Amazon Project Kuiper Broadband Constellation

[meekGee]

<snip>
Starlink launched, what, 80 times last year?
Probably at least another 100 times this year?

How is Kuiper going to match that?  Not with a handful of Atlas or Vulcan launches.  Even NG can't compete, and by the time NG flies, Starship will too.

I just can't aeesee a path for Kuiper to compete.

Ye of little imagination. One of the possible path forward for Kuiper is to book many flights on customized Kuiper Deployment Starships to deployed their LEO constellation.

SpaceX as a Spacing Guild (Western commercial launch provider with almost monopoly status by tonnage lofted to orbit) can not turn down a paying customer, if said customer is willing to fund the development and production of a Starship variant.

It is a win-win for almost everybody. Amazon able to deployed their constellation more or less on schedule, while avoiding further shareholder lawsuits. SpaceX gets bundles of cash and lobbying help. The consumer will likely be offer better internet access deals. Other LEO satcom constellations could also deployed and replenished their constellation with Starship. The only loser will be some bald guy who make bad presumptions and bad program implementation choices, have to suffer the indignity of being "rescue" by his arch rival.

Yes agreed.  But so far they poignantly ignorant SpaceX launch options.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
I just can't aeesee a path for Kuiper to compete.

Ye of little imagination. One of the possible path forward for Kuiper is to book many flights on customized Kuiper Deployment Starships to deployed their LEO constellation.
<snip>

A custom Starship seems like a lot of extra work. Simpler to just purchase Starlink V.2 Satellites from SpaceX and use them as Kuiper satellites instead of building their own.

Unlikely that SpaceX will sell Starlink comsats to anyone.

One of the customization option is have a cheap expendable Starship variant with a really big payload fairing. This temporary option will likely get more payload mass to orbit than a regular Starship.

Another customization option is to adapted the Starlink Pez Dispenser deployment method to a different satcom form factor.

An unlikely option is for Amazon to be the inaugural customer for the Chomper Starship variant.

There are many customization options available, that Amazon can choose from and pay for development. Amazon have the money and a regulatory Constellation deployment deadline to meet.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>But so far they poignantly ignorant SpaceX launch options.

Not at all. Amazon already book three Falcon 9 launches with likely more later if they retain their launch capability shortfall with Ariane 6 and Vulcan.

[ulm_atms]

<snip>But so far they poignantly ignorant SpaceX launch options.

Not at all. Amazon already book three Falcon 9 launches with likely more later if they retain their launch capability shortfall with Ariane 6 and Vulcan.

They did that to shut up that shareholder lawsuit and they would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.  Saying no SpaceX for years and only purchasing a few once the shareholders started complaining....please.

They are going to have to get over themselves though if they hope to meet these upcoming deadlines.  IMO they best get started on the FCC extension paperwork however...

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>But so far they poignantly ignorant SpaceX launch options.

Not at all. Amazon already book three Falcon 9 launches with likely more later if they retain their launch capability shortfall with Ariane 6 and Vulcan.

They did that to shut up that shareholder lawsuit and they would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.  Saying no SpaceX for years and only purchasing a few once the shareholders started complaining....please.

They are going to have to get over themselves though if they hope to meet these upcoming deadlines.  IMO they best get started on the FCC extension paperwork however...

Agree. But Amazon was counting on SpaceX's launch competitors to show up, not unrealistically.

However now everyone with launch capacity shortfall calls on Hawthorne for relief with no exceptions. As there are no good alternative options.

Unlikely that the FCC will give out Constellation deployment extension for anyone. As that make their deadlines meaningless.

[markbike528cbx]

……..big snip………
However now everyone with launch capacity shortfall calls on Hawthorne for relief with no exceptions. As there are no good alternative options.

Unlikely that the FCC will give out Constellation deployment extension for anyone. As that make their deadlines meaningless.

The ITU also has a say.
https://spacenews.com/seeking-regulatory-mercy-the-case-for-extending-constellation-deployment-deadlines/
The ITU also has granted some relief
https://spacenews.com/rivada-gets-more-breathing-room-to-deploy-constellation/#:~:text=The%20venture%20must%20deploy%2050,losing%20priority%20Ka%2Dband%20spectrum.

[DanClemmensen]

<snip>
I just can't aeesee a path for Kuiper to compete.

Ye of little imagination. One of the possible path forward for Kuiper is to book many flights on customized Kuiper Deployment Starships to deployed their LEO constellation.
<snip>

A custom Starship seems like a lot of extra work. Simpler to just purchase Starlink V.2 Satellites from SpaceX and use them as Kuiper satellites instead of building their own.

Unlikely that SpaceX will sell Starlink comsats to anyone.

One of the customization option is have a cheap expendable Starship variant with a really big payload fairing. This temporary option will likely get more payload mass to orbit than a regular Starship.

Another customization option is to adapted the Starlink Pez Dispenser deployment method to a different satcom form factor.

An unlikely option is for Amazon to be the inaugural customer for the Chomper Starship variant.

There are many customization options available, that Amazon can choose from and pay for development. Amazon have the money and a regulatory Constellation deployment deadline to meet.

Sorry, my post was tongue-in-cheek. However, if Amazon truly wants a constellation of their own instead of paying for Starlink services, then the only way I see to do it quickly is to contract with SpaceX to build and launch it using Starlink hardware.

[DanClemmensen]

<snip>But so far they poignantly ignorant SpaceX launch options.

Not at all. Amazon already book three Falcon 9 launches with likely more later if they retain their launch capability shortfall with Ariane 6 and Vulcan.

They did that to shut up that shareholder lawsuit and they would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.  Saying no SpaceX for years and only purchasing a few once the shareholders started complaining....please.

They are going to have to get over themselves though if they hope to meet these upcoming deadlines.  IMO they best get started on the FCC extension paperwork however...

It looked to me like the contract for the three F9s was intended to make up for the LV shortfall, and was calculated as just enough to allow them to make the July 30 2026 deadline. But they still accepted the new revised launch schedules for Vulcan Centaur, Ariane 6, and New Glenn. Another triumph of hope over experience. If there are further LV slips, they will need more F9s.

However, the F9 launches are apparently scheduled for 2026, which I find puzzling. They need to start launching as soon as they finish the test evaluation and any resulting design tweaks, so the F9 launches should start this year, immediately after the Atlas V launches or in parallel with them. They are running  out of  time. There are 10+12+7=29 months until the deadline to launch 1618 satellites, which is 56 satellites/month if they can start in March 2024.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
I just can't aeesee a path for Kuiper to compete.

Ye of little imagination. One of the possible path forward for Kuiper is to book many flights on customized Kuiper Deployment Starships to deployed their LEO constellation.
<snip>

A custom Starship seems like a lot of extra work. Simpler to just purchase Starlink V.2 Satellites from SpaceX and use them as Kuiper satellites instead of building their own.

<snip>
There are many customization options available, that Amazon can choose from and pay for development. Amazon have the money and a regulatory Constellation deployment deadline to meet.

Sorry, my post was tongue-in-cheek. However, if Amazon truly wants a constellation of their own instead of paying for Starlink services, then the only way I see to do it quickly is to contract with SpaceX to build and launch it using Starlink hardware.

Yeah, I know it is suppose to be a frivolous reply.

However it brings up how Amazon will go about using Starship for deploying KuiperSats by the regulatory deadline. 

[RedLineTrain]

<snip>But so far they poignantly ignorant SpaceX launch options.

Not at all. Amazon already book three Falcon 9 launches with likely more later if they retain their launch capability shortfall with Ariane 6 and Vulcan.

They did that to shut up that shareholder lawsuit and they would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.  Saying no SpaceX for years and only purchasing a few once the shareholders started complaining....please.

They are going to have to get over themselves though if they hope to meet these upcoming deadlines.  IMO they best get started on the FCC extension paperwork however...

It looked to me like the contract for the three F9s was intended to make up for the LV shortfall, and was calculated as just enough to allow them to make the July 30 2026 deadline. But they still accepted the new revised launch schedules for Vulcan Centaur, Ariane 6, and New Glenn. Another triumph of hope over experience. If there are further LV slips, they will need more F9s.

However, the F9 launches are apparently scheduled for 2026, which I find puzzling. They need to start launching as soon as they finish the test evaluation and any resulting design tweaks, so the F9 launches should start this year, immediately after the Atlas V launches or in parallel with them. They are running  out of  time. There are 10+12+7=29 months until the deadline to launch 1618 satellites, which is 56 satellites/month if they can start in March 2024.

Nobody should care about the deadline.  It won't matter.  Amazon should care about getting its megaconstellation launched with all possible haste because it makes extreme business sense.

[RedLineTrain]

Warning: May contain sports analogy.

SpaceX fired the quarterback of its satellite team. Kuiper has to win the Super Bowl with a castoff QB they picked up. The castoff knows a lot about their old team, has been down the road, but are they realistically going to win it all?

Not just the QB.  The whole team except the o-line and d-line was cast off.

[DanClemmensen]

Nobody should care about the deadline.  It won't matter.  Amazon should care about getting its megaconstellation launched with all possible haste because it makes extreme business sense.

I agree that their business case would require an aggressive schedule even if no FCC deadline existed. However, I think the deadline is very real and Amazon will face a lot of pushback if they file for an extension. Do you feel that an extension would be granted? If so, why? I do not have much insight into FCC extensions. The satcomms companies I worked with tended to take them very seriously.

[meekGee]

&lt;snip&gt;But so far they poignantly ignorant SpaceX launch options.

Not at all. Amazon already book three Falcon 9 launches with likely more later if they retain their launch capability shortfall with Ariane 6 and Vulcan.

Oh that's right, I stand corrected on that.

But still, as pointed to upthread, this was a late and minimal effort. The main contract went to alternatives which are either more expensive or have no track record. Or both.

Kuiper is behaving as if the FCC deadline extension is a done deal, and as if market timing doesn't matter.

Boils down to the same thing.

And irrespective, it still stands, without Starship-level coat and volume, Kuiper can't compete even if it were caught up.  Add the 5 year timeline gap, and it's a non-starter.

[RedLineTrain]

Nobody should care about the deadline.  It won't matter.  Amazon should care about getting its megaconstellation launched with all possible haste because it makes extreme business sense.

I agree that their business case would require an aggressive schedule even if no FCC deadline existed. However, I think the deadline is very real and Amazon will face a lot of pushback if they file for an extension. Do you feel that an extension would be granted? If so, why? I do not have much insight into FCC extensions. The satcomms companies I worked with tended to take them very seriously.

In theory, it is an issue.  But it would make no sense for the FCC to be extremely strict with Amazon in this case.  The whole administrative apparatus in DC wants Starlink to have some competition and Amazon is a good, strong, credible company.

You could look at it this way.  It would make sense for the FCC to grant a short extension on Telesat and Starlink's v-band, given that they know a similar request will be coming from Kuiper.

[tssp_art]

Nobody should care about the deadline.  It won't matter.  Amazon should care about getting its megaconstellation launched with all possible haste because it makes extreme business sense.

I agree that their business case would require an aggressive schedule even if no FCC deadline existed. However, I think the deadline is very real and Amazon will face a lot of pushback if they file for an extension. Do you feel that an extension would be granted? If so, why? I do not have much insight into FCC extensions. The satcomms companies I worked with tended to take them very seriously.

In theory, it is an issue.  But it would make no sense for the FCC to be extremely strict with Amazon in this case.  The whole administrative apparatus in DC wants Starlink to have some competition and Amazon is a good, strong, credible company.

You could look at it this way.  It would make sense for the FCC to grant a short extension on Telesat and Starlink's v-band, given that they know a similar request will be coming from Kuiper.

This is not an issue of the FCC deciding (or not) to be "extremely strict". This is a combination of two FCC rules that does not allow any discretion. The rules that govern the FCC specific activities are Title 47 in the CFR. The first relevant rule one is the one that establishes the milestones of 50% and 100% deployment in six and nine years respectively:

§ 25.164 Milestones. (b)(1)
The recipient of an initial authorization for an NGSO satellite system, other than an SDARS system, must launch 50 percent of the maximum number of space stations authorized for service, place them in their assigned orbits, and operate them in accordance with the station authorization no later than 6 years after the grant of the authorization, unless a different schedule is established by Title 47, Chapter I.

The second relevant rule is the one that establishes the automatic penalty for not meeting the milestone(s). For clarification, the FCC gives authorization for each individual "station" (satellite). So it says that failure to meet a milestone will cause automatic termination of authorization for satellites not yet launched.

§ 25.161 Automatic termination of station authorization.
A station authorization shall be automatically terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee upon:

(a)(1) The failure to meet an applicable milestone specified in § 25.164(a) or (b), if no authorized space station is functional in orbit;

(a)(2) The failure to meet an applicable milestone specified in § 25.164(b)(1) or (2), if at least one authorized space station is functional in an authorized orbit, which failure will result in the termination of authority for the space stations not in orbit as of the milestone date, but allow for technically identical replacements;

Note the lack of discretion in these rules. The constellation provider "must launch 50 percent"of the constellation by the 6 year deadline. And in the second rule, failure to meet the deadline means the authorization (to launch more satellites) "shall be automatically terminated".

Not a lot of wiggle room here. And yes, they can apply for an extension. But the only applications for similar extensions that have been granted have been for the "extraordinary circumstances" of supply chain shortfalls caused by Covid-19. Launch delays caused by choosing less capable launch partners and not using the world's launch leader, would likely not get much of a sympathetic hearing. 

Violation of these rules by the Government is just as serious (and undesirable) as violation by an individual or a corporation.

[deltaV]

But the only applications for similar extensions that have been granted have been for the "extraordinary circumstances" of supply chain shortfalls caused by Covid-19. Launch delays caused by choosing less capable launch partners and not using the world's launch leader, would likely not get much of a sympathetic hearing.

ISTM that Amazon has a pretty good case for an extension assuming that enough of their satellites are ready to make launch vehicles the primary cause of the delay. They contracted early on with three different launch providers (ULA, Blue Origin, Arianspace). One of them having ~4 year delays in their new launch vehicles is to be expected but all three having that much delay seems surprising. (However this is based on my intuition, not data on historical delays, so it's possible the industry is even worse than I think and this should have been expected.) It's reasonable that Amazon only considered buying launches from their primary competitor (SpaceX) as a last resort.

[litton4]

But the only applications for similar extensions that have been granted have been for the "extraordinary circumstances" of supply chain shortfalls caused by Covid-19. Launch delays caused by choosing less capable launch partners and not using the world's launch leader, would likely not get much of a sympathetic hearing.

ISTM that Amazon has a pretty good case for an extension assuming that enough of their satellites are ready to make launch vehicles the primary cause of the delay. They contracted early on with three different launch providers (ULA, Blue Origin, Arianspace). One of them having ~4 year delays in their new launch vehicles is to be expected but all three having that much delay seems surprising. (However this is based on my intuition, not data on historical delays, so it's possible the industry is even worse than I think and this should have been expected.) It's reasonable that Amazon only considered buying launches from their primary competitor (SpaceX) as a last resort.

I would disagree - all the providers have new launch vehicles, with the remaining half of one being an end of life launcher.
To compound this the other half provider was reliant on one of the other providers coming forward with a new engine.
This they knew in advance, so rolled the dice and lost.
I wouldn't say this makes for a good case.
If they had chosen another established provider with no eol in sight, the argument might have been different.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

But the only applications for similar extensions that have been granted have been for the "extraordinary circumstances" of supply chain shortfalls caused by Covid-19. Launch delays caused by choosing less capable launch partners and not using the world's launch leader, would likely not get much of a sympathetic hearing.

ISTM that Amazon has a pretty good case for an extension assuming that enough of their satellites are ready to make launch vehicles the primary cause of the delay. They contracted early on with three different launch providers (ULA, Blue Origin, Arianspace). One of them having ~4 year delays in their new launch vehicles is to be expected but all three having that much delay seems surprising. (However this is based on my intuition, not data on historical delays, so it's possible the industry is even worse than I think and this should have been expected.) It's reasonable that Amazon only considered buying launches from their primary competitor (SpaceX) as a last resort.

Yes they have a good case, but they don’t have a guarantee. It is also a decision that will be made under a new administration of unknown character.

The likelihood of an extension is debatable. The fact is that this is one of many significant items on the programme risk register.

[deltaV]

If they had chosen another established provider with no eol in sight, the argument might have been different.

There were no options for established launch vehicles with no EOL from western-friendly countries large enough to be cost effective other than Falcon. I don't think one should blame them for not picking a good option when there weren't any good options available.

[RedLineTrain]

This is not an issue of the FCC deciding (or not) to be "extremely strict". This is a combination of two FCC rules that does not allow any discretion. The rules that govern the FCC specific activities are Title 47 in the CFR. The first relevant rule one is the one that establishes the milestones of 50% and 100% deployment in six and nine years respectively:

The FCC made these rules and the FCC has all the power needed to bend them a bit if it's in the public interest.  It's easy to argue in this case that it is in the public interest for Kuiper to be allowed its full constellation.  The FCC wants as much competition here as possible.