5 ms·

Probably/unfortunately not really a Starlink competitor, right? They don't specify the "cruising" altitude, but I assume it's ~10 kilometers at most, probably

by tpmx 5y ago

Probably/unfortunately not really a Starlink competitor, right? They don't specify the "cruising" altitude, but I assume it's ~10 kilometers at most, probably less? Airbus would need quite a few of these in order to build a global internet connectivity service then. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Zephyr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Zephyr says ~20 km. Starlink sats (will) operate at ~540-570 km: https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/29/spacex-launches-60-more-starlink-spacecraft-fcc-clears-spacex-to-fly-satellites-at-lower-altitudes/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/29/spacex-launches-60-mor...

Tepix 5y ago
These planes can compete with Starlink in certain scenarios, for example you can launch them in the event of floods that knock out the regular telecommunications infrastructure.
- tpmx 5y ago
  With Starlink soon having ~global coverage, why bother transporting, launching and servicing these aircraft for a one time thing? I don't see the benefit. Will also be really hard to reach low prices for end user terminals with this approach. Very high quality visual/signals surveillance seems like a much more obvious market fit.
  - Tepix 5y ago
    For starters, all network participants need an expensive, large and power hungry Starlink antenna. An airplane could work with smaller devices as endpoints, such as phones.
  - btilly 5y ago
    First, Starlink has limited bandwidth per square mile. Therefore it cannot conceivably provide telecommunications for densely populated areas. Second, all you have to do is make these aircraft compatible with cell phones. So your target population already has "end user terminals" literally in hand. Third, this is not a one-time need. Local disasters happen fairly regularly, and sometimes can be predicted in advance. (For example hurricanes.) There is real value to an instant telecommunications network that can be deployed on short notice. Now I don't claim that this is actually economically viable. But it is not exactly crazy, either.
    - tpmx 5y ago
      Pretty good points. Starlink can't do 2G/3G/4G/5G with mobile phones on the ground, ~550+ km away, of course. They should probably look into partnering with e.g. Ericsson Response (https://www.ericsson.com/en/about-us/sustainability-and-corporate-responsibility/digital-inclusion/humanitarian-response https://www.ericsson.com/en/about-us/sustainability-and-corp...).
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Very high quality visual/signals surveillance seems like a much more obvious market fit. Oh, yeah, there are already companies the provide complete surveillance of cities or large areas of cities so that even if a crime scene is discovered hours or days later, they can just go back to that time and track vehicle movement to and from the crime scene to wherever it ends up as long as it's in the same (large) area. Reducing the cost of the equipment that does the recording of the area will only make it more accessible to more police departments, for better or worse.
Ottolay 5y ago
The U2 operated at over 20km, so maybe the altitude is higher. I suspect the greater issue is vehicle cost, lifetime, and safety. A starlink satellite is much smaller (and as result cheaper) and is rumored to have a 5+ year lifetime. Also, at end of life it burns up in the atmosphere. No worry about pushing the life on a component and having it crash and kill someone as a result.
- runarberg 5y ago
  I’m a bit puzzled by the economy here. Is creating, lunching and orbiting a satellite really cheaper then flying an airplane? Is it really cheaper to have a decommissioned satellite totally burn up in the atmosphere then reusing parts of an airplane to fix another, recycle unusable parts and put the rest in a landfill? The economics here just seem wrong.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    USD2021$15M per Falcon 9 launch (re-used, assuming first launch was paid for by a customer) [0] 60 Starlink satellites per Falcon 9 launch [1] = + USD2021$250,000 in launch costs per satellite (+ manufacturing / ops costs) [0] https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reused-falcon-9-elon-musk-explains-why-reusability-is-worth-it/ https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reus... [1] https://space4peace.org/starlink-gears-up-to-launch-nearly-1300-satellites-in-just-6-months/ https://space4peace.org/starlink-gears-up-to-launch-nearly-1...
    - Ottolay 5y ago
      As a reference a new Cessna 172 is $432,000 [1] and that is not a high tech aircraft. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/04/28/prices-for-new-general-aviation-aircraft-may-be-pricing-pilots-out-of-the-market/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/04/28/prices-fo...
      - runarberg 5y ago
        This feels like comparing potatoes and pineapples. A new Cessna vs a used Falcon 9 launch hardly seems like a fair comparison. The cost of the rocket is written off as externalized. The actual satellites are not factored in at all. Really what we are comparing here is the cost of an operation vs the cost of an airplane. The economics still seem dubious.
tomxor 5y ago
[EDIT] remove redundant info > Airbus would need quite a few of these in order to build a global internet connectivity service then. Yes it would require more units, but with a much smaller cost per unit for build, launch and maintenance. That's where it will start to get interesting: Which will have the lowest cost per GB, per user, per square km of coverage etc? I suspect even if it's cheaper it would still remain less global, since having massive swarms of these would probably be even more of a logistical nightmare than starlink. i.e they would supplement other technology... which is pretty much what Airbus is quoted suggesting in the article.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > with a much smaller cost per unit for build, launch and maintenance Somebody further down in the comments estimates $250k in launch costs for each Starlink satellite^[1]. Elsewhere, I found a claim that SpaceX execs said in 2019 that the per-satellite cost was "well below" $500k^[2]. So let's say $400k per satellite including manufacturing and launch, just to pick a number. Once it's in orbit, you need to pay for operations, but not maintenance (except on your ground-based infrastructure). And multiple factors (e.g. cheaper launch) stand to bring that price down. Realistically, how much do we expect one Starlink satellite's worth of telecom UAS to cost on an ongoing basis, including the maintenance and operations costs that don't apply to Starlink? Where is the analysis? OP's article makes the "cheaper" claim with (AFAICT) absolutely nothing to back it up, and the fact is that full size aircraft are not cheap. The service density flexibility and possibility for additional radio bands Starlink can't provide might be a good argument for this system to exist, but all this talk of it being cheaper seems very vague and presumptuous. What am I missing? ^[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28832257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28832257 ^[2] https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-second-announcement/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-s...
  - tomxor 5y ago
    > OP's article makes the "cheaper" claim with (AFAICT) absolutely nothing to back it up, and the fact is that full size aircraft are not cheap. It's not a full sized aircraft. 1 small autonomous plane is cheaper than 1 small satellite in general - in almost all respects. The article didn't claim anything beyond this: > The unmanned glider [...] is cheaper and more environmentally friendly than a satellite. This is fairly obvious and uninteresting, what is interesting is cost per GB/user/km2, in other words the end result, which is hard for anyone to say with much certainty at this point even with a thorough analysis because nether business has reached scale yet.
rlt 5y ago
They would have the advantage of variable density based on demand, i.e. more of them over population centers and none over oceans, whereas LEO satellite constellations are pretty uniformly distributed because they're orbiting. It's sort of in between a stationary cell tower and LEO satellite constellation. But then you have to worry about them failing and hitting those population centers, whereas satellites deorbit slowly and usually burn up completely.
Gravityloss 5y ago
You wouldn't need that many. The line of sight area has 300 km radius. There's even a precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovision

by tpmx 5y ago

Tepix 5y ago

These planes can compete with Starlink in certain scenarios, for example you can launch them in the event of floods that knock out the regular telecommunications infrastructure.

tpmx 5y ago
With Starlink soon having ~global coverage, why bother transporting, launching and servicing these aircraft for a one time thing? I don't see the benefit. Will also be really hard to reach low prices for end user terminals with this approach. Very high quality visual/signals surveillance seems like a much more obvious market fit.
- Tepix 5y ago
  For starters, all network participants need an expensive, large and power hungry Starlink antenna. An airplane could work with smaller devices as endpoints, such as phones.
- btilly 5y ago
  First, Starlink has limited bandwidth per square mile. Therefore it cannot conceivably provide telecommunications for densely populated areas. Second, all you have to do is make these aircraft compatible with cell phones. So your target population already has "end user terminals" literally in hand. Third, this is not a one-time need. Local disasters happen fairly regularly, and sometimes can be predicted in advance. (For example hurricanes.) There is real value to an instant telecommunications network that can be deployed on short notice. Now I don't claim that this is actually economically viable. But it is not exactly crazy, either.
  - tpmx 5y ago
    Pretty good points. Starlink can't do 2G/3G/4G/5G with mobile phones on the ground, ~550+ km away, of course. They should probably look into partnering with e.g. Ericsson Response (https://www.ericsson.com/en/about-us/sustainability-and-corporate-responsibility/digital-inclusion/humanitarian-response https://www.ericsson.com/en/about-us/sustainability-and-corp...).
- kbenson 5y ago
  > Very high quality visual/signals surveillance seems like a much more obvious market fit. Oh, yeah, there are already companies the provide complete surveillance of cities or large areas of cities so that even if a crime scene is discovered hours or days later, they can just go back to that time and track vehicle movement to and from the crime scene to wherever it ends up as long as it's in the same (large) area. Reducing the cost of the equipment that does the recording of the area will only make it more accessible to more police departments, for better or worse.

Ottolay 5y ago

The U2 operated at over 20km, so maybe the altitude is higher. I suspect the greater issue is vehicle cost, lifetime, and safety. A starlink satellite is much smaller (and as result cheaper) and is rumored to have a 5+ year lifetime. Also, at end of life it burns up in the atmosphere. No worry about pushing the life on a component and having it crash and kill someone as a result.

runarberg 5y ago
I’m a bit puzzled by the economy here. Is creating, lunching and orbiting a satellite really cheaper then flying an airplane? Is it really cheaper to have a decommissioned satellite totally burn up in the atmosphere then reusing parts of an airplane to fix another, recycle unusable parts and put the rest in a landfill? The economics here just seem wrong.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  USD2021$15M per Falcon 9 launch (re-used, assuming first launch was paid for by a customer) [0] 60 Starlink satellites per Falcon 9 launch [1] = + USD2021$250,000 in launch costs per satellite (+ manufacturing / ops costs) [0] https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reused-falcon-9-elon-musk-explains-why-reusability-is-worth-it/ https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does-it-cost-to-launch-a-reus... [1] https://space4peace.org/starlink-gears-up-to-launch-nearly-1300-satellites-in-just-6-months/ https://space4peace.org/starlink-gears-up-to-launch-nearly-1...
  - Ottolay 5y ago
    As a reference a new Cessna 172 is $432,000 [1] and that is not a high tech aircraft. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/04/28/prices-for-new-general-aviation-aircraft-may-be-pricing-pilots-out-of-the-market/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2021/04/28/prices-fo...
    - runarberg 5y ago
      This feels like comparing potatoes and pineapples. A new Cessna vs a used Falcon 9 launch hardly seems like a fair comparison. The cost of the rocket is written off as externalized. The actual satellites are not factored in at all. Really what we are comparing here is the cost of an operation vs the cost of an airplane. The economics still seem dubious.

tomxor 5y ago

[EDIT] remove redundant info > Airbus would need quite a few of these in order to build a global internet connectivity service then. Yes it would require more units, but with a much smaller cost per unit for build, launch and maintenance. That's where it will start to get interesting: Which will have the lowest cost per GB, per user, per square km of coverage etc? I suspect even if it's cheaper it would still remain less global, since having massive swarms of these would probably be even more of a logistical nightmare than starlink. i.e they would supplement other technology... which is pretty much what Airbus is quoted suggesting in the article.

caconym_ 5y ago
> with a much smaller cost per unit for build, launch and maintenance Somebody further down in the comments estimates $250k in launch costs for each Starlink satellite^[1]. Elsewhere, I found a claim that SpaceX execs said in 2019 that the per-satellite cost was "well below" $500k^[2]. So let's say $400k per satellite including manufacturing and launch, just to pick a number. Once it's in orbit, you need to pay for operations, but not maintenance (except on your ground-based infrastructure). And multiple factors (e.g. cheaper launch) stand to bring that price down. Realistically, how much do we expect one Starlink satellite's worth of telecom UAS to cost on an ongoing basis, including the maintenance and operations costs that don't apply to Starlink? Where is the analysis? OP's article makes the "cheaper" claim with (AFAICT) absolutely nothing to back it up, and the fact is that full size aircraft are not cheap. The service density flexibility and possibility for additional radio bands Starlink can't provide might be a good argument for this system to exist, but all this talk of it being cheaper seems very vague and presumptuous. What am I missing? ^[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28832257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28832257 ^[2] https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-second-announcement/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-s...
- tomxor 5y ago
  > OP's article makes the "cheaper" claim with (AFAICT) absolutely nothing to back it up, and the fact is that full size aircraft are not cheap. It's not a full sized aircraft. 1 small autonomous plane is cheaper than 1 small satellite in general - in almost all respects. The article didn't claim anything beyond this: > The unmanned glider [...] is cheaper and more environmentally friendly than a satellite. This is fairly obvious and uninteresting, what is interesting is cost per GB/user/km2, in other words the end result, which is hard for anyone to say with much certainty at this point even with a thorough analysis because nether business has reached scale yet.

rlt 5y ago

They would have the advantage of variable density based on demand, i.e. more of them over population centers and none over oceans, whereas LEO satellite constellations are pretty uniformly distributed because they're orbiting. It's sort of in between a stationary cell tower and LEO satellite constellation. But then you have to worry about them failing and hitting those population centers, whereas satellites deorbit slowly and usually burn up completely.

Gravityloss 5y ago

You wouldn't need that many. The line of sight area has 300 km radius. There's even a precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovision