Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loon’s final flight

blog.x.company

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 264 posts

Re: Loon’s final flight

#161

Post by ForHackernews »

ogre_codes wrote: post #25
Mistri wrote: post #4

People often make fun of Google/Alphabet for their graveyard of failed initiatives/products. While some of it might be warranted, projects like this—that strive to solve a large, global issue through somewhat charitable actions—are generous and have only increased my respect for the Google/Alphabet/X team. I hope they don't get flamed for this, and hopefully some of their research and donation funds can live on and s…

I think the days of Google Moonshots are coming to a close. In general Google hasn't been very good at shooting for the moon. They've lost their leadership and vision and all that's left is a giant advertising behemoth. Did any of their moonshots really hit the mark or even come close?

Arguably, all there ever was was a giant advertising behemoth and everything else is window-dressing to disguise that fact and recruit talent.

Re: Loon’s final flight

#162

Post by Tepix »

shpx wrote: post #19
laverya wrote: post #5

Given that Starlink will probably solve the same set of problems within a few years (that being access to internet worldwide in areas with minimal infrastructure) this isn't too much of a surprise to me.

You connect to Loon balloons with your regular cellphone whereas StarLink requires a "pizza-box-sized" antenna. They solve slightly different problems.

"Pizza-box-sized" was a placeholder. The Starlink antenna ("Dishy") has a diameter of 59cm https://i.imgur.com/ULwOGxs.jpg

Re: Loon’s final flight

#163

Post by ForHackernews »

antupis wrote: post #30
ogre_codes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the days of Google Moonshots are coming to a close. In general Google hasn't been very good at shooting for the moon. They've lost their leadership and vision and all that's left is a giant advertising behemoth. Did any of their moonshots really hit the mark or even come close?

Brain is doing great and Waymo probably at least hits close.

Is Brain doing great? From a few things people have said, it sounded like Brain was struggling so Google bought Deep Mind instead. All of the really cutting edge AI stuff has come out of Deep Mind, not Brain.

Re: Loon’s final flight

#164

Post by Tepix »

sixti60 wrote: post #129

Sorry to be this guy, but I am quite happy this will not happen. The sky - our sky - is not a playground for tech companies. Imposing a mesh-grid of thousands of balloons in the sky is an incredible intrusion for people around the world who have not asked for anything. It's the same for mega constellations of satellites (Starlink). Would you be willing to have a company come and put unsolicited electronic equipment i…

Unlike an airplane, the baloon flies much higher. I don't think you can see it with your bare eyes from the ground. Perhaps if you look really hard.

Regarding the satellites, i hope the Starlink satellites will also be not visible to the naked eye once they reach their final orbit now that they have the sunshade.

On the other hand, these technologies provide a huge benefit to the people on the ground.

If you want to complain about Loon you should also complain about regular airplanes, helicopters, zeppelins, weather balloons and balloons in general.

Re: Loon’s final flight

#165

Post by ForHackernews »

Aeolun wrote: post #91
stickfigure wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet says: "The Apollo program's total cost was about $25.4 billion, about $152 billion in today's dollars." That's about Google's entire revenue for 2020. I don't think even Google could put a man on the moon at those rates. Literal moonshots are expensive.

I think SpaceX could put a man on the moon for much less? We’re currently at a few billion to put a whole horde of them on Mars I believe.

> We’re currently at a few billion to put a whole horde of them on Mars I believe.

Uh... don't count your Mars shots before they're hatched. Even getting robot probes to Mars is very very hard. Only about half of Mars missions have been successful. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union only one organisation has succeeded in putting working probes on the Martian surface: NASA/JPL.

I don't think it's impossible that SpaceX will get there, but certainly not soon and not for "a few billion". If they succeed at all, it will require drawing on years on investment and expertise by NASA.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mars-exploration/missions/historical-l...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53589767

Re: Loon’s final flight

#166

Post by Dylan16807 »

Judgmentality wrote: post #126
aetherson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual thing that self driving cars get you is "not paying for a taxi driver." If one remote operator can supervise 10 mostly autonomous vehicles, you've gotten 90% of the economic value of full autonomy.

This ignores the cost of sending data wirelessly over cellular networks so remote operators can see the vehicle, the cost of maintaining the software and hardware on the vehicle itself, the cost of maintaining the vehicle fleet, the cost of creating and operating a consumer-facing support system (!!! for Google), the cost of dealing with the enormous amounts of data those vehicles create (even for Google this is not…

The phrase "value of full autonomy" is excluding fleet costs on purpose. It's about drivers.

Customer support is also going to be far far fewer than one person per vehicle.

The enormous amounts of data? If it's not valuable they can just discard it! Having sensors attached to something doesn't obligate you to store it forever.

Everyone knows the software/configuration costs are immense here. But that's the lion's share of the difficulty, and there's no reason to act like minor hurdles are bigger than they are.

Re: Loon’s final flight

#167

Post by ForHackernews »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #159
sgt101 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have the technology to get a person to Mars or to land them when they get there. We probably have the technology to build a spaceship that they could die in on the way there - but that's the closest that we realistically have.

Surviving on the way to Mars isn't a huge leap in difficulty over a space station, and we have those on lock.

There's much greater radiation exposure away from Earth's magnetic field. I believe this is still an unsolved problem. Proposed solutions for shielding are heavy and expensive.

Re: Loon’s final flight

#168

Post by WanderPanda »

ogre_codes wrote: post #25
Mistri wrote: post #4

People often make fun of Google/Alphabet for their graveyard of failed initiatives/products. While some of it might be warranted, projects like this—that strive to solve a large, global issue through somewhat charitable actions—are generous and have only increased my respect for the Google/Alphabet/X team. I hope they don't get flamed for this, and hopefully some of their research and donation funds can live on and s…

I think the days of Google Moonshots are coming to a close. In general Google hasn't been very good at shooting for the moon. They've lost their leadership and vision and all that's left is a giant advertising behemoth. Did any of their moonshots really hit the mark or even come close?

Android was probably a moonshot at some point?!

Re: Loon’s final flight

#169

Post by Dylan16807 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #167
Dylan16807 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surviving on the way to Mars isn't a huge leap in difficulty over a space station, and we have those on lock.

There's much greater radiation exposure away from Earth's magnetic field. I believe this is still an unsolved problem. Proposed solutions for shielding are heavy and expensive.

You just have to keep the lights on and not die of cancer for six months. The radiation isn't that bad.

Edit: The specific number is under 2 millisievert per day. And "One sievert carries with it a 5.5% chance of eventually developing fatal cancer based on the linear no-threshold model."

Re: Loon’s final flight

#170

Post by sixti60 »

Tepix wrote: post #164
sixti60 wrote: post #129

Sorry to be this guy, but I am quite happy this will not happen. The sky - our sky - is not a playground for tech companies. Imposing a mesh-grid of thousands of balloons in the sky is an incredible intrusion for people around the world who have not asked for anything. It's the same for mega constellations of satellites (Starlink). Would you be willing to have a company come and put unsolicited electronic equipment i…

Unlike an airplane, the baloon flies much higher. I don't think you can see it with your bare eyes from the ground. Perhaps if you look really hard. Regarding the satellites, i hope the Starlink satellites will also be not visible to the naked eye once they reach their final orbit now that they have the sunshade. On the other hand, these technologies provide a huge benefit to the people on the ground. If you want to…

> Regarding the satellites, i hope the Starlink satellites will also be not visible to the naked eye

This is not guaranteed at all. I read articles in the past mentioning that you will see "trains" of dozens of white dots one behind another in the sky.

Do we currently see satellites in a dark summer night? Yes. So for Starlink it will be the same, except with 10 of them one behind another.

I'd be happy to read more sources confirming or infirming this.

Post reply on HN