9 ms·

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

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.

castratikron 10y ago
Actually I think the main motivation for this is just to make money, which will then be used to fund things like a Mars mission.
walrus01 10y ago
I am about 99.9% certain that these will not be powered by consumer grade Si solar cells in special panels/encapsulation. Satellites typically use triple junction GaAs cells (>30% efficient) which are rated for space: https://www.google.com/search?q=spectrolab+gaas&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b https://www.google.com/search?q=spectrolab+gaas&ie=utf-8&oe=... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-junction_solar_cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-junction_solar_cell Spectrolab is owned by Boeing.
- craigds 10y ago
  Typically, but SpaceX has made rather a habit of ignoring expensive space-grade components in favour of consumer-grade ones they test themselves for a fraction of the cost. I guess we'll see.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    SpaceX has made a habit of doing that only for their rockets, not telecommunications satellites, and only when it makes sense. Their biggest cost savings are in operations, manufacturing processes, and their engines because there really isn't much room to skimp on anything else. Even at a cost of $10k per kg it makes very little sense to use 50% less efficient solar panels to save a few thousand, especially when the superior technology is also far better tested in space. It makes sense to use an Android instead of a $100k RAD hardened processor if your entire CubeSAT barely costs that much. Since most satellites cost a minimum of a million each, very few can afford the risk to save money on parts (and if you're mass producing thousands of them you can get really cheap germanium panels).
    - walrus01 10y ago
      Cumulative Wh produced per sunlight/night cycle (remember these are in LEO and constantly passing in and out of the earth's shadow) per kilogram of solar panel is also important, when the satellites will be quite small. You want the greatest possible power capability in the smallest and lightest package, and right now the way to do that is a triple or quadruple junction GaAs type PV cell with a concentrator lens in front of it. Efficiencies range from 32 to 40%, vs 22.5% efficiency for the very best monocrystalline Si PV cells.
      - madaxe_again 10y ago
        This is all absolutely true - and would apply in any typical circumstance - but I'm not sure this is typical. These aren't geostationary - they're low earth orbit. This means several things: - cheap to launch - and to deorbit. - lots of erosion compared to GEO - LEO is like being in a mild sandblaster while occasionally being shot at by rifles and howitzers. Taking those two alone into account, you either end up building for durability or for disposability. When you're dealing with a fleet of 4000 and your speciality/the thing you want to practice is heavy lift to LEO/MEO, you are absolutely talking about a disposable fleet where you expect daily failures and replacements. Having mass production facilities at your fingertips can't hurt. Which is why they'd likely go for the cheaper tech that they have very low cost access to, even if it costs about the same after launch costs. Also, it would be more profitable for the collective enterprises than outsourcing such a component to a third party. Think about it - spend the money with a competitor, or at the gas station. I know which I'd do. So - despite obvious truths re GaAs, my money is on them using their own Si cells.
        schiffern 10y ago
        >lots of erosion compared to GEO - LEO is like being in a mild sandblaster while occasionally being shot at by rifles and howitzers. At 1100 km the debris population is relatively sparse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacedebris_upd_2011.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacedebris_upd_2011.jpg
  - samstave 10y ago
    Question: whenever SpaceX launches a thing to the ISS - do they have an experimental payload along for the ride to "test some shit out"?
- 3Pi 10y ago
  It's worth noting that the SpaceX satellites only have a mission length of 5-7 years, and the Spectrolab solar panels are built to last for a typical 15 length mission (from the link you provided). Perhaps they will opt for (presumably) cheaper components given the shorter lifetime.
  - walrus01 10y ago
    15 years is the nominal design lifetime for an "insured" geostationary telecom satellite... When SES or Intelsat launches a new 3500 to 6000 kilogram sized satellite it's insured by a third party company. There's specialists in this. I'd say it's much more likely the SpaceX program will be self-insured so they can take a risk with satellite bus technology and other tech that has never been flown before. How this will affect their choice of PV cells I don't know. With 4000 satellites it's likely that their approach to each satellite will be smaller and much less redundancy: If a traditional 5000 kg geostationary telecom satellite can be compared in analogy to a big, expensive, 4U, quad socket xeon server that has multiply redundant everything. These small satellites might be much more like a facebook open compute blade server, 1+0 and redundant nothing, but much, much cheaper to build and with a software architecture tolerant of entire nodes failing and disappearing from the network.
- taneq 10y ago
  It costs them a lot less per kg to lift to orbit, maybe they're just throwing more panel area at the problem? They're claiming 22.8% efficiency for their earthbound panels so that's only a ~50% increase in panel weight.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    I believe efficiency is the smallest of problems with sending stuff into space
  - pol0nium 10y ago
    More panels means more atmospheric drag in LEO. This leads to a shorter lifespan of the satellite.
    - taneq 10y ago
      Maybe they're equipping them all with EM drives? :P
- TD-Linux 10y ago
  See this picture of the Dragon spacecraft's panels: http://www.space.com/images/i/000/017/802/i02/spacex-dragon-solar-array-deployed.jpg?1337857228 http://www.space.com/images/i/000/017/802/i02/spacex-dragon-... They are very clearly Sunpower C60 or similar, a high end mono-Si cell. I am a bit skeptical about the economics too, but apparently it works for SpaceX.
  - schwarrrtz 10y ago
    Yeah, you'd think that if they were really optimizing those panels then they'd trim them down to cover the surface with no gaps. This is pretty common in solar racing, for example. http://www.blueskysolar.utoronto.ca/?p=922 http://www.blueskysolar.utoronto.ca/?p=922
    - jedc 10y ago
      I know for a fact key Dragon solar array team members at SpaceX have extensive solar car racing experience, so if they're not trimming cells for maximum coverage, it's for a reason. (I would suspect the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost and/or risk.)
    - TD-Linux 10y ago
      It's common for many types of cells, but much more difficult for Sunpower cells. Instead of having top contacts, Sunpower cells have a fine array of contacts on the bottom [1]. Cutting this without creating shorts or defects is quite difficult. It would be better to have Sunpower custom make them. Given SpaceX deadlines it's possible that they just ran out of time for this optimization. [1] https://sc03.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1XRXrHVXXXXXeaXXXq6xXFXXXM/3-55W-5x5-A-grade-21-24-Highest-Efficiency-maxeon-Mono-Sunpower-C60-Solar-Cell-without.jpg https://sc03.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1XRXrHVXXXXXeaXXXq6xXFXXXM/3-5...
Animats 10y ago
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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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.
- delackner 10y ago
  Well, sure, but he also made the hospital company, and that has thrived. I would think if Musk's ventures all go to plan, only SpaceX will be left at the end of it all.
- Gnarl 10y ago
  Kaiser Soze is still out there
  - shash7 10y ago
    Did a search for that. Cheeky.
- joelwilliamson 10y ago
matt4077 10y ago
I've seen two sorts of that kind of founder: some are just excellent and create 20 businesses each of which would be impressive on its own. And profitable. The other: vast networks of companies all dependent on each other. When any one of them gets in trouble, it all comes falling down like a house of cards. And the chance of none of them getting into trouble? (1 - 0.<failure rate>)^<# of businesses>. That gets very small, very fast. Lesson: never ever make a decision for business <b> because you also own business <a>. Too many people going from millionaire status to personal bancrupcy, at just about the moment where they're too old to start fresh, yet too young to coast.
- schiffern 10y ago
  >Lesson: never ever make a decision for business <b> because you also own business <a> Shouldn't the lesson be, "don't allow any singular company to become a single point of failure?"
  - phkahler 10y ago
    > Shouldn't the lesson be, "don't allow any singular company to become a single point of failure?" Yes, but that requires more detailed analysis.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      It is a better lesson though. Plenty of small to medium businesses fail when their main supplier or something goes under. For a small restaurant this could be as simple as making sure that you have two sources of that special berry (or whatever) you put in your signature dish.
JulianMorrison 10y ago
I love the way he's basically a Bond villain, but nice.
phkahler 10y ago
Don't forget, they can launch on used rockets for a fraction of the cost. This will also help them to prove the reliability of those used rockets. Mass produced satellites are perfect for that.
twoodfin 10y ago
...in order to provide ubiquitous connectivity for his autonomous car business. This seems like a pretty foolish way to do that. Mobile data over ground-based cellular systems is rapidly becoming a commodity, and at least in the areas of the world where Teslas will be sold, it's essentially ubiquitous. Why in the world would it be worth setting up and maintaining a massive satellite network just to cover the .001% of driver miles spent far enough away from a tower?
- nojvek 10y ago
  Single network that works anywhere in the world? Why not? It will be a very disruptive business if he can pull it off

castratikron 10y ago

Actually I think the main motivation for this is just to make money, which will then be used to fund things like a Mars mission.

walrus01 10y ago

I am about 99.9% certain that these will not be powered by consumer grade Si solar cells in special panels/encapsulation. Satellites typically use triple junction GaAs cells (>30% efficient) which are rated for space: https://www.google.com/search?q=spectrolab+gaas&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b https://www.google.com/search?q=spectrolab+gaas&ie=utf-8&oe=... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-junction_solar_cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-junction_solar_cell Spectrolab is owned by Boeing.

craigds 10y ago
Typically, but SpaceX has made rather a habit of ignoring expensive space-grade components in favour of consumer-grade ones they test themselves for a fraction of the cost. I guess we'll see.
- akiselev 10y ago
  SpaceX has made a habit of doing that only for their rockets, not telecommunications satellites, and only when it makes sense. Their biggest cost savings are in operations, manufacturing processes, and their engines because there really isn't much room to skimp on anything else. Even at a cost of $10k per kg it makes very little sense to use 50% less efficient solar panels to save a few thousand, especially when the superior technology is also far better tested in space. It makes sense to use an Android instead of a $100k RAD hardened processor if your entire CubeSAT barely costs that much. Since most satellites cost a minimum of a million each, very few can afford the risk to save money on parts (and if you're mass producing thousands of them you can get really cheap germanium panels).
  - walrus01 10y ago
    Cumulative Wh produced per sunlight/night cycle (remember these are in LEO and constantly passing in and out of the earth's shadow) per kilogram of solar panel is also important, when the satellites will be quite small. You want the greatest possible power capability in the smallest and lightest package, and right now the way to do that is a triple or quadruple junction GaAs type PV cell with a concentrator lens in front of it. Efficiencies range from 32 to 40%, vs 22.5% efficiency for the very best monocrystalline Si PV cells.
    - madaxe_again 10y ago
      This is all absolutely true - and would apply in any typical circumstance - but I'm not sure this is typical. These aren't geostationary - they're low earth orbit. This means several things: - cheap to launch - and to deorbit. - lots of erosion compared to GEO - LEO is like being in a mild sandblaster while occasionally being shot at by rifles and howitzers. Taking those two alone into account, you either end up building for durability or for disposability. When you're dealing with a fleet of 4000 and your speciality/the thing you want to practice is heavy lift to LEO/MEO, you are absolutely talking about a disposable fleet where you expect daily failures and replacements. Having mass production facilities at your fingertips can't hurt. Which is why they'd likely go for the cheaper tech that they have very low cost access to, even if it costs about the same after launch costs. Also, it would be more profitable for the collective enterprises than outsourcing such a component to a third party. Think about it - spend the money with a competitor, or at the gas station. I know which I'd do. So - despite obvious truths re GaAs, my money is on them using their own Si cells.
      - schiffern 10y ago
        >lots of erosion compared to GEO - LEO is like being in a mild sandblaster while occasionally being shot at by rifles and howitzers. At 1100 km the debris population is relatively sparse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacedebris_upd_2011.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacedebris_upd_2011.jpg
- samstave 10y ago
  Question: whenever SpaceX launches a thing to the ISS - do they have an experimental payload along for the ride to "test some shit out"?
3Pi 10y ago
It's worth noting that the SpaceX satellites only have a mission length of 5-7 years, and the Spectrolab solar panels are built to last for a typical 15 length mission (from the link you provided). Perhaps they will opt for (presumably) cheaper components given the shorter lifetime.
- walrus01 10y ago
  15 years is the nominal design lifetime for an "insured" geostationary telecom satellite... When SES or Intelsat launches a new 3500 to 6000 kilogram sized satellite it's insured by a third party company. There's specialists in this. I'd say it's much more likely the SpaceX program will be self-insured so they can take a risk with satellite bus technology and other tech that has never been flown before. How this will affect their choice of PV cells I don't know. With 4000 satellites it's likely that their approach to each satellite will be smaller and much less redundancy: If a traditional 5000 kg geostationary telecom satellite can be compared in analogy to a big, expensive, 4U, quad socket xeon server that has multiply redundant everything. These small satellites might be much more like a facebook open compute blade server, 1+0 and redundant nothing, but much, much cheaper to build and with a software architecture tolerant of entire nodes failing and disappearing from the network.
taneq 10y ago
It costs them a lot less per kg to lift to orbit, maybe they're just throwing more panel area at the problem? They're claiming 22.8% efficiency for their earthbound panels so that's only a ~50% increase in panel weight.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  I believe efficiency is the smallest of problems with sending stuff into space
- pol0nium 10y ago
  More panels means more atmospheric drag in LEO. This leads to a shorter lifespan of the satellite.
  - taneq 10y ago
    Maybe they're equipping them all with EM drives? :P
TD-Linux 10y ago
See this picture of the Dragon spacecraft's panels: http://www.space.com/images/i/000/017/802/i02/spacex-dragon-solar-array-deployed.jpg?1337857228 http://www.space.com/images/i/000/017/802/i02/spacex-dragon-... They are very clearly Sunpower C60 or similar, a high end mono-Si cell. I am a bit skeptical about the economics too, but apparently it works for SpaceX.
- schwarrrtz 10y ago
  Yeah, you'd think that if they were really optimizing those panels then they'd trim them down to cover the surface with no gaps. This is pretty common in solar racing, for example. http://www.blueskysolar.utoronto.ca/?p=922 http://www.blueskysolar.utoronto.ca/?p=922
  - jedc 10y ago
    I know for a fact key Dragon solar array team members at SpaceX have extensive solar car racing experience, so if they're not trimming cells for maximum coverage, it's for a reason. (I would suspect the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost and/or risk.)
  - TD-Linux 10y ago
    It's common for many types of cells, but much more difficult for Sunpower cells. Instead of having top contacts, Sunpower cells have a fine array of contacts on the bottom [1]. Cutting this without creating shorts or defects is quite difficult. It would be better to have Sunpower custom make them. Given SpaceX deadlines it's possible that they just ran out of time for this optimization. [1] https://sc03.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1XRXrHVXXXXXeaXXXq6xXFXXXM/3-55W-5x5-A-grade-21-24-Highest-Efficiency-maxeon-Mono-Sunpower-C60-Solar-Cell-without.jpg https://sc03.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1XRXrHVXXXXXeaXXXq6xXFXXXM/3-5...

Animats 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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.
delackner 10y ago
Well, sure, but he also made the hospital company, and that has thrived. I would think if Musk's ventures all go to plan, only SpaceX will be left at the end of it all.
Gnarl 10y ago
Kaiser Soze is still out there
- shash7 10y ago
  Did a search for that. Cheeky.
joelwilliamson 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

I've seen two sorts of that kind of founder: some are just excellent and create 20 businesses each of which would be impressive on its own. And profitable. The other: vast networks of companies all dependent on each other. When any one of them gets in trouble, it all comes falling down like a house of cards. And the chance of none of them getting into trouble? (1 - 0.<failure rate>)^<# of businesses>. That gets very small, very fast. Lesson: never ever make a decision for business <b> because you also own business <a>. Too many people going from millionaire status to personal bancrupcy, at just about the moment where they're too old to start fresh, yet too young to coast.

schiffern 10y ago
>Lesson: never ever make a decision for business <b> because you also own business <a> Shouldn't the lesson be, "don't allow any singular company to become a single point of failure?"
- phkahler 10y ago
  > Shouldn't the lesson be, "don't allow any singular company to become a single point of failure?" Yes, but that requires more detailed analysis.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    It is a better lesson though. Plenty of small to medium businesses fail when their main supplier or something goes under. For a small restaurant this could be as simple as making sure that you have two sources of that special berry (or whatever) you put in your signature dish.

JulianMorrison 10y ago

I love the way he's basically a Bond villain, but nice.

phkahler 10y ago

Don't forget, they can launch on used rockets for a fraction of the cost. This will also help them to prove the reliability of those used rockets. Mass produced satellites are perfect for that.

twoodfin 10y ago

...in order to provide ubiquitous connectivity for his autonomous car business. This seems like a pretty foolish way to do that. Mobile data over ground-based cellular systems is rapidly becoming a commodity, and at least in the areas of the world where Teslas will be sold, it's essentially ubiquitous. Why in the world would it be worth setting up and maintaining a massive satellite network just to cover the .001% of driver miles spent far enough away from a tower?

nojvek 10y ago
Single network that works anywhere in the world? Why not? It will be a very disruptive business if he can pull it off