
Google Nears $1 Billion Investment in SpaceX - Kopion
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-nears-1-billion-investment-in-spacex-1421706642
======
cft
It's quite amazing how this values SpaceX at 10bn, less than 50% of WhatsApp.
This makes me think that there's something systemically wrong with the current
incarnation of post-oligarchic shareholder-controlled short term interest
based capitalism. One can argue that WhatsApp has better money making
potential than SpaceX, but that is only because the whole system is warped.

~~~
tuna-piano
While I see your point, I think there are two important things to remember
here. (Note: I understand the long term implications of an interplanetary
species, just providing context)

A) whatsapp improves the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people. You
don't necessarily need an absurd customer lifetime value to get a $19b
valuation with that many people using your product.

B) SpaceX provides almost no current value to anybody. And the people it does
provide value to are "free riders" in the sense that they love watching space
travel and get to watch SpaceX regardless of whether or not they pay for it.

Just an inexact thought experiment. Let's say we poll the roughly 1b people
living in first world, and ask them each to pay $10 to see SpaceX do whatever
SpaceX does. How many people even think it's worth $10?

~~~
b3tta
_Let 's say we poll the roughly 1b people living in first world, and ask them
each to pay $10 to see SpaceX do whatever SpaceX does. How many people even
think it's worth $10?_

I just wan't to add that the problem is not that SpaceX provides less to
humanity than WhatsApp.

The problem is that most people are not really far-sighted, but only see
things which benefit themselves in a predictable amount of time.

Why companies like SpaceX (or NASA) are important has already been answered
with _Why Explore Space? A 1970 Letter to a Nun in Africa_

[https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-
space-...](https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-
space-a-1970-letter-to-a-nun-in-africa/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372563](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372563)

~~~
hueving
>The problem is that most people are not really far-sighted, but only see
things which benefit themselves in a predictable amount of time.

Because most people are not upper middle class to wealthy. They are forced to
be concerned about paying for food/healthcare/education so their life tends to
have different priorities.

The other problem is that your line of 'far-sighted' is completely arbitrary.
Someone could easily argue that SpaceX is wasting its time with rockets and we
should be spending more time studying theoretical physics to figure out better
ways to travel long distances in space.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Because most people are not upper middle class to wealthy. They are forced
> to be concerned about paying for food /healthcare/education so their life
> tends to have different priorities._

Which is a problem because if only they could (not that the system will let
them do that easily) stop and think a little further, in a little less selfish
way, they'd likely figure a way to improve their living conditions.

But hell, that applies also to the "upper middle class to wealthy", especially
in terms of convenience. See NIMBYsm, or people fighting tooth and nail for
their right to use cars cheaply in dense urban areas. People tend to defect
instead of cooperating, for their own demise (and of everyone else who knows
better but can't do much against an uncoordinated mob).

~~~
hueving
>Which is a problem because if only they could (not that the system will let
them do that easily) stop and think a little further, in a little less selfish
way, they'd likely figure a way to improve their living conditions.

This is a completely uninformed view of what it's like to be in this position.
Everything in life for them is essentially a borderline crisis (I witnessed my
parents going through this). Finding new jobs is extremely difficult so you
have to make major compromises to keep your current one. This is even more
important when you can't build any savings to cushion the impact of
unemployment.

What exactly do you think they can do to "stop and think a little further"?
This might be an option if you have no family to support, but otherwise it's a
ridiculous notion.

------
espitia
Having just finished watching The Men Who Built America[1], Musk reminds me so
much of the great American entrepreneurs of the last 200 years (Vanderbilt,
Rockefeller, Morgan, Ford, Carnegie). Ridiculously ambitious and fearless
entrepreneurs who literally by sheer force of will moved humanity forward.

[1][http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-
america](http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america) (available on
Netflix)

~~~
smackfu
Quite an illustrious group:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_\(industrialist\))

Just pointing out some people have a VERY different opinion of those rich men.

~~~
j-b
The origin of the term is quite interesting. From the wiki link:

 _The term robber baron derives from the medieval German lords who charged
nominally illegal tolls (tolls unauthorized by the Holy Roman Emperor) on the
primitive roads crossing their lands or the larger tolls on ships traversing
the Rhine—all such actions without adding anything of value,(see robber baron)
but instead lining one 's pockets to the detriment (added costs) of the common
good._

------
brianstorms
I've been wondering if part of this SpaceX satellite gambit is to help Tesla
Motors. Think about it: if and when there are 500,000 or a million or several
million Tesla vehicles (including the Model 3) all over the world, plus
thousands of SuperChargers, and they all need to be connected to the Net for
messaging and value-added services, then what better way than to just have 'em
connect to the SpaceX service?

Right now Tesla Model S vehicles connect via AT&T (at least in the US, don't
know what the carriers are in other countries). It's a tiny number of
"devices" connected to the network so it is probably expensive for Tesla. At
some point it gets really expensive. One assumes the Model 3 will have the
same always-on connection that the Model S/X has. Millions of Models S/X/3
around the world mean a lot of communications costs. And then there are the
SuperChargers, that will in time no doubt be communicating with cars too, to
improve the user experience.

I suspect a few million "devices" connected to the SpaceX version of global
wifi would be way cheaper than connecting to a dozen or two carriers in
countries around the world.

Just a theory.

~~~
DenisM
You're overestimating the cell connectivity costs. Amazon Kindle is
permanently on 3g/4g, and the device itself costs less than $200.

~~~
skeletonjelly
The content isn't that large, and I believe it was only free with the Keyboard
version.

~~~
stephentmcm
Still free on the new 3g enabled models. But when you say 'free' it only
allows you to browse Amazon and buy Amazon books so they just build the costs
into those... So thanks to everyone who buys eBooks on Amazon and funds my
Kindle DX's 3g connection :)

~~~
brianbreslin
amazon actually loses money on each kindle book. think about that.

~~~
notatoad
I'm pretty sure that isn't true

~~~
brianbreslin
[http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/amazon-losing-money-
on-999-e-...](http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/amazon-losing-money-
on-999-e-books/) This is outdated from 2009, but the pricing is pretty close
to this still.

------
AYBABTME
Another one not behind paywall: [http://gizmodo.com/report-googles-
finalizing-a-1-billion-inv...](http://gizmodo.com/report-googles-
finalizing-a-1-billion-investment-in-s-1680500143)

------
pcarolan
Makes me wish average joe could buy spacex stock. Willing investors shouldnt
have to be elite or accredited. Just believers and supporters of a better
future.

~~~
mikeyouse
That's all well-and-good for SpaceX but it proved to be pretty catastrophic
for the dozens of pump-and-dumps that bankrupted many Americans when we tried
that previously.

~~~
pcarolan
Certainly there's that risk. But saying that only millionaire's are 'smart
enough' to invest in private companies seems worse.

~~~
patmcc
It's not about whether they're smart or not - it's that a multimillionaire can
lose a bunch of money on a private company and not be out their retirement
savings. That's not nearly as true for the typical middle class person.

~~~
fixedd
Agreed, but I could drop a couple K on SpaceX and it wouldn't hurt me if it
disappears.... but I'm not allowed to.

~~~
hnnewguy
Are you trying to make money off of an investment of that sort, or do you
merely want to help contribute to the success of SpaceX?

If it's the latter, then there are probably far more creative ways you could
help their situation than contributing a few thousand dollars.

~~~
colordrops
Sure, but it's not the business of legislation to force him to make that
choice.

------
sidcool
I am not surprised. In one of the Ted Talks, Larry Page had clearly mentioned
that he would rather leave all his money to someone like Elon Musk than
donating to a Charity. He is going down that path.

I think this is a great move by Google.

Source:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_page_where_s_google_going_nex...](http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_page_where_s_google_going_next?language=en)

~~~
amelius
If I were him, I would put most of my money in life extension technology.

~~~
sidcool
I guess that's why he founded Calico
([http://www.calicolabs.com/](http://www.calicolabs.com/))

------
dang
We (edit: briefly) changed the url from [http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-
nears-1-billion-investmen...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-
nears-1-billion-investment-in-spacex-1421706642) because (a) this confirmation
supersedes that information and (b) paywalls lead threads off-topic.

Edit: Never mind. So many posts of the confirmed news are popping up that
there needs to be a new thread.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8919901](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8919901)
is a reasonable article and not behind a paywall, so it may as well be the
one.

------
hristov
Can someone with some experience in satellites tell us what is possible in
terms of satellite internet. For example, I really doubt most individual
people would be able to actually connect directly through satellites. If that
is the case, a satellite radio would have to detect and distinguish millions
of different simultaneous data streams. I doubt there is enough spectrum for
this.

~~~
dangrossman
HughesNet has 600,000-some subscribers. WildBlue has over 300,000. They're
satellite ISPs with 12-15mbps residential service.

~~~
skj
Generally satellite ISPs are dial-up for upload and use the satellite link
only for download.

~~~
artimaeis
I can't speak for Hughes but I was a trained tech for WildBlue /Exede. Neither
of their services have ever used dial-up for upload. While early generation
WildBlue services were fairly slow on the upload, Exede was able to push 4+
mbit to the subscriber fairly constantly.

------
sixQuarks
I'm optimistic about satellite internet done right, but I'm worried the speeds
and lag are going to make it a bit frustrating compared to fiber. In 5 years
(when this will be completed), I think virtual reality will be penetrating the
masses. Can satellite internet handle virtual meetings, virtual online gaming,
etc without major lagging?

~~~
pconner
No technological innovation can change basic physics. There will always be
propagation delay in satellite networks.

~~~
pjscott
... But there's dramatically less when you put the satellites much closer to
earth, as they're planning to do here. These are LEO satellites, not the far-
away geostationary stuff you see with older communication satellites.

~~~
vidarh
In fact, if they enable satellite to satellite communication (like e.g.
Iridium) and get full worldwide coverage, there's no reason why they couldn't
in theory delivery much shorter roundtrip times than what we get between many
locations over wired networks, given how much traffic takes huge detours today
for various reasons. E.g. lots of European traffic to parts of Asia still goes
the "long way around" via the US because it's a far better served route thanks
to massive amount of undersea capacity going in/out of the US to pretty much
everywhere, while the land routes to parts of Asia are fraught with problems.

Being able to ignore political boundaries, war zones, problems with theft and
vandalism and other concerns that often limit the placement of over-land long
distance cables has a huge potential value in itself.

------
pbiggar
It says Google inc - do they mean through Google Ventures or something
different?

~~~
mikeyouse
Google Ventures' budget is reportedly nearer $300-$500M/year so I would
imagine this is something different. There were rumblings of Satellite
internet coming out of GoogleX but this seems to fit with their new Energy /
Access group (Where Project Loon ended up) too. So my answer is that it
definitely won't maybe end up in Google Ventures.

~~~
zalzally
Google Inc. does direct investments from time to time. Also they have their
growth investment arm, Google Capital, which has invested some large sums
recently in Glassdoor, etc. (but surely not $1B in one company unless they
acquired that company). Perhaps Google Inc. is leading the investment with the
round consisting of many undisclosed players across private equity, etc.

------
jacquesm
That's effectively and end-run around the whole net-neutrality debate.

------
logn
I'm glad that net neutrality limbo doesn't actually hurt investment in
infrastructure!

Musk said the Internet access would be "unfettered certainly and at very low
cost".
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/531996243904716800](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/531996243904716800)

Hopefully there's a way around needing a satellite dish, aside from dishes
that share their connection over wi-fi.

------
pmurphyirl
I've put up some thoughts on this and Google/SpaceX' wider rationale and would
love the HN community's thoughts: [https://medium.com/@pmurphyirl/why-is-
satellite-internet-hot...](https://medium.com/@pmurphyirl/why-is-satellite-
internet-hot-right-now-31b658c76d1c)

------
rndn
What are the main target markets of this investment? Africa and Southeastern
Asia?

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Yes, and all Comcast sufferers in the US.

------
karmicthreat
Considering satellites at that altitude and quantity would be ideal for cell
handsets. I would be surprised if Apple wasn't trying to get a piece of this
action as well.

~~~
logicallee
EDIT:

Even if he wanted to, Cook doesn't have enough power at Apple, practically, to
be actually in a position to do that yet.

I mean clout. He literally can't personally decide to do that (yet) and just
do it.

The Apple watch is the first category or undertaking of a similar size and
novelty, and has yet to be accepted or succeed. (It will.)

My comment is being misinterpreted so I've clarified above. My comment isn't
about what Apple can 'afford to do' it's about what Tim Cook can 'afford to
do' (politically and in terms of consequences.)

~~~
adventured
$150 billion in cash says otherwise.

Apple could step in at $1.5 or $2 billion, at twice the valuation, and the
deal would be theirs most likely.

If not, then for the same price tag, they could just launch their own network.

~~~
themartorana
I think Musk keeps control pretty tightly held. A Google investment isn't
something SpaceX can take without his say-so. So Apple can't randomly drop $2B
and win the day - If SpaceX takes the investment, they likely a) leave most
control with Musk, and b) are the right partner, the one Musk was looking for.

------
corford
With LEO satellite internet, would download/upload speeds be symmetric (like
SDSL) or would uploading be much slower (like ADSL)?

~~~
rhino369
You could do it either way, but probably asymmetric due to usage patterns.

------
cft
I use Iridium a lot, and you need a clear view of the sky. Would it work
indoors? Otherwise it'd be a very serious limitation.

~~~
jacquesm
Cable and DSL also have an 'outdoors' component, adding an external antenna
for either improved bandwidth or to get the thing to work at all should be an
option for a new broadband medium.

And when you're on the move that doesn't matter. One way to make it work
untethered indoors is to simply bridge the satellite downlink box to a wifi
repeater. That would get you coverage indoors and outdoors from regular
devices around your house, and if they sell enough of these downlink boxes
they could conceivably pool the bandwidth by creating a mesh of them.

All kinds of interesting options, even if it doesn't work directly indoors.

------
talalbaweja
Could anybody give me a solid reason why would Google invest in SpaceX?

~~~
TeMPOraL
In general, because they're awesome. In particular, because Google also wanted
to be in global-internet-coverage business (see e.g. Project Loon).

------
interdrift
I don't see why something with a log-in restriction should be in the top
posts..

~~~
TaylorAlexander
I don't see why it shouldn't. This has been the case pretty much every day for
a long time so clearly it isn't against the rules. I agree that it isn't ideal
but it's better to link to a good source than to find a poorly written article
that is free to access.

------
fatbat
via Google:
[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fgoogle-
nears-1-billion-investment-in-
spacex-1421706642&ei=ZKy9VKboGc6oyATA2YCICA&usg=AFQjCNE_5ge3jrWUtjkXqiEHh6Mfzp0gyw&bvm=bv.83829542,d.aWw)

~~~
zodiakzz
Gosh. Would it be illegal for HN to do this automatically?

~~~
moroniclimited
Just use [https://paywallbypass.org/](https://paywallbypass.org/) which works
like this:
[http://paywallbypass.org/?q=http://www.wsj.com/articles/goog...](http://paywallbypass.org/?q=http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-
nears-1-billion-investment-in-spacex-1421706642)

~~~
Springtime
Unfortunately it doesn't bypass it here. The site routes the page through
Google Translate but the article is still behind the paywall.

------
minusSeven
Stupid website asks to subscribe or login to read every time. Can't read it.

~~~
czottmann
Here, have a bookmarklet:

`javascript:document.location.href='[https://paywallbypass.org/?q='+document.location.href;`](https://paywallbypass.org/?q='+document.location.href;`)

------
istvan__
It would be awesome to have commercial flights to space in our lifetime!

------
tobico
I like the way they've written this article as if it's an extended tweet.
Short and to the point.

------
flamedoge
> 648 satellites in low-Earth orbit

Something tells me this might be a little problematic in the future.

~~~
tyho
Why?

~~~
tw04
I would imagine he means trying to navigate the debris when sending _other
stuff_ into orbit, or bringing spacecraft home. I've often wondered this
myself... at some point do we have so much _stuff_ up there it's near-
impossible to get spacecraft out without serious danger to their crews? And
what about when it's time to retire them?

Legitimate question.

~~~
eckzow
You may find this Wikipedia page enlightening:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)

------
zkhalique
Google will now compete with NASA? I kind of wishes SpaceX would stay
independent!

