6 ms·

Hi everyone, I’m one of the cofounders of Astranis (YC W16). Thanks for taking the time to read about what we’re doing and happy answer any questions.

caio1982 9y ago
With what rocket system do you plan to launch these sats? Which company will launch and which will assemble them (often these are different ones)?
- gedmark 9y ago
  We're compatible with all the major launch vehicle families-- SpaceX Falcon 9, Atlas V, Ariane 5, and some of the other foreign launchers. Part of the great thing about where things are in the industry today is that ride shares for micro-satellites (where you fly as a piggy-back alongside a traditional satellite) are pretty much a solved problem.
caio1982 9y ago
Why do you think this pin-point for-hire internet sat service is better than a constellation? Is it because you can profit right away without an initial setup cost of the constellation? But in the long run the constellation pays off and might drive you out of business, right?
- PaulHoule 9y ago
  It may or may not. If you think there is a rural/urban problem with optic fiber, you are jumping from the frying pan to the fire with LEO satellite constellations. That's because an LEO satellite constellation has to cover the whole world (or almost all of it) to be able to cover any inhabited area at all. Thus it has to cover oceans, large roadless areas, deserts, mountains, etc. At least with optic fiber you only have to cover roads. Note that high density areas can cause trouble on the other side -- you need to support the highest density worldwide that you support anywhere. Note that users in a place like New York City will generate noise affecting satellites 1000+ miles away, so if you don't ban people setting up accounts in dense areas, it will have to be priced so high that people with a lot of money looking for a backup connection will be priced out. I am highly skeptical that the economics can work out for an LEO constellation.
  - gbhn 9y ago
    This makes sense to me. Even with managing orbits you are still having a huge part of the fleet over empty areas. If the idea is to manage high bandwidth needs of autonomous ships, trucks, trains, planes, etc maybe it makes sense...
caio1982 9y ago
How much time is needed to build and QA a full new sat of yours before send it for the launch provider?
PaulHoule 9y ago
What effect does the small size of the satellite have on the cost and complexity of the terminal? The small-aperture terminal market has been driven by GEO satellites getting bigger, a lot bigger. Yes, we can fit more satellite in a small package, and solar cells have gotten more efficient, but there are laws-of-physics issues involving the size of the antenna, power requirements, etc. that aren't going to go away. Geosynchronous satellite spacing is determined by the ability of ground stations to resolve satellites so there is a certain number of satellites that can fly, so there is a pressure towards large high-performance satellites that can deliver the maximum capacity as opposed to launching fewer low-performance satellites. Already the high-capacity satellites have insufficient bandwidth to serve demand (otherwise people would just be getting satellite instead of asking for terrestrial internet) and I don't see how low-capacity satellites will actually help. I see similar problem with the terminals for systems like the SpaceX constellation. To get "wireless equivalent" performance I see the ground terminal requiring some kind of electronically scanned array which would put the cost upwards of $6000. There is a precedent for satellite services with a high-cost terminal, as back in the 1980s many people would spend about that much for an unlicensed satellite terminal to receive TV, but since that was pirate there was no subscription fee. Compare that to $100 a month for cable and that pays for itself in 5 years. I have this funny feeling that next-gen satellite providers want to have the expensive terminal AND the expensive service -- possibly because of the "Juicero" issue that the people bankrolling them don't know what prices look like to the average customer. I would love it if you could prove me wrong.
- gedmark 9y ago
  Hi there, great questions. The satellites are spec'd to deliver the same power (EIRP) on the ground as traditional large GEO's, with each of our satellites having a fraction of the capacity. This is a key point-- it will take several of our satellites to do the same job as one traditional large GEO. But that's not only ok, it's much better. It means we can put up a smaller chunk of capacity as needed and not do the "all or nothing" approach of a large GEO. The high capacity satellites do have insufficient bandwidth to serve demand, on that I agree. But that's not a spectrum limitation, its a limitation on how many such large GEO's have been launched. Which is a small number because each one is so expensive. There is still plenty more spectrum we can use for GEO telecoms, and more with proper frequency re-use schemes. The point you make about the drive to large GEO's holds true if you assume only one spacecraft will ever be in a single orbital slot. But that's not the case. There's plenty of orbital slots where multiple GEOs are co-located, and this will increasingly be the case in the future. I'd argue the drive to large satellites was more driven by various incentives and systemic issues in the industry that drove them that direction. A much longer conversation, but it's things that can all be fixed. And to answer your last question, because our satellites are spec'd to provide the same EIRP on the ground, the ground terminals used are the same as those in use today for GEO telecoms. These terminals are all off-the-shelf and very low-cost compared to the terminals necessary for a LEO-based network.
RobLach 9y ago
Any accompanying software tech to mitigate the latency issues?
planteen 9y ago
Ok, I'll hit you with 3 questions: 1. What bandwidth capacity are you aiming for per spacecraft? 2. Are you using commercial or rad hard parts? 3. Is there a deployable antenna that makes the spacecraft larger than 3'x3'x3'?
- ttul 9y ago
  Let’s see: they’re spending tens of millions of dollars to put something into geostationary orbit that will presumably last there for years. I’m thinking they’re probably using radiation hardened parts.
  - analognoise 9y ago
    As someone who has done rad hard fpga design as well as radiation testing of components, I can say: that's too bad. Rad hard parts are so behind commercial, and have such high unit costs (RTG4 is ~90k each, 300krad TID), and the verification is grueling. It's fun to see your stuff leave the planet, though.
  - planteen 9y ago
    Maybe. If I remember correctly, the total ionizing dose (TID) at GEO is around double what it is at LEO. There are more single event effects (SEE) at GEO which would have to be handled. Most small sats at LEO use commercial parts and can operate for many years. The original Iridium constellation used commercial parts, though in LEO.
- gedmark 9y ago
  1. Our first design has a capacity of up to 10 Gbps. And we have a technical roadmap that can significantly increase that in future spacecraft designs. 2. For various reasons it doesn't make sense to go into that level of detail on a public forum. 3. Yes.
walrus01 9y ago
Satellite earth station engineer view: I'm interested in what the total system gain, EIRP and power looks like in an Astranis spot beam from geostationary, as compared to a current-generation 4000 to 6500 kilogram geostationary satellite with Ku and Ka band spot beams. I am optimistic but also skeptical. The size and power of the satellite will influence what the size of VSAT terminals needs to be, and also the earth stations/major teleports. The example size of the satellite shown in the URL is so much smaller than current geostationary satellites that I don't see how the Tx power from each transponder will be anywhere near the power on a much bigger, costlier satellite. Let's say for example I have put together from industry standard components, a 3.0 meter compact cassegrain Ku-band antenna in a remote part of Nepal, with a 40W BUC and a relatively recent Comtech EF Data modem. Are you planning on selling 1:1 dedicated capacity SCPC (and MCPC) type transponder kHz on a monthly basis? Or are you planning on standardizing on your own type of VSAT hardware terminal in bulk and selling contended access only? Where do you see your value proposition for high capacity IP trunk links as compared to an ISP buying a 2 x 1.8m dish o3b terminal, and dedicated capacity through o3b? What will your $/Mbps rate look like compared to o3b with a monthly spend of 2500 or 3500 dollars?
- shaklee3 9y ago
  Is your capacity steerable?
- gedmark 9y ago
  Hey there, I think you got the gist of it in a different part of this thread (each of our spacecraft has a fraction of the number of transponders as a typical large GEO). But if you'd like to discuss further I'd be happy to chat offline. Do you have an email address or other way that I could contact you?
  - walrus01 9y ago
    I understand you are probably at a very early stage of product design for the satellite capabilities, so you are cagey and don't want to make any definitive statements of technical specs... But I'd rather not move the discussion off forum into private email when the other people reading this thread could possibly benefit from answers to my specific questions. I am kind of concerned that your answers to others' questions in this thread are vague and noncommittal. One more question. Do you intend to: (A) lease raw transponder kHz capacity to third party end users and ISPs (eg: the ku spot beams I can get on Russian satellites covering Afghanistan and a check for $4500 USD a month, or (b) is your business plan to operate both the satellites and the earth stations, and resell fully packaged VSAT services directly to end users?
bryananderson 9y ago
What does your embedded software stack look like? Are you running real-time Linux (and maybe Xenomai), or an RTOS?
josephpmay 9y ago
What makes you different from Viasat?
fulafel 9y ago
Where does the "industry’s targeted $75 per megabit per second per month for dedicated bandwidth" figure come from? Is it a satellite industry figure, or submarine cable cost, or normal terrestial fiber haul cost, or...?
- walrus01 9y ago
  $75 per Mbps per month is a weird figure. If they plan to resell transponder kHz capacity on a commercial basis, the Mbps capacity will be a function of the modulation scheme/coding density that can be pushed through a link. Let's say I write them a check for $1500 a month worth of transponder frequency, FDD, and set up a 3.0m earth station on a roof in Cologne, Germany and another identical 3.0m terminal in Skardu, Pakistan. Both with modern SCPC modems. This hypothetical example assumes crosslinked spot beam coverage between the two regions and appropriate satellite position in the geostationary arc. The amount of Mbps I could push through that will be greater than if I do the same setup with a pair of 1.8m dishes. You can't know your Mbps figure for a dedicated geostationary satcom link until you know you RF link budget, system gain, and how close you can get to the Shannon limit. The same amount of kHz (same dollar spend per month) could be used at 16QAM 5/6 or at QPSK 1/2 modulations, with very different Mbps figures.
modeless 9y ago
In a world where OneWeb and/or Starlink exist, how would a service with 10x worse latency compete? Are you betting that both will fail? Otherwise you'll only have a couple of years to recoup the entire cost of your system before it becomes obsolete.

caio1982 9y ago

With what rocket system do you plan to launch these sats? Which company will launch and which will assemble them (often these are different ones)?

gedmark 9y ago
We're compatible with all the major launch vehicle families-- SpaceX Falcon 9, Atlas V, Ariane 5, and some of the other foreign launchers. Part of the great thing about where things are in the industry today is that ride shares for micro-satellites (where you fly as a piggy-back alongside a traditional satellite) are pretty much a solved problem.

caio1982 9y ago

Why do you think this pin-point for-hire internet sat service is better than a constellation? Is it because you can profit right away without an initial setup cost of the constellation? But in the long run the constellation pays off and might drive you out of business, right?

PaulHoule 9y ago
It may or may not. If you think there is a rural/urban problem with optic fiber, you are jumping from the frying pan to the fire with LEO satellite constellations. That's because an LEO satellite constellation has to cover the whole world (or almost all of it) to be able to cover any inhabited area at all. Thus it has to cover oceans, large roadless areas, deserts, mountains, etc. At least with optic fiber you only have to cover roads. Note that high density areas can cause trouble on the other side -- you need to support the highest density worldwide that you support anywhere. Note that users in a place like New York City will generate noise affecting satellites 1000+ miles away, so if you don't ban people setting up accounts in dense areas, it will have to be priced so high that people with a lot of money looking for a backup connection will be priced out. I am highly skeptical that the economics can work out for an LEO constellation.
- gbhn 9y ago
  This makes sense to me. Even with managing orbits you are still having a huge part of the fleet over empty areas. If the idea is to manage high bandwidth needs of autonomous ships, trucks, trains, planes, etc maybe it makes sense...

caio1982 9y ago

How much time is needed to build and QA a full new sat of yours before send it for the launch provider?

PaulHoule 9y ago

What effect does the small size of the satellite have on the cost and complexity of the terminal? The small-aperture terminal market has been driven by GEO satellites getting bigger, a lot bigger. Yes, we can fit more satellite in a small package, and solar cells have gotten more efficient, but there are laws-of-physics issues involving the size of the antenna, power requirements, etc. that aren't going to go away. Geosynchronous satellite spacing is determined by the ability of ground stations to resolve satellites so there is a certain number of satellites that can fly, so there is a pressure towards large high-performance satellites that can deliver the maximum capacity as opposed to launching fewer low-performance satellites. Already the high-capacity satellites have insufficient bandwidth to serve demand (otherwise people would just be getting satellite instead of asking for terrestrial internet) and I don't see how low-capacity satellites will actually help. I see similar problem with the terminals for systems like the SpaceX constellation. To get "wireless equivalent" performance I see the ground terminal requiring some kind of electronically scanned array which would put the cost upwards of $6000. There is a precedent for satellite services with a high-cost terminal, as back in the 1980s many people would spend about that much for an unlicensed satellite terminal to receive TV, but since that was pirate there was no subscription fee. Compare that to $100 a month for cable and that pays for itself in 5 years. I have this funny feeling that next-gen satellite providers want to have the expensive terminal AND the expensive service -- possibly because of the "Juicero" issue that the people bankrolling them don't know what prices look like to the average customer. I would love it if you could prove me wrong.

gedmark 9y ago
Hi there, great questions. The satellites are spec'd to deliver the same power (EIRP) on the ground as traditional large GEO's, with each of our satellites having a fraction of the capacity. This is a key point-- it will take several of our satellites to do the same job as one traditional large GEO. But that's not only ok, it's much better. It means we can put up a smaller chunk of capacity as needed and not do the "all or nothing" approach of a large GEO. The high capacity satellites do have insufficient bandwidth to serve demand, on that I agree. But that's not a spectrum limitation, its a limitation on how many such large GEO's have been launched. Which is a small number because each one is so expensive. There is still plenty more spectrum we can use for GEO telecoms, and more with proper frequency re-use schemes. The point you make about the drive to large GEO's holds true if you assume only one spacecraft will ever be in a single orbital slot. But that's not the case. There's plenty of orbital slots where multiple GEOs are co-located, and this will increasingly be the case in the future. I'd argue the drive to large satellites was more driven by various incentives and systemic issues in the industry that drove them that direction. A much longer conversation, but it's things that can all be fixed. And to answer your last question, because our satellites are spec'd to provide the same EIRP on the ground, the ground terminals used are the same as those in use today for GEO telecoms. These terminals are all off-the-shelf and very low-cost compared to the terminals necessary for a LEO-based network.

RobLach 9y ago

Any accompanying software tech to mitigate the latency issues?

planteen 9y ago

Ok, I'll hit you with 3 questions: 1. What bandwidth capacity are you aiming for per spacecraft? 2. Are you using commercial or rad hard parts? 3. Is there a deployable antenna that makes the spacecraft larger than 3'x3'x3'?

ttul 9y ago
Let’s see: they’re spending tens of millions of dollars to put something into geostationary orbit that will presumably last there for years. I’m thinking they’re probably using radiation hardened parts.
- analognoise 9y ago
  As someone who has done rad hard fpga design as well as radiation testing of components, I can say: that's too bad. Rad hard parts are so behind commercial, and have such high unit costs (RTG4 is ~90k each, 300krad TID), and the verification is grueling. It's fun to see your stuff leave the planet, though.
- planteen 9y ago
  Maybe. If I remember correctly, the total ionizing dose (TID) at GEO is around double what it is at LEO. There are more single event effects (SEE) at GEO which would have to be handled. Most small sats at LEO use commercial parts and can operate for many years. The original Iridium constellation used commercial parts, though in LEO.
gedmark 9y ago
1. Our first design has a capacity of up to 10 Gbps. And we have a technical roadmap that can significantly increase that in future spacecraft designs. 2. For various reasons it doesn't make sense to go into that level of detail on a public forum. 3. Yes.

walrus01 9y ago

Satellite earth station engineer view: I'm interested in what the total system gain, EIRP and power looks like in an Astranis spot beam from geostationary, as compared to a current-generation 4000 to 6500 kilogram geostationary satellite with Ku and Ka band spot beams. I am optimistic but also skeptical. The size and power of the satellite will influence what the size of VSAT terminals needs to be, and also the earth stations/major teleports. The example size of the satellite shown in the URL is so much smaller than current geostationary satellites that I don't see how the Tx power from each transponder will be anywhere near the power on a much bigger, costlier satellite. Let's say for example I have put together from industry standard components, a 3.0 meter compact cassegrain Ku-band antenna in a remote part of Nepal, with a 40W BUC and a relatively recent Comtech EF Data modem. Are you planning on selling 1:1 dedicated capacity SCPC (and MCPC) type transponder kHz on a monthly basis? Or are you planning on standardizing on your own type of VSAT hardware terminal in bulk and selling contended access only? Where do you see your value proposition for high capacity IP trunk links as compared to an ISP buying a 2 x 1.8m dish o3b terminal, and dedicated capacity through o3b? What will your $/Mbps rate look like compared to o3b with a monthly spend of 2500 or 3500 dollars?

shaklee3 9y ago
Is your capacity steerable?
gedmark 9y ago
Hey there, I think you got the gist of it in a different part of this thread (each of our spacecraft has a fraction of the number of transponders as a typical large GEO). But if you'd like to discuss further I'd be happy to chat offline. Do you have an email address or other way that I could contact you?
- walrus01 9y ago
  I understand you are probably at a very early stage of product design for the satellite capabilities, so you are cagey and don't want to make any definitive statements of technical specs... But I'd rather not move the discussion off forum into private email when the other people reading this thread could possibly benefit from answers to my specific questions. I am kind of concerned that your answers to others' questions in this thread are vague and noncommittal. One more question. Do you intend to: (A) lease raw transponder kHz capacity to third party end users and ISPs (eg: the ku spot beams I can get on Russian satellites covering Afghanistan and a check for $4500 USD a month, or (b) is your business plan to operate both the satellites and the earth stations, and resell fully packaged VSAT services directly to end users?

bryananderson 9y ago

What does your embedded software stack look like? Are you running real-time Linux (and maybe Xenomai), or an RTOS?

josephpmay 9y ago

What makes you different from Viasat?

fulafel 9y ago

Where does the "industry’s targeted $75 per megabit per second per month for dedicated bandwidth" figure come from? Is it a satellite industry figure, or submarine cable cost, or normal terrestial fiber haul cost, or...?

walrus01 9y ago
$75 per Mbps per month is a weird figure. If they plan to resell transponder kHz capacity on a commercial basis, the Mbps capacity will be a function of the modulation scheme/coding density that can be pushed through a link. Let's say I write them a check for $1500 a month worth of transponder frequency, FDD, and set up a 3.0m earth station on a roof in Cologne, Germany and another identical 3.0m terminal in Skardu, Pakistan. Both with modern SCPC modems. This hypothetical example assumes crosslinked spot beam coverage between the two regions and appropriate satellite position in the geostationary arc. The amount of Mbps I could push through that will be greater than if I do the same setup with a pair of 1.8m dishes. You can't know your Mbps figure for a dedicated geostationary satcom link until you know you RF link budget, system gain, and how close you can get to the Shannon limit. The same amount of kHz (same dollar spend per month) could be used at 16QAM 5/6 or at QPSK 1/2 modulations, with very different Mbps figures.

modeless 9y ago

In a world where OneWeb and/or Starlink exist, how would a service with 10x worse latency compete? Are you betting that both will fail? Otherwise you'll only have a couple of years to recoup the entire cost of your system before it becomes obsolete.