“Internet in space” will transform the satellite imagery industry
joemorrison.substack.com
joemorrison.substack.com
How do see the chances for other competitors to be able to catch up with SpaceX/Starlink?
And are there some other challenges than congestested space and congestested frequency spectrum, when there will be several competitors in space?
Not the author, but Starlink’s parallel competitive threats are usually exaggerated. They have cheap capital and they own their own trucks. That helps. But it’s not a blocking advantage. Their existing fleet is only a marginal competitive advantage to a new sensor suite; there is little evidence they build better birds than anyone else (versus their rockets, which are in a class of their own).
> congestested frequency spectrum
Lasers.
Keep in mind lasers don't work to the ground unless there are no clouds and stable atmosphere. RF 10-30 GHz work fine to ground and are directional enough that spectrum can be reused and multiple beams formed with one phased array. The real limitation is ITU regulation on total power flux density on the ground for all constellations in these frequencies.
Yes, MEMs and waveguides.
Totally agree. But the frontier is advancing thanks to LiDAR. And in the meantime, the advantages of laser relay and downlink are vast enough to make mechanical actuation worth it. Particularly for unboosted birds in LEO.
At best that is time-multiplexing, not multiple parallel beams of information?
Lasers don’t care if they’re carrying data out or on return. The same optics being pursued for LiDAR have applications in communications. Solid-state waveguides and MEMS being examples.
If they used it to block, sure. Starlink’s advantage is SpaceX’s margin.
> lasers don't work to the ground unless there are no clouds and stable atmosphere
Relay.
As long as Starlink competitors use SpaceX to reach orbit, the advantage is realized on both Starlink launches (as savings) AND on competitors’ launches (as profit). Doesn’t that make SpaceX’s advantage 2x their margin?
Sort of. Every dollar of competitors’ launch margin doesn’t go to Starlink. SpaceX’s near-infinite fundraising capacity, and thus low cost of capital, is far more significant. (There are also orbital trade-offs between imaging and comms.)
I have to wonder how sustainable this is. From the perspective of an investor, I would not be excited by Tesla being down 70% off peak and Twitter becoming the most notable corporate clusterfuck of the year. Investing in SpaceX these days seems like a bet that the CEO will be so distracted by his other problems that he won't have time to mess with the people actually running it.
We don't know how it's actually going. Musk is a notorious BSer, and as a privately held company, they don't have to release actual numbers.
But Musk took a company that was doing just fine, made a weed-joke-priced offer, changed his mind, tried to BS and wriggle his way out of the deal, and grudgingly went through it when it became obvious a chancery court judge was likely to force him to buy it anyhow. With that alone it was probably the most notable corporate clusterfuck of the year.
And that's before the actual takeover, where he loaded it up with so much debt that -- and this is according to him -- it could very well be bankrupt in short order. He then flailed around with his amateur-league management dramatics for months in ways that if you somehow missed, you can Google. All while ignoring a much more valuable company that's the source of his wealth as its stock price plummeted by 70%.
If you think there's a more notable corporate clusterfuck in 2022, please do name it.
Modern laser communication ground stations are designed or bring designed incorporating adaptive optics to significantly improve their resilience to atmospheric turbulence. Clouds remain an issue but most laser communications networks are designed with multiple ground stations to ensure sufficient good weather to provide continuous communications. Also several laser communications providers are designing their systems using relay satellites either MEO or GEO to serve as the space to ground really, centralising the higher power space to ground laser link and more expensive optics, and simultaneously placing them higher up enabling better ability to switch between multiple ground stations in the event of cloud disruption.
The laser communication industry is very small still but it’s growing as ground stations get more standard and economical, with commercial units available for both space and ground sides, for a couple of years now.
If not, how narrow can be made a beam by using a beam-forming phased array 10-20 m wide? The diffraction limit at 30 GHz (10 cm) should be reasonably small.
I like to remind people that it’s actually SpaceX who is still catching up to legacy providers of space-based connectivity. As I mention in the footnotes, my wife’s grandfather was working on commercial comms satellites in the 60s! Starlink will probably become the biggest provider of space-based internet connnectivity soon, but I think when HughesNet still has more subscribers today (Hugheswho?).
And their principle competitor among the new disruptive LEO constellations is Amazon. Famous pushovers.
I don’t think there will be one winner, just as the history of comms in space has shown there likely won’t be. But by owning launch, SpaceX has a large advantage. Thing is…Amazon has its own infrastructure advantage (AWS). Will be fun to watch it play out.
> And are there some other challenges than congestested space and congestested frequency spectrum, when there will be several competitors in space?
Space is not that congested, imo. A huge satellite is the size of a Cessna. LEO is hundreds of kilometers above the Earth’s surface. Even if it were only a few thousand feet above the surface, if you imagine 10,000 Cessnas flying around the surface of the Earth, they aren’t super likely to run into each other. But I’m no expert.
What I do know is the current procedures for handling conjunction events are scarily shoddy and there’s a lot of room to improve (fear not, a ton of people are working on it).
The main criteria should be: who has hardware in space ? So the answer is, despite all their problems, OneWeb.
The whole thing seems built on deceit.
While MEO satellites are able to do the job, they pose a greater “systemic risk” than LEO satellites do.
If a war goes hot with long range use of prompt global strike style hypersonic weapons against the USA or its closely allied military alliance partners like UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc… we’re talking about a scenario where the potential adversaries are going to be precipitously close to the use of anti satellite weapons, and potentially even nukes but let’s ignore them and focus on the satellites.
If you have a smaller number of larger MEO platforms (and they need to be larger to accommodate instruments that can to do their job from further away) your much more vulnerable to having large parts of your system knocked out. These larger platforms will also cost more, so you have less redundancy, higher costs, and are more vulnerable when your system will be needed most. The final systemic risk element is the post action debris risk… if a war goes hot and someone starts chucking ASAT weapons around, then we’re going to have a pile of debris, the sort of debris left behind by a kinetic kill ASAT in medium earth orbit is easily an order of magnitude more of an issue to other satellites for decades to centuries, it’s further away from all the existing space surveillance radar and optical systems on the ground making it harder to track the kind of small high velocity shrapnel that will have spread furthest away from the original orbit, which complicates the replacement of any destroyed space based assets as it will take longer to work out new safe orbits. LEO assets on the other hand have much shorter debris risk lifetimes, decades is usually the case as opposed to centuries, and LEO is much easier to track higher risk shrapnel debris down below 10cm, leading to better operational safety before and after a potentially satellite destroying hot war, meaning they are more likely to have a working system when needed and be able to replace it faster when damaged.
It’s a logical and reasonable argument on several fronts. However I do still agree with the assessment that eventually if the military has a sophistication LEO fleet of hundreds or thousands of Starlink style satellites, they are basically half way to the Star Wars “Brilliant Pebbles” architecture and it won’t be long until someone tries to build the other half of the architecture assuming they aren’t already planning this.
Fun fast: the largest US satellite imagery provider, Maxar, was founded by the technical program lead for Brilliant Pebbles. It’s a small world and history rhymes.
And the sort of "worst case" imaging we're talking about here, the kind that makes you think the MEO sats that are part of the nuclear early warning system will be attacked in the first place, _absolutely_ compels you to assume the adversary will adapt in time.
Another important point here is that "systemic risk" here really only means "risk to US space systems of dubious utility", and nothing so grand as international deterrence or even international stability: jamming can a perfectly fine solution to ensuring the space based information is not timely available to US forces, and it's not like the timelines SIBRIS gives you are competitive with what good humint around intentions can give you.
For these "proliferated LEO constellations" an adversary just needs to punch a hole in the mesh immediately before launching an attack.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/space-based-missile-defense...
The fact is, putting HAWC-style interceptors in space (that could also of course be used offensively) hovering over every country on Earth, is incredibly aggressive and provocative. Everything is accelerated and mistakes will be made on both sides. It's fundamentally destabilizing (as the link above concludes). We've been down this road before and collectively decided its a terrible idea (Brilliant Pebbles). Helping SDA means furthering a dangerous future.
So that satellite imagery providers could chuck them a copy with contractual guarantees about how and when the information can become public access, that satisfy the imagery providers and make the process streamlined enough to keep up with the increasingly volume of imagery being produced.
It would be a shame to see valuable archives of imagery that catalogs the history of our planet, lost due to someone losing track of the either the data itself or the copyright ownership (and thus are legally unable to keep the data) between now and the absurdly long time in the future that such images become public domain over a hundred years from now. Most companies don’t last a hundred years so this kind if stewardship feels like an important thing to start working on now rather than later.
Even Maxar is starting to deeply discount old imagery via their ARD program: https://twitter.com/marcpfister/status/1541858657473744898?s...
RIP Open California, but at least Planet gives away their monthly mosaic of the mid-latitudes now via their partnership with NICFI (non-commercial use): https://twitter.com/planet/status/1435229673882017794?s=46&t...
There's a paperswithcode dataset that looks good, at a glance.
I am wondering whether to study a MSc in the field or whether just self-led work will suffice for progress,
I guess I will play with some of these datasets and see what I learn on the way.
But yeah, seems like interoperable space protocols are starting up. BACN-Mesh works. Maybe not quite so important & I forget the name but I feel like there were some command protocols starting to emerge into semi-standard form as well.
It’s a good idea, and I bet folks like Cloudflare that already operate Edge Compute platforms will have a head-start here.
After that, networking is well understood.
Edge compute isn't solved; it's an area under active and aggressive development. The Cloudflare Workers wasm runtime for example. And if you're selling satelite edge compute, what's your control plane? You need a config store etc.
Put differently; if I'm a satelite operator writing first-party software to run on my satelites, sure, there's no framework code to write, and I can just tailor the software to my satelite platform's hardware. However, if I'm selling colocated compute with ultra-low latency to third parties, then I need to build something that (IMO) looks very close, if not identical, to a current-generation edge-compute platform.
As always, finding a system that is affordable and radiation tolerant is the problem.
Full disclaimer I had some code of mine and a paper that I'm not linking.
So, is this cubesat 99% thermal control radiators or what?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-86650-z
https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr534649
Also some work on unsupervised change detection:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19437-5
But there are undoubtedly lots of other people/companies/militaries exploring. We didn't build the hardware for example, and we weren't the only experiment onboard our flight. The main differentiator is how many have actually deployed in space. It's very easy to show that you can run a model on an accelerator, but getting it in-orbit somehow, testing it on real imagery from new sensors, etc. The challenge is that most people will have to train a model on simulated data, fly a cubesat or another small platform and then re-train their model to adapt to images from orbital images. Aerial imagery models don't always transfer well to satellite images.
My take having been to conferences, and speaking to others in the field, is that there are a lot more researchers interested (as of 2022) and we'll start to see more publicly deployed experiments in the next year or two.
The article’s point is this will soon be obsolete. Processing at the edge is enormously costly.
As others have said though, and as your "extreme transistor density" points to, high heat dissipation & energy usage are absolutely very real factors here. Still, Coral, back in 2017, was a half watt 2tflops inference engine, on a non-cutting-edge (at the time) process.
Starlink pioneered this. Redundant COTS almost always beats rad hardening, particularly in LEO.
Faster degradation means quicker rejuvenation requirements. If you’re replacing your birds every five years in any case, the net benefit of rad hardening is diminished.
I don't know about Digital Globe's capabilities, but they are also in this business as are others.
Would 100 megapixels make a big difference in availability?
No. Everyone talks a big game about SAR and resolution because it’s easier than latency. People don’t pay for resolution, they pay for immediacy. (The folks who do pay for resolution typically have their own birds. There simply aren’t many use cases for occasionally needing hyper-resolution photos of what something looked like a few days or even hours ago.)
(That’s where the good “satellite” images in online maps come from.)
Even if the vessel can’t be boarded, high-res photographic evidence could be used to pursue legal action against the vessel’s owners.
This is the dorm delivery idea for space businesses. Everyone is working on it, including folks with no commercial ambitions, and the number of people willing to pay for it is small, and they’re cheap.
Right. The business model is sympathy money from big governments. Practically, that means re-selling to a government contractor. A contractor for whom this is an afterthought, and who has a million other providers to choose from, some of whom don’t need to make money.
> a good stick for beating up on China as they're one of the main offenders in IUU
The countries being harmed by this are in no position to beat up on China. The ones who can don’t care about it enough to make it a diplomatic priority.
A service with real time streams of those objects + GPS data info directly from starlink for a select sets locations should worth a lot for DOD, NATO, Ukraine. DOD and NATO would likely flip the bill for everything need to build such system.
Put simply, it's MUCH easier and cheaper to build one type of satellite that does one task very well than it is to do two tasks poorly.
the only SAR constellations I know aren't in SSO are Israeli (due to launch geometry constraints) and NRO's birds (LACROS/ONYX/TOPAZ, whatever their names are) [1]. some of them have exotic retrograde orbits [2].
[1] see e.g. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/onyx.htm
[2] see e.g. https://spaceflight101.com/delta-iv-nrol-47/nrol-47/
Payload is also super SDA focused.. seems like an echo-chamber for the DoD.
Sure hope that tape never froze...
These can fail and give off a heat signature.
However, large parts of google earth uses aerial (i.e. non satellite) imagery.
So yeah, way of.
Also, if you do a quick back of the napkin math, it's a lotta data.
We in the US have driven most provocation in space. The military budget is more than the next nine countries combined (including China). Whether it be the Strategic Defense Initiative, unilaterally leaving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Prompt Global Strike, hypersonic missiles, the US is developing escalatory weapons tech then justifying it with delusions that the same exists in other countries, like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Weaponization of space has always been touted as the ultimate high ground, but we seem to have forgotten the lessons and mistakes of raising the stakes, https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
In an age of nuclear weapons, new "disruptive" strategic technology development can be extremely dangerous and destablizing.. this is not a game humanity can afford to play.
That's because it's more expensive to pay people in a wealthy nation than a poor one. 25% of the budget just goes to paying salaries. You are totally uninformed about what you're talking about, and beyond naïve to think that the US can just stop investing in defense and somehow end up in a more peaceful world. Please stop stoking ideological arguments, we are in a forum about technology.
It's uncool to accuse people of stoking ideological arguments because they stated a relevant fact.
And can you please use better reasoning? How, in your view, does spending 25% of a budget on salaries explain a budget that's higher than the next nine countries combined?
America’s win two-theatre war doctrine [1] absolutely mandates the largest military in the world. Not sure how the comment you’re replying to even contemplates challenging that. But if America paid Chinese wages, its budget at all levels would be smaller. We pay more for every soldier, bullet and missile because Americans are better paid.
But anyway. Suppose we spent only as much as China does, the #2 defense spender. They spent $229 billion. They also don't really value human life, soldiers are expendable in vast quantities if it advances the aim of the state--loss of life is much less tolerable in America. Do you think that would be sufficient for the US defense goals? We currently spent $173B just on salaries for servicemen, and then another $286 billion on operations, followed by $141 billion for procurement and $106 billion for research and development. Yes there is waste in the military, but is there $450 billion worth of waste and cruft? Are we to believe that are leaders and generals have miscalculated by more than 50%? Should we fire half our soldiers, scuttle our carrier strike groups, and abandon efforts to modernize the air force?
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
- Eisenhower
You really ought to read the original comment you replied to again - their point about unnecessary arms races seems to have triggered some kind of automatic defense in your brain.
Russia broke its agreements first. And I don’t think we have arms control treaties with China.
International agreements has proven much more effective as a grand strategy then escalation. The nuclear non-proliferation is a good example, but so is the Iran nuclear deal (which even gives us an AB testing scenario since Iran’s nuclear armament became much closer to reality after the USA withdrew).
Now if USA was really concerned about militarization of space, then they would have pushed for international agreements long ago.
Like the Outer Space Treaty [1]?
If the USA would be concerned about foreign powers using satellites to spy about their military activity, or otherwise plot and command an invading armies and weapon systems, they wouldn’t try to one-up these foreign powers with their own spying and communications infrastructure, they would push for strict international regulation for what you can do with data collected from space, as well as for what kind of information and commands you can upload to which kind of vehicles on or near the ground.
It's not ideology to see that applying certain inventions in particular domains will bring more negative consequences than in the others. Even if former are more lucrative than later. It's ideology to follow hyper-capitalistic approach and pretend that only profit matters.
There is now more ideological similarity between NYC and Shanghai than there is between NYC and rural America.
CCP on the other hand isn’t going anywhere.
What are you basing this on? I live in New York and Wyoming (both the more urban part and deep, red and ranching rural). I’ve been to Shanghai, and work with folks there. American culture is adversarial, but it runs deep in unsaid ways.
... Did you hear about the torture, black sites, global surveillance, drone assassinations, and censorship?
... Did you see what happened to the people who blew the whistle on this stuff?
And you're not ashamed to play a part in this? Is there some line they haven't crossed yet that would do it for you?
With greater network of more powerful imaging systems and an even greater computational power and statistical methods which can interpret this massive data in any way you want, this indeed becomes really dangerous. We have seen that states are still willing to lie grossly in order to justify terrible human tragedies (e.g. the Russian invasion into Ukraine had an equally false premise). So we should probably be increasingly wary of how governments use these systems.
In contrast when space infrastructure first became viable, one of the first thing the international community did was to sign an agreement promising not to use it to carry weapons[1]. I would like us to do something similar now as we enter this new era of space communication and unmanned semi-autonomous weapons systems.
Russia and China have been weaponizing space for decades.