Quote from: quanthasaquality on 01/19/2015 11:50 amI 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.
I guess this is the successor thread to "SpaceX - now a satellite vendor?"
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.
As I see it the only advantage a MEO or LEO constellation has over GEO sats is the latency.
Quote from: Oli on 01/19/2015 09:08 amAs 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.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/19/2015 11:08 amFH 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.
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 the essence of his system is com laser links between the satellites of the constellation. This is a complete
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 01/19/2015 12:00 pmQuote from: quanthasaquality on 01/19/2015 11:50 amI 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.
Quote from: Ludus on 01/30/2015 06:06 amEven 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.
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.
Quote from: Ludus on 01/30/2015 06:06 amI 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.
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.