his teams to solve targeting and other problems. I think this is an example of his seeing the issue as driven by the basic physics, not cost or engineering difficulties.

I have no idea if this can work, I just think it's what he has in mind. I don't know anything else that could possibly take over 90% of long distance internet traffic...essentially form an entirely new set of global internet backbones that stay ahead of terrestrial fiber advances. That is what he said it would do and it's a lot more radical that just extending broadband internet to the parts of the world that don't have it now. That would also happen as a sort of minor side effect.

Offline BuzzumFrog

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #31 on: 01/24/2015 11:00 am »
As I see it the only advantage a MEO or LEO constellation has over GEO sats is the latency.
Also a whopping ~90 db stronger signal, just from less free space loss.
Uh.....No. It's not radar. And LEO, in this case, isn't 140 miles. The difference between 250mi and Geo is 40db. 1250mi and geo would only be a 26db difference.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2015 05:27 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #32 on: 01/30/2015 05:26 am »
Just read Peter Thiel's book Zero to One. The title is distinguishing technological change that's "1 to n" or doing more of something that works and change that's zero to one, making the first thing.

In his terms One Web is 1 to n and Elon's version is zero to 1. One Web is rolling out an expanded version of O3 B. SpaceX is rolling out a system that is much more innovative and ambitious. It's more of a risk because it's unlike anything that's ever been done but it also has vastly more potential.

If One Web works as intended it will bring decent internet service by 2015 standards to places that don't have it now, which is the fulfillment of the mission Greg Wyler has been on for a long time. It will grow to be a company with a market cap in the high single digit billions and make it's investor's money.

If SpaceX constellation works as intended it will carry the majority of the worlds communication as well as competing directly in the most dense, developed and lucrative markets. It will also as a secondary matter do what One Web does though maybe not as well or as soon. As a consequence of what it does it will generate vast streams of revenue. If it works as Elon says SpaceX will have a more than trillion dollar market cap based on annual earnings above 35B at a P/E about like Google. Elon's targets would make SpaceX the most powerful and dominant player in the multi trillion dollar global telecom industry of the 2020's.

It wouldn't displace existing backbone, it would just absorb a lot of the growth in demand and provide a competitive alternative. Fiber wouldn't go dark, it would just earn somewhat less than it would otherwise. Some new fiber would still be laid but much less than would have been. The revenues though would be MUCH larger than the entire satellite industry of 2015 combined because the SpaceX constellation is playing in a new bigger market.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2015 05:38 am by Ludus »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #33 on: 01/30/2015 06:06 am »
I guess this is the successor thread to   "SpaceX - now a satellite vendor?"

I want this to be a thread specifically comparing the two systems, using hard information rather than speculation.

IMO there should be two other threads devoted to discussion and speculation about the individual systems.

Off topic, but I try to avoid the SpaceX section of this forum whenever possible.

I know my posts here may seem speculative, but given Elon's statements at the Seattle Q&A these things seem like direct implications. What else does taking more than half of global long distance Internet traffic and 10% of local mean? There's also his comments connecting this to paying for Mars colonization. A billion here and a billion there won't cut it for that. OneWeb has no prospect of earning money on the scale needed. What would? A satellite constellation that provides a new inherently faster global internet backbone, not the much more conventional architecture bridging between the existing backbone and currently underserved areas.

OneWeb provides many more conventional "hard details" because it's a very conventional system much like O3B with more sats and in polar orbits like Teledesic. I think the critical points about the SpaceX system aren't the comparable hard details (many of which are missing) but Elon's comments about performance objectives.


Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #34 on: 01/30/2015 07:00 am »
I also get the sense that the objective of the SpaceX constellation is to connect the world's ISPs and datacenters together, replacing the current system of transit providers and exchange points. This is going to compete with companies like Cogent and Equinix as well as the big telco backbone operators.

The Internet has to evolve beyond ad-hoc interconnection agreements. The whole Netflix/Verizon peering fiasco is evidence that everything is not okay with the modern Internet. In theory the Internet is a peer network, but in practice there are providers and consumers. Much more data flows from the providers to the consumers than the other way around.

These imbalances are only going to get bigger, so we need a way for a retail broadband provider like Verizon to have a big pipe for downstream traffic without having to care whether the traffic is coming from Netflix or Google or NSF. It all comes down the same pipe. Netflix shouldn't have to care whether their subscribers are on Verizon or Comcast. It all goes up one big pipe.

The SpaceX constellation offers the promise of a future in which content services can reach ISPs without their lawyers ever meeting each other, which sounds like a future worth building.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #35 on: 01/30/2015 07:11 am »
I know my posts here may seem speculative, but given Elon's statements at the Seattle Q&A these things seem like direct implications. What else does taking more than half of global long distance Internet traffic and 10% of local mean? There's also his comments connecting this to paying for Mars colonization. A billion here and a billion there won't cut it for that. OneWeb has no prospect of earning money on the scale needed. What would? A satellite constellation that provides a new inherently faster global internet backbone, not the much more conventional architecture bridging between the existing backbone and currently underserved areas.

OneWeb provides many more conventional "hard details" because it's a very conventional system much like O3B with more sats and in polar orbits like Teledesic. I think the critical points about the SpaceX system aren't the comparable hard details (many of which are missing) but Elon's comments about performance objectives.

Even if the SpaceX satellites were the same technology level 6x the number of larger sats would give an order of magnitude greater bandwidth and presumably revenue.

Elon mentioned several generations of satellites. I think it is likely that the first generation will be fairly conservative, so that they can be developed, manufactured and launched quickly. When Elon speaks about the future he is often talking about the next generation (or the one after that), so I think it possible that the 50% backbone traffic is a 3rd generation satellite goal.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #36 on: 01/30/2015 07:27 am »

Even if the SpaceX satellites were the same technology level 6x the number of larger sats would give an order of magnitude greater bandwidth and presumably revenue.

Elon mentioned several generations of satellites. I think it is likely that the first generation will be fairly conservative, so that they can be developed, manufactured and launched quickly. When Elon speaks about the future he is often talking about the next generation (or the one after that), so I think it possible that the 50% backbone traffic is a 3rd generation satellite goal.

Recall the Sats is suppose to have roughly 5 years lifespan. So that would mean about 20% of the constellation have to be replenished annually after deployment. So basically a new constellation every 5 years. Maybe with better tech every year.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #37 on: 01/30/2015 07:37 am »
I also get the sense that the objective of the SpaceX constellation is to connect the world's ISPs and datacenters together, replacing the current system of transit providers and exchange points. This is going to compete with companies like Cogent and Equinix as well as the big telco backbone operators.

I think it will also make sense to use it as the interconnect for high flying drones providing mobile services. These drones will need a very high speed connection to the internet and direct ground links are likely to be adversely affected by weather at the necessary frequencies.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #38 on: 01/30/2015 09:54 pm »
I know my posts here may seem speculative, but given Elon's statements at the Seattle Q&A these things seem like direct implications. What else does taking more than half of global long distance Internet traffic and 10% of local mean? There's also his comments connecting this to paying for Mars colonization. A billion here and a billion there won't cut it for that. OneWeb has no prospect of earning money on the scale needed. What would? A satellite constellation that provides a new inherently faster global internet backbone, not the much more conventional architecture bridging between the existing backbone and currently underserved areas.

OneWeb provides many more conventional "hard details" because it's a very conventional system much like O3B with more sats and in polar orbits like Teledesic. I think the critical points about the SpaceX system aren't the comparable hard details (many of which are missing) but Elon's comments about performance objectives.

Even if the SpaceX satellites were the same technology level 6x the number of larger sats would give an order of magnitude greater bandwidth and presumably revenue.

Elon mentioned several generations of satellites. I think it is likely that the first generation will be fairly conservative, so that they can be developed, manufactured and launched quickly. When Elon speaks about the future he is often talking about the next generation (or the one after that), so I think it possible that the 50% backbone traffic is a 3rd generation satellite goal.
That's quite possible. I have no sense how hard it will be to get Laser based inter satellite links reliably working, I just think that like rapid reusability, Elon thinks the physics first principles say it's worthwhile (and various experiments in space have established it works).

In terms of the business case it might be true that the harder it is the better. The fact that reusability was a very hard problem makes solving it a strong monopoly or what Warren Buffett would call a "moat". The same would apply for the technology that underlies a vacuum/ laser Internet backbone. As with it's other tech SpaceX is unlikely to get patents that explain the problems or how it solves them. Unlike terrestrial equipment it will be harder for competitors to get their hands on it.

The basic difference is that other constellations are about bridging between existing backbone and some underserved market. That's what Greg Wyler is into. It's what Google and Facebook are playing around with balloons and drones for. So they're all about ground to satellite links with much less attention (if any) to links between satellites. There are more satellites largely to cover more ground with lower latency.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2015 10:01 pm by Ludus »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison
« Reply #39 on: 01/30/2015 10:17 pm »
I also get the sense that the objective of the SpaceX constellation is to connect the world's ISPs and datacenters together, replacing the current system of transit providers and exchange points. This is going to compete with companies like Cogent and Equinix as well as the big telco backbone operators.

The Internet has to evolve beyond ad-hoc interconnection agreements. The whole Netflix/Verizon peering fiasco is evidence that everything is not okay with the modern Internet. In theory the Internet is a peer network, but in practice there are providers and consumers. Much more data flows from the providers to the consumers than the other way around.

These imbalances are only going to get bigger, so we need a way for a retail broadband provider like Verizon to have a big pipe for downstream traffic without having to care whether the traffic is coming from Netflix or Google or NSF. It all comes down the same pipe. Netflix shouldn't have to care whether their subscribers are on Verizon or Comcast. It all goes up one big pipe.

The SpaceX constellation offers the promise of a future in which content services can reach ISPs without their lawyers ever meeting each other, which sounds like a future worth building.

I hadn't thought about the implications for net neutrality but it does seem like it would help force the market in that direction. It might also force more competition among ISP's by making right-of-way and associated legal and political choke points less important.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0