DailyDirt: Space-Based Telecommunications

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Thu, Jun 11th 2015 5:00pm — Michael Ho

The idea of space-based telecommunications seemed so promising in the 1980s, but the delivered services didn't quite live up to the dream of ubiquitous global communications. Al Franken's one-man satellite reporting didn't really address the latency issues associated with geosynchronous satellite orbits, but the future of satellite communications was still a bad joke. Perhaps after a few decades, we're ready for another try?

Elon Musk's SpaceX intends to create a constellation of 4,000 small/cheap satellites to provide high speed internet all over the world. Billionaires have tried this concept before, but maybe this time, the economics of cheaper satellites and rocket systems will make it a more feasible venture. [url]
Iridium is the usual example of a global satellite network that was supposed to provide an always-on telecom network anywhere in the world. Iridium Next is actually set to replace the original aging Iridium satellites -- launched from SpaceX rockets in the largest commercial launch contract ever signed in 2010. The original business wasn't exactly a success, and given some of the lackluster specs of the planned replacement satellites, the next revision might not be much better. [url]
OneWeb is looking to build around 900 satellites to deliver internet connections all over the world. If all these plans actually pan out, it'll be a bit strange to see more competition in the satellite internet industry than in the terrestrial wireline internet business. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: al franken, cubesats, elon musk, geosynchronous orbit, iridium next, isp, oneweb, satellites
Companies: iridium, oneweb, spacex

5 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 6:17pm

Wonder how many satellites it takes just to cover the continental US? If 900-4000 cover the whole world, it should only take... several dozen? That's like a few million bucks to cover the whole country now that launch systems are getting less expensive? Chump change to a giant telecom, so what's really preventing satellite internet again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reality Reportor, 11 Jun 2015 @ 6:19pm

Elon Musk gets 4.9 BILLION in government subsidies:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

The New World Order is Fascism. If those networks are ever built, they're for Skynet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 2:07am

Re:
The problem with satellites in lower orbits is that you cannot really separate coverage of the US from coverage of the whole world. The satellites spend more of their time below the horizon from any viewpoint on earth.
While one or two Geostationary satellites could cover most of the US, northern Alaska would be a problem, but low orbit satellites can solve this problem. The latency introduced by geostationary satellites is noticeable, and would be a problem for gamers etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:07am

Re: Re: big difference in altitude
Great point about the latency. I knew there was a difference in altitude between the two orbits but had never looked it up before. Holy cow!
LEO orbit is around 99 miles high
Geosynchronous orbit is at 22,236 mi

I can see how that might make for a little bit of latency difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:11am

Looks like more space junk is in the forecast, better start designing those garbage collecting sats asap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]