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

Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#91

Post by darksaints »

shantara wrote: post #21
caiobegotti wrote: post #4

"If Kuiper succeeds [...]" That's the biggest if clause you will ever see about this because in order for it to succeed at all BO needs to actually launch something to orbit at least once before we talk about success of a commercial product on top of their rockets. I follow up SpaceX quite closely, I admit, but any news about products that absolutely depend on the launch capability of BO is vaporware at most and most…

> ...BO needs to actually launch something to orbit... And they need start launching soon. FCC rules give Amazon until 2026 to launch and start operating at least 50% of the licensed number of satellites - 1618 satellites - or risk their satellite constellation license annulled. To put this timeframe in context, Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and has yet to achieve a single orbital flight.

FCC rules seem fairly hardline, and they absolutely can be, but in general they are not. Buildout rules generally are given on all licenses (I work with licenses for 2.5ghz spectrum) and if you fail to build out on the timeline you asked for initially, you can usually get the FCC to reissue a license. The only time when it is actually a threat is if there are other interests actively looking and applying to use the same spectrum jurisdiction who are capable of successfully building out before you.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#92

Post by wmf »

paulsutter wrote: post #47

Bizarre claim. In what way would Starlink have any less access to AWS? Its... the internet > “If Kuiper succeeds, Amazon can not only offer global satellite broadband access—it can include that access as part of its Amazon Web Services (AWS), which already offers resources for cloud computing, machine learning, data analytics, and more”

For example, imagine if Kuiper terminals could be configured to not use the Internet but to be inside a VPC.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#93

Post by _lbaq »

zie wrote: post #39
shantara wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...BO needs to actually launch something to orbit... And they need start launching soon. FCC rules give Amazon until 2026 to launch and start operating at least 50% of the licensed number of satellites - 1618 satellites - or risk their satellite constellation license annulled. To put this timeframe in context, Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and has yet to achieve a single orbital flight.

If we assume: * BO rocket 2x the cargo size * Satellites same size/weight as starlink 120 sats per launch(vs F9's 60). If they have to launch 1618 by 2026, that means they need 14 launches in 6 years. If they only need 1/2 the 1618, they need 7 launches in 6 years. So I think 7 launches(840 sats) it's still in the realm of possibility, but they have to execute everything pretty much flawlessly to make it happen. They…

BO has existed longer than SpaceX without launching anything to orbit. I'm not saying that it cannot be done, but 2026 is 5 years away....

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#94

Post by neetdeth »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #16
polytely wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine SpaceX helping Amazon to create a competing satellite constellation while they are setting up starlink

Musk has stated that he has no objections to launching OneWeb's constellation. That may or may not also apply to Kuiper.

Cooperating with Bezos is a different thing though. It would be like nursing an injured rattlesnake back to health.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#95

Post by rst »

someperson wrote: post #58
numpad0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no negativity or positivity, towards or against, Blue Origin, or ULA, or SpaceX, or Tesla. None. Anywhere. It’s the script some people are reading aloud, “I don’t understand why there is negativity...” like GPT-3 made out of human flesh.

Boeing's Space Launch System and to a lesser extent ULA's (Atlas/Delta) are certainly disliked among many space enthusiasts (on /r/spacex and other watering holes) for wasting taxpayer money in huge amounts. Blue Origin is disliked for being an extremely well-funded project that appears to make almost no progress after 20 years, yet causes SpaceX grief by being a patenting the landing rockets on ocean platforms idea…

Also for trying, back in 2014, to grab the lease on launch pad 39A at Cape Canaveral, which ultimately went to SpaceX, without having an orbital rocket to launch from it -- not then, and not now.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#96

Post by jtrip »

skapadia wrote: post #71
shantara wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...BO needs to actually launch something to orbit... And they need start launching soon. FCC rules give Amazon until 2026 to launch and start operating at least 50% of the licensed number of satellites - 1618 satellites - or risk their satellite constellation license annulled. To put this timeframe in context, Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and has yet to achieve a single orbital flight.

We live in amazing times. Private companies sending rockets and humans into space. "Satellite constellation licenses" - it really does sound so sci-fi and futuristic.

I've got another one. Our smartphones now have sensor-cluster nodes; they used have singular cameras but now there are multiple sensors facing the same direction. Like some spaceship or drone out of sci-fi.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#97

Post by DennisP »

nscalf wrote: post #55
jncraton wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't fully understand the negativity around BO. They haven't gone to orbit yet, and they don't run everything they do as a PR campaign the way that SpaceX does, but getting a rocket to orbit isn't that big of a deal these days. We first achieved orbital flight over 50 years ago, and many different groups have achieved the same since then. Given Bezos' deep pockets, why would BO fail where so many other have succee…

The default state of space is failure. It's incredibly expensive, extremely error prone, and failure can have catastrophic results. There's a reason SpaceX was laughed out of room for years. Hell, the most basic problem is described as tyranny. Regardless of how rich Bezos is, can he bring the right type of talent together and get that talent to make no errors? How many hundreds of millions to billions of dollars is…

Also I think BO is doing things the hard way. SpaceX started with small expendable rockets carrying cargo. That kept the stakes reasonably low, and let them rapidly iterate and learn from experience. BO's first orbital rocket is supposed to be a heavy-lift reusable.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#98

Post by bhupy »

almost_usual wrote: post #80
bhupy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there doesn't appear to be anything intrinsic to BO that lends itself a particular disadvantage to doing "the hard thing". They appear to have the requisite resources & staff, so predicting that they will never do "the hard thing" seems a bit like spiking the football after the first quarter.

> They appear to have the requisite resources & staff What makes you think that?

Um, they have Jeff Bezos' personal piggy bank to fund it? He periodically liquidates his Amazon holdings to fund BO.

According to LinkedIn, they currently have ~2,800 full time employees. Their executive team comes from leadership roles at various aerospace agencies (both private and public).

They also appear to have no issues winning government space contracts: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/30/blue-origin-wins-lions...

That they have the resources is just about the least controversial claim. Whether they can actually execute on it is another question entirely. Despite the uncertainty, no credible person can claim with certainty that they will fail.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#99

Post by bhupy »

mlboss wrote: post #33
bhupy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there doesn't appear to be anything intrinsic to BO that lends itself a particular disadvantage to doing "the hard thing". They appear to have the requisite resources & staff, so predicting that they will never do "the hard thing" seems a bit like spiking the football after the first quarter.

Space is hard. Even with the best people and resources there is a high probability of failure. The only way forward is to launch -> fail -> learn -> repeat.

Yes, pith aside, everybody knows that space is hard. The GP commenter is arguing that it's odd to write off BO when they are currently in the process of launch -> fail -> learn -> repeat.

Re: Amazon’s Project Kuiper is more than the company’s response to SpaceX

#100

Post by adventured »

martythemaniak wrote: post #20
akreal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to launch on BO, they can use any launch provider.

These massive constellations don't make financial sense if you have to throw away your rockets every time. That is, they could launch on another rocket, but they'd easily get beaten by SpaceX/Starlink.

Amazon is making enough money now that they don't have to make a lot of sense immediately. They may choose to speculate on a future economic opportunity with concern to missing out on that if they fail to put up the network. Their market dominance also means they can only spend so much of their profit on traditional acquisitions realistically, they're going to be increasingly restricted there.

They're also piling up immense amounts of cash, with not much to do with it other than begin kicking it back to shareholders (the same 'problem' Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook have had). Needless to say, Amazon clearly isn't eager to return it to shareholders via a dividend or buying back its stock. Five years from now? They'll be drowning in probably $40+ billion per year in operating profit. They can trivially afford whatever it costs to do the launches with someone other than BO, even if it's very expensive. It doesn't have to make financial sense today.

Post reply on HN