Matt Desch really impressed me during the 8 Iridium launches. I think the slow and careful he is referring too is when Starlink rolled back it's initial plan and coverage to just the US. Get the revenue stream turned on and then get more birds up and more licenses in different countries.Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 03/29/2020 03:52 pmNote: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.I think they were only a sort of harassing player that adds friction but no value - not the kind of peer competition you want.At least this way SL will pick up some additional early customers, and since Musk always acts as if there's a competitor breathing down his neck, I don't see much harm in OneWeb's demise.
Note: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/29/2020 04:09 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 03/29/2020 03:52 pmNote: It's a shame about Oneweb filing bankruptcy. It would be good to have more competition.I don't think they were really ever a credible competitor, and their failure to raise more money at this relatively early stage is evidence of that.I think they were only a sort of harassing player that adds friction but no value - not the kind of peer competition you want.At least this way SL will pick up some additional early customers, and since Musk always acts as if there's a competitor breathing down his neck, I don't see much harm in OneWeb's demise.Seems like OneWeb might present a shortcut for Bezos in terms of licensing if not technology - speaking of harassment competitors.
Needless to say, Starlink is a gigantic overhang to the industry and until what happens to that project is clear, people maybe apprehensive about doing any deals.
Tom Choi gave an interesting interview to Via Satellite about OneWeb's bankruptcy, in which he also criticized Starlink. He said LEO broadband was a bad idea that keeps harming the satellite industry. He focused specifically on the user terminal cost.User terminals seem to me to be a more tractable problem for Musk, Inc. Musk is starting to manufacture in a market that is only about one order of magnitude greater than his past experience.That said, Choi is an interesting character with interesting views, so it was an enjoyable read.Quote from: Tom ChoiNeedless to say, Starlink is a gigantic overhang to the industry and until what happens to that project is clear, people maybe apprehensive about doing any deals.https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/03/31/tom-choi-onewebs-failure-will-dent-newspace-investment/
Today you can build affordable GEO (High Throughput Satellites) HTS at one-tenth the capacity cost vs. LEO broadband. Just what problem are they solving?
The first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue.
QuoteThe first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.Musk: Then that's what we'll do.
Quote from: niwax on 04/01/2020 04:53 pmQuoteThe first company that has a sub-$100 terminal, that doesn’t require commercial power, works all the time and can charge 10 cents per gigabyte will connect the 3.5 billion people. Until your technology does that please do not start and tell the world you are smarter than us.Reminds me of this recent conversation (paraphrased):Zubrin: To make this much fuel, you'd need acres of solar panels.Musk: Then that's what we'll do.To be fair the solution to the "acres of solar panels" problem is obvious because of the designed cargo capability of Starship, it is not obvious Starlink design would result in sub-$100 terminals. The good news is Starlink doesn't need sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte or reaching 3.5 billion people to be profitable. Also does HTS GEO satellites actually have sub-$100 terminal or 10 cents per gigabyte? I don't think that's the case.
Quote from: Asteroza on 04/01/2020 11:58 pmThe workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. What is the actual bandwidth on Lynk? I thought the problem with 4G/5G directly to space is that the bandwidth is barely enough for text messages. That's just not the business that Starlink wants to be in -- they want to provide internet.
The workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).
Quote from: Asteroza on 04/01/2020 11:58 pmThe workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.
Quote from: OTV Booster on 04/02/2020 03:03 pmQuote from: Asteroza on 04/01/2020 11:58 pmThe workaround to the custom/low cost terminal problem currently is to use the tricks being employed by either Lynk.Global or AST&Science's SpaceMobile, and do direct space 4G/5G so customers can use existing equipment more or less, but that faces a different frequency allocation issue. Though Musk would probably favor a flying tower system more like Lynk to make good use of satellite interconnects, rather than a bent pipe relay like SpaceMobile, and he would likely avoid voice/telephony and go pure data to avoid all the complications that come with POTS interconnection (including CALEA type tapping).In the end, telephony is data. CALEA issues are the responsibility of the service provider; Skype and whoever, not the backbone.SpaceX will need to provide telephone service if they want FCC rural broadband subsidy.