6 ms·

Amazon launches first Kuiper internet satellites in bid to take on Starlink

58 points by pseudolus 2y ago

godelski 2y ago
While I think we need alternatives to Starlink and competition in the space[0], I think we need to recognize that there are physical limitations. Consequently there is a natural monopoly here, and if we have too many providers we will block out the sky[1] and risk creating the Kessler Syndrome[2]. While these satellites are being target at LEO and will naturally decay, lessening the harm if a Kessler effect arises, I think it is worth noting. Interestingly, we had a strikingly similar event happen not too long ago: telecom. When it was all wired, we had a choice: to allow wide competition and let the wires block out the skies[3], or share. The same problem happened again when it came to the airwaves. And again when it came to satellite communications. Here we are, at the natural continuation of this. The physics of these things means that there are natural limitations that can't be avoided and can create advantages that can't be superseded, harming competition[4]. The physics means that there are better frequencies than others to use. The physics means that there are better orbits than others. Certainly first mover should be rewarded, but certainly the first mover cannot have undo power to squash any competition. That does not benefit anyone[5]. So now with a second player is this space[!0], we need to take the notion more seriously. Opinions of Musk aside[6], we're at a point where action need be taken. If the ball doesn't get rolling on this then everyone is worse off.[7] I want to stress that this is a global issue. Even if the US solves the problem for US companies (in whatever manner that is), this doesn't change the fact that those laws of physics still apply and other countries exist. What about companies in China? India? Europe? Or other countries/regions? This was less of a problem for other communications but at this point the importance of a global solution becomes necessary. There is not enough space[0] for even a few countries to throw up their own mega constellations. They will start interfering with one another.... The truth of the matter is a coalition provides a better tool for everyone. But no coalition means the service is worse for every player. It is a literal Tragedy of the Commons[8] situation. [0] pun unintended [1] Mostly to Earth based astronomy. But there are other consequences and visible light isn't the only portion of the EM spectrum that is blocked. Plus... there's the physical layer! [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome [3] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-really-have-individual-telephone-wires-going-from-a-central-tower-to-ea https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-r... [4] If government has a role in the economy I think even those that are fairly libertarian agree that it should ensure competition is able to occur (even if that the means is through stepping back). [5] Even in the long run it does not benefit the company in power. Only in the short term is there an advantage. [6] Disclosure: I am very much not a fan. (Please don't get me started... I'd like to stay on this topic. At least for a bit. The other parts are also important but I'm hoping we can have a serious talk about this one thing. If nothing more than to solve a mutual problem) [7] Even if you are a fan of Musk I think it is likely that we can agree that Musk's involvement in this decision making process should exclusively come from the perspective of SpaceX and not through his influence in the government. A functioning and competitive market needs a neutral third party decision maker, or at be a mediator. Even the perception of undo influence is detrimental to the process. It'll be difficult (potentially impossible) to decouple given current conditions. [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  >Consequently there is a natural monopoly here, and if we have too many providers we will block out the sky[1] and risk creating the Kessler Syndrome[2]. The orbits Starlink sats are at won't cause Kessler syndrome. Even if the entire constellation exploded right this instant, all the debris would deorbit within about 5 years
  - godelski 2y ago
    You are incorrect. Orbits can't cause a Kessler Syndrome. Kessler Syndrome can occur at any altitude. But you are correct that the orbit places a bound for how long the Kessler Event can take place. A bound in time is different from not possible. Do not confuse the two. There's also 2 critical points: 1) The lower the altitude, the easier it is to create. You need less debris to fill the orbit. 2) Even a 3 years "lockout" period would have significant consequences on our world due to our reliance on space. Also, remember that when objects collide that this can send parts into higher orbits, which will take longer to deorbit. Even just through collisions, while the total energy of the system may be lower than the input this does not require each object to have the same or less energy prior to collision. Then we also have to consider that some craft have propellants. Considering that Starlink satellites have collision avoidance systems on them, it is quite safe to assume they have propellants. This similarly can result in more objects ending up in higher orbits. Remember, just because it sounds right doesn't mean it is. There are non-negligible factors at play here and overly simplistic models will lead you to the wrong conclusion. (Source: I have a degree in physics and formerly worked in the space industry. My job consisted of modeling a lot of things, including radiation transport, orbital dynamics, and acoustic engine stability. I'm not stating this to flex, I'm stating this to claim I'm not just some rando who read a few wiki pages)
WalterSobchak 2y ago
That's a really interesting name. How would you pronounce it?
- jpm_sd 2y ago
  KY-per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Kuiper https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Kuiper
  - eminence32 2y ago
    > /ˈkaɪpər/ Wikipedia has long included IPA pronunciation info for pages about people and other things, which is hyperlinked to a handy guide. But I recently discovered something useful and not entirely obvious: If you over your mouse over each letter in the IPA pronunciation, you'll get a tooltip describing the sound of that specific letter.
- wenc 2y ago
  Before I learned Dutch pronunciation, I always thought it was "coo-ee-per". But the other comment is correct -- it's approximately "kyper". Now try Huygens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  The Kuiper Belt is a big mess of space debris in the outer Solar System. It's where many comets and asteroids may originate before we spot them coming towards the Sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt It's a rather apropros name for a project which likewise plans to pollute Earth orbit with a bunch of space junk in order to compete with other junk providers. Hopefully their junk does not often touch. In related news, I also learned recently that the Oort Cloud may not exist at all. I've often seen objects referred to as "originating in the Oort Cloud" but Oort himself had simply developed a hypothesis, and the "Cloud" has not progressed beyond "hypothesis" status since that time. It's amazing how imaginary structures enter our consciousness as if they are real, if enough scientists talk about it that way!
deedubaya 2y ago
Why are these going up on ULA rockets and not Blue Origin?
- boznz 2y ago
  New Glen is their orbital rocket but it is not ready yet. Hopefully it will be ready for some of the launches, but it must hurt owning a rocket company and having to use another companies to launch your satellites. From the project web page "Project Kuiper has secured 80 launches from Arianespace, Blue Origin, SpaceX, and United Launch Alliance, and we have options for additional launches with Blue Origin, providing enough capacity to deploy the majority of our satellite constellation. The agreements comprise the largest commercial procurement of launch capacity in history, and support thousands of suppliers and highly skilled jobs across the U.S. and Europe."
  - godelski 2y ago
    It's worth mentioning too that BO is following the same strategy as SpaceX (and others), in becoming their own customers. Lesson learned from the 90's launch vehicle boom. Companies couldn't scale without customers, it's a vicious feedback loop. No customers because prices are too high, can't bring prices down without more customers. Either you have to become your own customer or you have to bootstrap. It's a long way to bootstrap and an expensive industry. Though using ULA is kinda a bridge to the looking deadline[0]. So if they can't get satellites up now they won't have this means for being their own customer in the future. [0] https://news.satnews.com/2025/03/19/project-kuiper-facing-regulatory-deadline/ https://news.satnews.com/2025/03/19/project-kuiper-facing-re...
- lupusreal 2y ago
  They need to launch fast with as many launchers as they can, due to their looming FCC deadline. The more they launch, the better their odds for getting an extension to their deadline as more launches demonstrates their seriousness. They're even going to launch on Falcon 9 (albeit after a shareholder lawsuit..)
  - 2y ago
wnevets 2y ago
[flagged]
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Tired of these ignorant gripes from people who think they know better than the entire space industry because they ingested some popsci trash on reddit or youtube. If you actually knew anything you would know that LEO constellations are far less risky than the old school method of putting communication satellites in high orbits like GEO (where any accident means orbital debris which will effectively never decay.)
  - wnevets 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - omneity 2y ago
    For the uninitiated, what this comment means is that LEO-orbiting payloads have a naturally limited lifespan as the orbit decays over time on its own causing the LEO satellites to get closer to earth and burn down to smithereens due to friction with the atmosphere. This is why Starlink keeps launching new satellites on the regular. I believe theirs have a six years lifespan but don’t quote me on that.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      It also provides a bunch of real life experience for the company in launching rockets rather than being this rare occurrence they can iterate faster and fix problems as they go. Due to this, Falcon9 matured very quickly in my opinion
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    The guy who thought of the Kessler syndrome was a respected scientist in the space community and he was specifically speaking of LEO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome I think there's worse effects though. Like the impact on astronomy.. SpaceX has done a few things to minimise the effect but there is still an effect. The Kessler syndrome is a hypothetical phenomenon that could possibly occur under the wrong circumstances. But inference with astronomy is happening now.
tomsonj 2y ago
a perfect companion for https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/ https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
breadwinner 2y ago
The world needs an alternative to Starlink yesterday. If you criticize Musk on X, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist” will reduce distribution of your posts [1]. We don't want someone like that owning critical internet infrastructure. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon-musk-x-suppression-laura-loomer.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon...
- threeseed 2y ago
  We have an alternative for 99% of the world and it’s fibre. Which brings everyone the same speeds instead of perpetuating a digital divide between cities and rural areas. Which may not be bad now but once we start moving to ten and hundred gigabit plans, solutions like Starlink are going to resemble dialup.
  - robalpha 2y ago
    This makes zero sense. Fibre is not going to be economically viable in rural areas at all. If that's the only option, they won't have any internet at all. I also don't think we'll be moving to >10g plans anytime soon. Only a small portion of users have even close to 1g, and everyone else seems fine with it.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      a) Hospitals and roads are not economically viable either. We do it because it serves the national good and by making people more productive it improves the economy as a whole. b) In Australia they are trialing 100g over the existing fibre network. c) Everyone was fine with dialup at one point as well.
      - laurencei 2y ago
        I'm from Australia. You dont want to use us as an example of internet speeds or leading the world on anything in this space. Our internet infrastructure/speed etc is considered sub optimal by many. It is (slowly) getting better - but it has been years of lost oppoutunity.
thot_experiment 2y ago
SpaceX launched something like three or four times the mass to orbit last year as every other entity in the world, government and private combined. Kuiper is a LARP and will remain one for many years even with optimistic forecasts. China might have a workable constellation in a few years but we are likely at least 5 years away from a meaningful competitor to Starlink. Obviously having a non-elon option would be great but I am extremely doubtful anyone will be able to pull it off anytime soon.
theLegionWithin 2y ago
more competition is always a good thing - but Amazon isn't some bastion of openness & free thought... internet though Amazon will likely be a very closed ecosystem. wonder if the EU will try to create their own constellation...

58 points by pseudolus 2y ago

While I think we need alternatives to Starlink and competition in the space[0], I think we need to recognize that there are physical limitations. Consequently there is a natural monopoly here, and if we have too many providers we will block out the sky[1] and risk creating the Kessler Syndrome[2]. While these satellites are being target at LEO and will naturally decay, lessening the harm if a Kessler effect arises, I think it is worth noting. Interestingly, we had a strikingly similar event happen not too long ago: telecom. When it was all wired, we had a choice: to allow wide competition and let the wires block out the skies[3], or share. The same problem happened again when it came to the airwaves. And again when it came to satellite communications. Here we are, at the natural continuation of this. The physics of these things means that there are natural limitations that can't be avoided and can create advantages that can't be superseded, harming competition[4]. The physics means that there are better frequencies than others to use. The physics means that there are better orbits than others. Certainly first mover should be rewarded, but certainly the first mover cannot have undo power to squash any competition. That does not benefit anyone[5]. So now with a second player is this space[!0], we need to take the notion more seriously. Opinions of Musk aside[6], we're at a point where action need be taken. If the ball doesn't get rolling on this then everyone is worse off.[7] I want to stress that this is a global issue. Even if the US solves the problem for US companies (in whatever manner that is), this doesn't change the fact that those laws of physics still apply and other countries exist. What about companies in China? India? Europe? Or other countries/regions? This was less of a problem for other communications but at this point the importance of a global solution becomes necessary. There is not enough space[0] for even a few countries to throw up their own mega constellations. They will start interfering with one another.... The truth of the matter is a coalition provides a better tool for everyone. But no coalition means the service is worse for every player. It is a literal Tragedy of the Commons[8] situation. [0] pun unintended [1] Mostly to Earth based astronomy. But there are other consequences and visible light isn't the only portion of the EM spectrum that is blocked. Plus... there's the physical layer! [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome [3] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-really-have-individual-telephone-wires-going-from-a-central-tower-to-ea https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-r... [4] If government has a role in the economy I think even those that are fairly libertarian agree that it should ensure competition is able to occur (even if that the means is through stepping back). [5] Even in the long run it does not benefit the company in power. Only in the short term is there an advantage. [6] Disclosure: I am very much not a fan. (Please don't get me started... I'd like to stay on this topic. At least for a bit. The other parts are also important but I'm hoping we can have a serious talk about this one thing. If nothing more than to solve a mutual problem) [7] Even if you are a fan of Musk I think it is likely that we can agree that Musk's involvement in this decision making process should exclusively come from the perspective of SpaceX and not through his influence in the government. A functioning and competitive market needs a neutral third party decision maker, or at be a mediator. Even the perception of undo influence is detrimental to the process. It'll be difficult (potentially impossible) to decouple given current conditions. [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

HideousKojima 2y ago
>Consequently there is a natural monopoly here, and if we have too many providers we will block out the sky[1] and risk creating the Kessler Syndrome[2]. The orbits Starlink sats are at won't cause Kessler syndrome. Even if the entire constellation exploded right this instant, all the debris would deorbit within about 5 years
- godelski 2y ago
  You are incorrect. Orbits can't cause a Kessler Syndrome. Kessler Syndrome can occur at any altitude. But you are correct that the orbit places a bound for how long the Kessler Event can take place. A bound in time is different from not possible. Do not confuse the two. There's also 2 critical points: 1) The lower the altitude, the easier it is to create. You need less debris to fill the orbit. 2) Even a 3 years "lockout" period would have significant consequences on our world due to our reliance on space. Also, remember that when objects collide that this can send parts into higher orbits, which will take longer to deorbit. Even just through collisions, while the total energy of the system may be lower than the input this does not require each object to have the same or less energy prior to collision. Then we also have to consider that some craft have propellants. Considering that Starlink satellites have collision avoidance systems on them, it is quite safe to assume they have propellants. This similarly can result in more objects ending up in higher orbits. Remember, just because it sounds right doesn't mean it is. There are non-negligible factors at play here and overly simplistic models will lead you to the wrong conclusion. (Source: I have a degree in physics and formerly worked in the space industry. My job consisted of modeling a lot of things, including radiation transport, orbital dynamics, and acoustic engine stability. I'm not stating this to flex, I'm stating this to claim I'm not just some rando who read a few wiki pages)

WalterSobchak 2y ago

That's a really interesting name. How would you pronounce it?

jpm_sd 2y ago
KY-per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Kuiper https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Kuiper
- eminence32 2y ago
  > /ˈkaɪpər/ Wikipedia has long included IPA pronunciation info for pages about people and other things, which is hyperlinked to a handy guide. But I recently discovered something useful and not entirely obvious: If you over your mouse over each letter in the IPA pronunciation, you'll get a tooltip describing the sound of that specific letter.
wenc 2y ago
Before I learned Dutch pronunciation, I always thought it was "coo-ee-per". But the other comment is correct -- it's approximately "kyper". Now try Huygens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens
AStonesThrow 2y ago
The Kuiper Belt is a big mess of space debris in the outer Solar System. It's where many comets and asteroids may originate before we spot them coming towards the Sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt It's a rather apropros name for a project which likewise plans to pollute Earth orbit with a bunch of space junk in order to compete with other junk providers. Hopefully their junk does not often touch. In related news, I also learned recently that the Oort Cloud may not exist at all. I've often seen objects referred to as "originating in the Oort Cloud" but Oort himself had simply developed a hypothesis, and the "Cloud" has not progressed beyond "hypothesis" status since that time. It's amazing how imaginary structures enter our consciousness as if they are real, if enough scientists talk about it that way!

deedubaya 2y ago

Why are these going up on ULA rockets and not Blue Origin?

boznz 2y ago
New Glen is their orbital rocket but it is not ready yet. Hopefully it will be ready for some of the launches, but it must hurt owning a rocket company and having to use another companies to launch your satellites. From the project web page "Project Kuiper has secured 80 launches from Arianespace, Blue Origin, SpaceX, and United Launch Alliance, and we have options for additional launches with Blue Origin, providing enough capacity to deploy the majority of our satellite constellation. The agreements comprise the largest commercial procurement of launch capacity in history, and support thousands of suppliers and highly skilled jobs across the U.S. and Europe."
- godelski 2y ago
  It's worth mentioning too that BO is following the same strategy as SpaceX (and others), in becoming their own customers. Lesson learned from the 90's launch vehicle boom. Companies couldn't scale without customers, it's a vicious feedback loop. No customers because prices are too high, can't bring prices down without more customers. Either you have to become your own customer or you have to bootstrap. It's a long way to bootstrap and an expensive industry. Though using ULA is kinda a bridge to the looking deadline[0]. So if they can't get satellites up now they won't have this means for being their own customer in the future. [0] https://news.satnews.com/2025/03/19/project-kuiper-facing-regulatory-deadline/ https://news.satnews.com/2025/03/19/project-kuiper-facing-re...
lupusreal 2y ago
They need to launch fast with as many launchers as they can, due to their looming FCC deadline. The more they launch, the better their odds for getting an extension to their deadline as more launches demonstrates their seriousness. They're even going to launch on Falcon 9 (albeit after a shareholder lawsuit..)
- 2y ago

wnevets 2y ago

[flagged]

lupusreal 2y ago
Tired of these ignorant gripes from people who think they know better than the entire space industry because they ingested some popsci trash on reddit or youtube. If you actually knew anything you would know that LEO constellations are far less risky than the old school method of putting communication satellites in high orbits like GEO (where any accident means orbital debris which will effectively never decay.)
- wnevets 2y ago
  [flagged]
- omneity 2y ago
  For the uninitiated, what this comment means is that LEO-orbiting payloads have a naturally limited lifespan as the orbit decays over time on its own causing the LEO satellites to get closer to earth and burn down to smithereens due to friction with the atmosphere. This is why Starlink keeps launching new satellites on the regular. I believe theirs have a six years lifespan but don’t quote me on that.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    It also provides a bunch of real life experience for the company in launching rockets rather than being this rare occurrence they can iterate faster and fix problems as they go. Due to this, Falcon9 matured very quickly in my opinion
- wkat4242 2y ago
  The guy who thought of the Kessler syndrome was a respected scientist in the space community and he was specifically speaking of LEO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome I think there's worse effects though. Like the impact on astronomy.. SpaceX has done a few things to minimise the effect but there is still an effect. The Kessler syndrome is a hypothetical phenomenon that could possibly occur under the wrong circumstances. But inference with astronomy is happening now.

tomsonj 2y ago

a perfect companion for https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/ https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

breadwinner 2y ago

The world needs an alternative to Starlink yesterday. If you criticize Musk on X, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist” will reduce distribution of your posts [1]. We don't want someone like that owning critical internet infrastructure. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon-musk-x-suppression-laura-loomer.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon...

threeseed 2y ago
We have an alternative for 99% of the world and it’s fibre. Which brings everyone the same speeds instead of perpetuating a digital divide between cities and rural areas. Which may not be bad now but once we start moving to ten and hundred gigabit plans, solutions like Starlink are going to resemble dialup.
- robalpha 2y ago
  This makes zero sense. Fibre is not going to be economically viable in rural areas at all. If that's the only option, they won't have any internet at all. I also don't think we'll be moving to >10g plans anytime soon. Only a small portion of users have even close to 1g, and everyone else seems fine with it.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    a) Hospitals and roads are not economically viable either. We do it because it serves the national good and by making people more productive it improves the economy as a whole. b) In Australia they are trialing 100g over the existing fibre network. c) Everyone was fine with dialup at one point as well.
    - laurencei 2y ago
      I'm from Australia. You dont want to use us as an example of internet speeds or leading the world on anything in this space. Our internet infrastructure/speed etc is considered sub optimal by many. It is (slowly) getting better - but it has been years of lost oppoutunity.

thot_experiment 2y ago

SpaceX launched something like three or four times the mass to orbit last year as every other entity in the world, government and private combined. Kuiper is a LARP and will remain one for many years even with optimistic forecasts. China might have a workable constellation in a few years but we are likely at least 5 years away from a meaningful competitor to Starlink. Obviously having a non-elon option would be great but I am extremely doubtful anyone will be able to pull it off anytime soon.

theLegionWithin 2y ago

more competition is always a good thing - but Amazon isn't some bastion of openness & free thought... internet though Amazon will likely be a very closed ecosystem. wonder if the EU will try to create their own constellation...