
SpaceX FCC Application for over 4000 Internet Satellites - paulsutter
http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATLOA2016111500118&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
======
benjismith
You gotta love the genius of a guy whose rocket company gets to practice for
their Mars launch by sending up a bunch of satellites (powered by the solar
panels he makes) to assemble a new worldwide wireless internet company, in
order to provide ubiquitous connectivity for his autonomous car business.

~~~
Animats
Henry J. Kaiser also did it all. Kaiser Steel. Kaiser Motors. Kaiser
Permanente (the cement company, not the hospital company). Kaiser
Shipbuilding. Kaiser Gypsum. All gone now.

~~~
toomuchtodo
While the entities might be transient, the progress they deliver is permanent.

Musk might not care if Tesla and SpaceX disappear if electric vehicle mobility
and affordable transport to Mars is achieved. They are a means to an end.

~~~
Diederich
I'm sure he cares quite deeply about the legacy of his companies, but his core
goals, as stated, transcend the current organizations.

He has said multiple times that he thought the likelihood of success for each
of Tesla and SpaceX was less than 10 percent, but that was ok, because even in
failure, they would 'move the ball forward' on sustainable energy and making
humanity a multi-planetary species.

------
BWStearns
So from the Reddit discussion it seems like 200 launches is about a fair guess
for the total deployment of this system. It seems like a perfect way to derisk
the notion of reusable launch systems while providing a native-to-SpaceX
revenue stream (orbital internet provision).

Assuming that they can achieve the success rates they've been aiming for,
demonstrating lowered risk and cost through their own deployments will provide
about the best advertisement you could possibly imagine. Waiting for organic
outside demand to fill the launch roster to the same point would take time
that Musk clearly does not want to waste. It seems to be a Keynesian approach
to the slightly Chicken/Egg problem of commercial space.

~~~
wmf
Isn't the launch roster way beyond full already?
[http://www.spacex.com/missions](http://www.spacex.com/missions)

~~~
BWStearns
I don't mean that it's full from a financial perspective, but full in an
argument-ending "this is the way of the future" sense.

Edit: There are ≈80 missions listed on the link there, 200 launches for their
own missions would provide ample opportunity to derisk their customers by
reusing launch vehicles beyond their currently marketable mileage and proving
their safety (I can imagine that one would want some pretty steep discounts
for a rocket that's been used 5 times given current success rates).

~~~
BurningFrog
Also _im_ -proving the safety by getting tons of experience on what works and
what breaks, while only risking some of your own hardware.

~~~
BWStearns
I definitely agree with you on this point. More launches means less failures
per n launches.

------
LAMike
Coming soon: Elon Prime

Pay 40k a year and get unlimited SpaceX Internet, a Tesla w/ free charging,
and a complimentary flight/weekend stay at Solar City Space Hotel.

Who's in?

~~~
daeken
Honestly, I don't think I'd blink an eye at signing up for that. Space hotel
trip alone is worth that!

In fact, that makes me seriously think about the ITS for earth orbit
activities. Add a nice big docking port to connect it to a space station, and
you've got yourself a relatively cheap reusable vehicle to fly a whole mess of
people into LEO.

~~~
the_duke
Virgin Galactic is charging 250k for their "some minutes in weightlessness"
ride...

~~~
sqeaky
Clearly thats a a stepping onto something better... isn't it.

I mean the planes in the beginning could charge high rates for just flying
someone in a circle, but today planes need to be fast, reliable, on time all
while being cheap enough that most Americans can afford them.

------
planteen
I'm late to this thread and very disappointed in the HN crowd that nobody has
mentioned any of these things.

OneWeb is trying to do the same thing and already has rights to the spectrum
from the ITU. They are using Arianespace to launch and Airbus build their
spacecraft. It's possible this whole application is a ploy to disrupt
Arianespace since SpaceX is upset about not getting a massive launch contract.

[http://spacenews.com/one-year-after-kickoff-oneweb-says-
its-...](http://spacenews.com/one-year-after-kickoff-oneweb-says-
its-700-satellite-constellation-is-on-schedule/)

Commercial satellite constellations do not have a great track record. Iridium
and GlobalStar tried to do phone networks and both went bankrupt. GlobalStar
was backed by Qualcomm and Iridium by Motorola. Though they both have
complete, functioning constellations. Look at GSAT and IRDM to see how well
they are doing post bankruptcy.

Teledesic tried to do the same thing in the 90s and was backed by Bill Gates.
It didn't go anywhere.

~~~
heymijo
Tren Griffin, the 4th employee at Teledesic, has a good write up of it with
lessons learned. May be able to see if anything has changed that may make
these new efforts work where others failed.

[https://25iq.com/2016/07/23/a-dozen-things-i-learned-
being-i...](https://25iq.com/2016/07/23/a-dozen-things-i-learned-being-
involved-in-one-of-the-most-ambitious-startups-ever-conceived-teledesic/)

~~~
everlost
"You probably have heard the story about the chicken being involved in
breakfast because she laid an egg but that the pig was committed to breakfast
since he supplied the bacon. Investors are like the chicken, but startup up
employees are like the pig." I liked this quote... perfect way to describe the
startup-investor relationship.

------
schiffern
My bet is that the "pizza box" phased array rooftop antenna will evolve into a
complete base-station. We know it has a multi-element RF front-end feeding in
to massively parallel software defined radio (SDR). Likely available in PoE or
wireless variants (solar+batteries+wifi; imagine the MIMO with 100 antenna
elements!).

SDR is quite interesting because it can track moving satellites, and do
simultaneous multipath reconstruction of multiple terrestrial broadcast
signals -- digital tlevision, FM/AM/satellite radio, shortwave, etc. No
antenna pointing needed, as it's all done in software. After demodulating the
carrier the video and audio content is streamed on a local web page available
to computers/phones/tablets on the LAN. Existing TVs can be supported via an
HDMI or analog (VGA/composite/3.5mm) stick w an RF remote.

Optional (or one-time software unlock?) on-board storage for multimedia time-
shifting and distributed CDN caching (reducing bandwidth and latency by
keeping commonly served duplicate files like js libraries locally). Having a
local server also lets them do fun things in the future like transparent LZMA
compression, optional ad/telemetry/malware blocking, data pre-caching, smart
shared HTTP caching, etc.

The inclusion of on-board storage allows data to be sloshed around to best
utilize the terrestrial spectrum (broadcast content) and satellite spectrum
(multicast content). It's much like Tesla batteries allow energy to be sloshed
around to best utilize distributed solar and the utility grid.

With proper RF front-end design, support for the diversity of global broadcast
standards can added through OTA software updates via satellite. This
simplifies hardware into a single "world" model with regional software
variants.

Easy install, especially with the wireless version (mount on pole, erect,
securely fasten, done). Broadcast signal reach and convenience (any device or
TV) that beats the pants off of any OTA antenna out there. Convenient access
to terrestrial broadcast content w time-shifting takes some of the load from
streaming services, so it's a strategic move and not just a "gee wiz" feature
they got cheap because of SDR.

At $200-300 for the equipment and $50/mo for internet, with a good multimedia
time shifting UI, SpaceX would _cream_ every rural data provider out there.

Anyway, just the idle dreams of an internet user living in a rural satellite
"data desert"...

~~~
walrus01
I've worked with phased array flat panel antennas used for geostationary Ku
and Ka band two way satellite access.

Phased array flat panel antennas cannot be purely software steered
sufficiently to track a low earth orbit satellite from horizon to horizon.
It's not good enough to just put a flat panel phased array facing straight up,
you won't have enough gain aimed in the direction where the satellite actually
is at any given moment. Assuming a CPE device that measures 1.5'x1.5' to 2'x2'
in size, it will still need a motorized azimuth and elevation stepper motor
system (or equivalent) to track a LEO satellite.

If you're trying to do multi-Mbps data to/from a satellite in bands >10GHz
(and probably >18GHz), the path loss through the atmosphere and RF parameters
mean that you want as much gain as possible... This is why the most economical
solutions for high capacity two way satellite through geostationary
transponder capacity involve 1.8 to 3.0 meter size dish antennas. Gain is
important. Gain and enough signal over noise ratio that you can do higher
order QAMs and not spend half your bitrate on FEC.

You could, I suppose, if the antenna system was cheap enough and large enough
build a non moving, cone or pyramid shaped antenna covered in phase array
segments that could maintain a high bandwidth connection in the >10GHz bands
to a moving LEO satellite. But it would be pretty large.

edit: for those who are curious and want to see an example of a parabolic
(steered) use for moving satellite comms:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=melco+antenna+mitsubishi&ie=...](https://www.google.com/search?q=melco+antenna+mitsubishi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b)

[http://proceedings.kaconf.org/papers/2015/bsw_4.pdf](http://proceedings.kaconf.org/papers/2015/bsw_4.pdf)

there is also an israeli company which is a competitor to mitsubishi in this
space. and a few others.

if you watch the weekly FCC filings for new satellite equipment licenses,
there's a lot of MELCO antennas flying around on top of mid and large sized
jet aircraft.

~~~
schiffern
Thanks, great comment.

Mark my words, _SpaceX is quietly working toward nothing less than a
revolution in global data infrastructure_ , just as Tesla is working to
accelerate a revolution in global energy infrastructure. Sneaking in some
software, onboard storage, putting them on all Tesla cars, mesh networking the
terrestrial base stations with MIMO links, etc.

Cars suddenly become a global peer-to-peer mesh sneakernet. It would be fun if
Tesla distributed data via "pulses" between passing cars... (signed high
resolution maps? deep learning connectomes? the latest Netflix original
series? :D)

>Phased array flat panel antennas cannot be purely software steered
sufficiently to track a low earth orbit satellite from horizon to horizon.

Righto. SpaceX plans to steer the beam down to 40° from the horizon. This also
minimized path losses.

Drawing from the SpaceX filing:
[http://i.imgur.com/7zOZ7kr.png](http://i.imgur.com/7zOZ7kr.png)

>All Ku-band downlink spot beams on each SpaceX satellite are independently
steerable over the full field of view of the Earth. However, user terminals at
the customers’ premises communicate only with satellites at an elevation angle
of at least 40 degrees. Consequently, as shown in Figure A.3.1-1 below, each
satellite operating at an altitude of 1,150 km will provide service only up to
40.46 degrees away from boresight (nadir), covering an area of about 3.5
million square kilometers (1,060 km radius)

source: Figure A.3.1-1 on pp6 of the FCC technical information document,
currently 404, via /u/SkywayCheerios

[https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5d9724/spacex_has_f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5d9724/spacex_has_filed_for_their_massive_constellation/da2qjj7/)

[https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=...](https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1158350)

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Alicen...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Alicensing.fcc.gov%2Fmyibfs%2Fdownload.do%3Fattachment_key%3D1158350)

~~~
walrus01
> SpaceX is quietly working toward nothing less than a revolution in global
> data infrastructure

I mean, that's a really cool 40,000 ft view idea and all, but global data
infrastructure is made up of things like the Hibernia Atlantic cable, its
several dozen cousins of post-2000 transatlantic and transpacific cables with
DWDM terminals on both ends, and cool things like 100, 200, 400Gbps per
wavelength coherent QPSK/16QAM DWDM terminals. And major terrestrial traffic
exchange points of existing Internet infrastructure where ISPs put $150,000
core routers (example: 60 Hudson, NAP of the Americas, Telehouse Docklands,
Otemachi Building in Tokyo, One Wilshire, 350 E. Cermak, etc).

Satellite traffic is a pretty tiny drop in the bucket compared to terrestrial
backbone infrastructure. It's a truly admirable goal to bring affordable
broadband to really impossible to reach locations via satellite. On the other
hand there are a lot of emerging terrestrial WISP technologies and PTP
microwave technologies that can be used in rural areas to provide bandwidth
without the need to pipe it up into space and back. It's a lot cheaper to
establish a tower site on top of a mountain, even if you need to bulldoze a
road to the top, and spend $30,000 on routers and PTP/PTMP radio gear.

In some of the areas of the rural western US where my network engineering job
touches, there are WISPs which are rapidly eating into the customer base of
people who are (rightfully so) dissatisfied with highly oversubscribed
consumer grade VSAT satellite systems.

In the end there will be a combination of many things. The next generation of
high capacity Ka-band geostationary satellites (ViaSat-2, etc) are a lot
higher capacity. Services like o3b allow ISPs to buy a dedicated 1:1 high
capacity pipe to places that can't be reached by PTP microwave and are
uneconomical to reach by submarine or terrestrial fiber (example, all of o3b's
new pacific island nation state customers). There's traditional geostationary
c and ku band capacity from SES, Eutelsat, Intelsat, AsiaSat, russian
companies, etc. And of course terrestrial fiber. You don't need a huge amount
of money to run singlemode these days, assuming aerial wood poles and a mostly
rural area, you need two guys, a bucket truck and about $10,000 worth of
tools.

~~~
schiffern
Completely agree on WISPs. I think SpaceX will be pursuing mesh networking
too.

Could an OTA update (and repointing 90°) turn a satellite terminal into an
auto/calibrating point-to-point MIMO link?

>global data infrastructure is made up of things like the Hibernia Atlantic
cable

Surprisingly the stated primary goal of the SpaceX constellation is actually
to compete with long-distance fiber backhauls. Their sell for satellite
backhaul is that it's lower latency (no need to avoid continents, 50% faster
speed of light, fewer hops) and works everywhere.

Giving global gigabit internet to rural areas and ~10% of urban customers
(with the rest on fiber) is only a bonus. :)

Most of what we know about the plan comes from this video. Timestamp is to the
start of the juicy bits.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=2m10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=2m10s)

~~~
walrus01
IMHO the shannon limit and basic laws of RF/path loss and channel capacity say
that satellite is not a true competitor to backbone links by singlemode fiber.
For the equivalent of "last mile" services, yes, but not as a replacement for
laying fiber between points A and B.

The entire data throughput capacity of a current generation, 5500 kilogram,
geostationary Ka-band satellite that costs $185 million to build and launch is
much, much less than the 80 channel x 100 Gbps per channel DWDM system you can
run on two strands of 9/125 singlemode fiber. And vastly less than the 144,
288 or 864 strand count fiber cable you would see laid between two cities by a
carrier-of-carriers operator like Zayo these days.

It is fabulous to see more competition for high priced monthly-leased
transport kHz/MHz from geostationary satellite operators. O3b was an amazing
thing (and still is). More competition is good. But it's a pipe dream to say
that satellite backhaul will ever be preferable to fiber carrying N x 10GbE
circuits or a 100GbE circuit...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-
channel_coding_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-
channel_coding_theorem)

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
> IMHO the shannon limit and basic laws of RF/path loss and channel capacity
> say that satellite is not a true competitor to backbone links by singlemode
> fiber. For the equivalent of "last mile" services, yes, but not as a
> replacement for laying fiber between points A and B.

The filing states they'll be using free space optics / lasers between
satellites. The Ka/Ku links are only for the initial uplink and downlink.

> But it's a pipe dream to say that satellite backhaul will ever be preferable
> to fiber carrying N x 10GbE circuits or a 100GbE circuit...

It is not a pipe dream. Free space optics in... well space, have a 50%
propagation latency advantage vs terrestrial fiber. This helps equalize things
somewhat.

~~~
walrus01
> The Ka/Ku links are only for the initial uplink and downlink.

Then there's a huge bottleneck, if the links from the satellite constellation
as a whole to the trunk earth stations (not the CPEs) are high capacity Ka-
band, there's RF issues with capacity...

It's like if you have a network that's composed of a whole lot of 10GbE
backbone links from router to router and your IP transit connection to
upstream ISPs/the global v4/v6 routing table goes through one 1000BaseLX link.

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
No, it's nothing like that. They're talking about highly localized signals via
phased arrays on both sides. Additionally you underestimate the capacity of
wireless: LTE has no problem doing 30 bits per 1 hz of spectrum. These will
run at a lot more than a 1 gbit globally shared last mile.

------
grecy
I'm still not sure why they are doing this - I'm in West Africa now, have been
through some _very_ poor countries, and every single one has blazing fast 3G
connectivity, even in the remote mountain towns.

I'm tethered to 3G, and for all purposes it's as fast as cellular internet
I've used anywhere in the world.

It _is_ a little more expensive than most locals really can afford, although
they are all checking facebook multiple times per day.....

So I really don't understand this idea of "bring internet to the 3rd world"
they have it already.

~~~
jbob2000
I'm sure there's a term for this, but people in the West have this idea that
everyone not in the West is a dirty savage living in a mud hut.

Also, you aren't a real rich person until you've "helped the Africa".

~~~
grecy
> _people in the West have this idea that everyone not in the West is a dirty
> savage living in a mud hut._

Yes, very much. Now I've been moving around for 5 months my eyes are very much
open to the reality.

People also thought I would be murdered on day 1, when in fact I have met
many, many kind kind friendly people who have welcomed me into their home.

The culture of the West really does teach it's pupils they are the best, and
everyone else is crap. The Media further enhances this idea.

I loved when I met a guy in a rural, poor part of Gambia - he said "Oh yeah,
my brother lives in Australia. I was there for a few years. I came back here,
I like it more".

Africa is not the hell-hole people think it is.

~~~
majani
Let's not go too far in the other direction though. I live in Kenya and there
are certainly some horrific aspects about living here. However, if you make at
least a living wage and learn the rules of engagement you can live quite a
balanced life

------
mikeyouse
The discussion on r/spacex:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5d9724/spacex_has_f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5d9724/spacex_has_filed_for_their_massive_constellation/)

Interesting note from the Organization section where it shows that Elon's
trust owns 54% of outstanding SpaceX shares and over 70% of the voting shares.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Interesting for sure, but not unexpected. You would not entrust your life's
work to your shareholders without having overwhelming control.

~~~
kctess5
Unless I'm mistaken, many founders do give up control to their share holders.

~~~
bkanber
Yes, but Elon himself has put $100M into the company, and most of that early.
Musk is also popular of the "space travel is scary and there will be
accidents; if we put it in the hands of the shareholders it'll get shut down"
argument and that's certainly a part of his negotiating position.

------
obi1kenobi
fcc.gov seems unresponsive, here's a Google webcache link to the HTML
application:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3lStj71...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3lStj71lnE0J:licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do%3Fattachment_key%3D1158354+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

------
zymhan
So after blowing up Facebook's Internet-providing satellite, they're going
after their own constellation.

I do wonder how this will affect potential customers who would launch
communications satellites on SpaceX, but are worried about handing over
something proprietary to a competitor.

~~~
kylecordes
They have conclusively demonstrated that relying on a small number of
satellites in the small number of launches concentrates too much risk.
Unfortunately the demonstrated this accidentally blowing up a satellite.

In the long run though, success at scale with a system like this relies on the
typically guaranteed losses. A certain percentage of rockets will fail, a
certain percentage of satellites will fail, a robust system will be designed
to accommodate this.

(Of course, and this is probably the topic of a totally different thread, the
tolerance for this must change dramatically when there are people in there.)

~~~
nraynaud
there is still the issue of space junk, more satellites, more launches, more
mishaps, more junk. And now you have more junk to create more mishaps.

I'm not saying I want more concentration, I'm just saying that the path to de-
centralisation is not that clear cut (at there is a threshold were we have to
talk about CO2 emissions).

~~~
andygates
Junk prevention is addressed in the details of the proposal, deliberate
deorbiting early, but if not they'll decay nicely. It's still as many
satellites as are currently flying at all, but they have considered it.

------
bmon
I've looked through the reddit post and this and haven't found much discussion
regarding the increase in latency that would come with such a service. Does
anyone have a general idea of how much slower a round trip is when you count
the transmission to the satellites and back? In some multiplayer games a
difference of 100ms provides a massive advantage, making it much harder to
play competitively on slower connections.

~~~
Anchor
The satellites are on Low Earth Orbit (LEO), so they are much closer to Earth
than typical communication satellites. When the distance from ground station
is 1000-1500 kilometers up, latency is not a problem. In fact, latency via
satellites may be smaller than through fiber as speed of light is greater in
vacuum. IIRC in fiber it is something around 0.6c, so a 40 % off from a space-
based approach. Also there's probably going to be more switches along a
ground-based path than along the satellite-to-satellite route.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Perfect solution: communicate with neutrinos directly _through the earth_ for
a point-to-point absolute minimum latency link.

~~~
ericd
Brilliant. Only problem is the enormous antenna and the >99.9% ping timeout
rate :-)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Depends upon the signal strength?

------
itissid
The PSLV launched 20 satellites in one shot and that vehicle is 15M $ per
launch. The double digit million cost of SpaceX's reusable rocket isn't much
cheaper than that.

Does someone know what orbit these are being launched into and how heavy they
are?

~~~
greglindahl
You can find launch capacities on Wikipedia. PSLV has a smaller payload and
smaller price than F9.

For these satellites, you can find a description of their orbit and a guess at
their mass at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_satellite_constellation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_satellite_constellation)

------
deegles
Would a hand-held size device be able to connect to these satellites? I'm
imagining a mass-manufactured device like a Peek[0] that could be distributed
in countries with heavy censorship...

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek_(mobile_Internet_device)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek_\(mobile_Internet_device\))

~~~
wanderingjew
The receivers/Earth stations will be phased array antennas; basically an
antenna 'grid'. They won't fit in your pocket, but they will fit on top of
your car.

Keep in mind, this system is designed to give the Internet to _everyone_. The
antennas will be small enough to conceal. Since the signals go up instead of
across a border, censorship is not an issue.

~~~
shaklee3
You need to get landing rights in all countries you plan to operate your
frequency bands in. They cannot simply start transmitting down to any country
without previous authorization.

~~~
thescriptkiddie
Unless that particular country possesses anti-satellite weaponry, I think you
absolutely can. Iran hasn't had much success censoring satellite
communications on their soil.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3706645/Iran-
destroy...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3706645/Iran-
destroys-100-000-satellite-dishes-stop-citizens-watching-morally-damaging-
television-corrupts-Islamic-values.html)

[https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/22/toosheh-iran-internet-
ce...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/22/toosheh-iran-internet-censorship/)

[http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/afp/2016/07/iran-
television-...](http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/afp/2016/07/iran-television-
culture-satellite-censorship.html)

~~~
nraynaud
yeah sure, you can shit on a country's regulations, the response ranges from
harmless to starting an open war, with a a few steps like seeking the
company's funders extradition, seeking redress in international arbitrage,
blocus etc.

~~~
wongarsu
And the US allows its companies to ignore most of the possible responses.

I imagine Musk could get even more than the already generous US government
protection if he puts the base stations on US soil (I.e. all traffic in NSA
reach)

------
boznz
Currently paying US$60 a month for land based internet in NZ and a friend pays
$160 for the crappy satellite equivelent. Several million subscribers would
not be unfeasable and provide a pretty massive income stream

~~~
jazoom
Add another 8 million or so from Australia

~~~
nbarbettini
Lots of folks outside the cities in America too. I've heard estimates between
10-30 million.

------
JoeAltmaier
Makes me think: by the time we get to Mars, Mars will have Internet (and GPS
etc).

------
paulsutter
I wonder if a distributed model would work for telephone service in Southeast
Asia (which still has lots of 2G in rural areas), if individuals could offer
hotspots / base stations with uplinks to these satellites.

Edit: change Uber-like to distributed. Side comment, lots of Uber drivers buy
cars. Uber even helps finance cars.

~~~
Terribledactyl
I don't see the connection to Uber's model, unless you mean Franchise, but I
doubt people already have the satellite-wifi transponder like drivers already
had cars.

------
int_handler
Does SpaceX have any concerns about the Kessler Syndrome [0] or any plans to
mitigate it?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)

~~~
mikeyouse
Of course they do, it's a well-known problem for the satellite industry. From
the technical addendum:

> _Each satellite in the SpaceX System is designed for a useful lifetime of
> five to seven years. SpaceX intends to dispose of satellites through
> atmospheric reentry at end of life. As suggested by the Commission,50 SpaceX
> intends to comply with Section 4.6 and 4.7 of NASA Technical Standard
> 8719.14A with respect to this reentry process. In particular, SpaceX
> anticipates that its satellites will reenter the Earth’s atmosphere within
> approximately one year after completion of their mission – much sooner than
> the international standard of 25 years. After the mission is complete, the
> spacecraft (regardless of operational altitude) will be moved to a 1,075 km
> circular orbit in its operational inclination, then gradually lower perigee
> until the propellant is exhausted, achieving a perigee of at most 300 km.
> After all propellant is consumed, the spacecraft will be reoriented to
> maximize the vehicle’s total cross-sectional area, a configuration also
> stable in the direction of aerodynamic drag. Finally, the spacecraft will
> begin to passivate itself by de-spinning reaction wheels and drawing
> batteries down to a safe level and powering down. Over the following months,
> the denser atmosphere will gradually lower the satellite’s perigee until its
> eventual atmospheric demise._

[http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1...](http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1158350)

~~~
Osmium
> "for a useful lifetime of five to seven years"

Isn't that a relatively low lifetime for so many satellites? Doesn't that mean
they'll need to make a _lot_ of launches just to keep the fleet operational?

~~~
JshWright
This plan is obviously predicated on viable first stage reuse. Estimates vary
(and I'm sure even SpaceX doesn't know what the eventual number would be), but
it's conceivable that their per-launch cost would be in the low double digit
millions. These are also relatively small satellites, so you can pack quite a
few of them on a dedicated launch, as well as sending one or more uphill as
secondary payloads for launches that have useful trajectories.

------
mbrookes
What is the FCCs regulatory remit when it comes to satellites? Presumably the
application only affects satellites with a US footprint, and only if
broadcasting on regulated frequencies?

------
jbpetersen
Any idea what amount of bandwidth they'll have put together?

~~~
sidcool
My guess is nothing less than 1 Giga bit per second.

------
Gruselbauer
Am on satellite internet. When it works, it's kinda okay. 25mbps down are
possible and sometimes achieved. On a Friday evening though, the shared medium
hits hard. Last week an 'aptitude update' took an entire business day.

So, yeah, I'm gonna assume people who're by every definition smarter than me
aren't going to try this kind of 'meh' technology for their own Google Fiber
like plans. Ground based RF networks make a lot more sense imho.

~~~
bosdev
The SpaceX plan puts the satellites in low earth orbit, much closer than the
geosynchronous satellites you can connect to now. That lowers latency into the
25-30ms range. There will also be many more of them, and presumably they are
being built with the understanding they will need to support the bandwidth
requirements of the Netflix-era of internet usage.

~~~
Gruselbauer
Thanks for clearing that up. Latency is another of these things currently,
pings below 800ms are a rarity for me. Very noticeable and pretty annoying.

I'm not presuming I know better than a bunch of SpaceX engineers.

------
spiderfarmer
Would anyone be surprised if this is (in part) responsible for the shift in
focus for Google Fiber? Why would Google invest Billions for a small portion
of coverage while Elon is busy building an ISP for the whole world? Elon and
Larry are friends, and Elon has talked about using LEO satellites for internet
access before.

~~~
schiffern
Musk says that 90% of connectivity in cities will be fiber, only 10%
satellite. Fiber works great in high density areas.

------
mountaineer22
So, would this be consumer-facing internet, or would SpaceX be subletting
capacity on their network for various providers to offer "space internet"?

This has been mentioned before in the context of municipalities
building/maintaining fiber infrastructure and subletting to ISPs.

------
likeInThatBook
Musk's 4.4k strong array of communications satellites in LEO becomes a weapon
(think Lex Luthor) if you can point the full transmit power of a bunch of them
at a single point (think MIMO).

How much microwave energy do you need to put on a watermelon to make it pop?

------
kauegimenes
Where is the satellite quantity for this application? I cant find it.

------
ksec
This got me to think if it is possible to create a super giant Wireless
Network, With Satellites, and Microwave tower on ground as well as Whitespace
Super WiFi / LTE mesh network.

------
mandeepj
SpaceX might target phone business also besides internet

------
beachstartup
protip: buy rural real estate in good locations before this goes live.

~~~
dboreham
That real estate already has coverage by Verizon, AT&T and probably a couple
of WISPs.

Source: I live in such a place.

------
hash-set
The problem with satellite Internet is the uplink and downlink speeds.

------
mayrak
Can't wait for global internet!!!!

~~~
huhtenberg
... as opposed to local internet that we have now?

------
smegel
Maybe they should start with a reliable launch system.

~~~
pjscott
If they'll be launching thousands of satellites, I expect the marginal cost of
replacing one launch to be lower than what most satellite makers could manage.
And then, reliability has a cost of its own.

Have you calculated the optimum?

