Ask HN: Did Google/Alphabet ever try to build a Starlink?
54 comments
Yes, they essentially did. Project Loon used balloons rather than satellites, but is otherwise surprisingly similar to Starlink, technically.
And as far as I've heard, a lot of Project Loon personnel ended up at SpaceX.
Also, the synergy may be a good part of the reason why Google was a large early investor in SpaceX.
https://x.company/projects/loon/
And as far as I've heard, a lot of Project Loon personnel ended up at SpaceX.
Also, the synergy may be a good part of the reason why Google was a large early investor in SpaceX.
https://x.company/projects/loon/
Loon balloons were more like floating cell towers. Starlink is a broadband first platform that will also do some cellular sort of eventually (just beginning to roll out now).
Do the implementation details really matter that much?
It's all some sort of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station ,
limited by the constraints of available technology and budget for experiments at that time.
And not that pioneering (conceptually at least) either, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic from 199x...
It's all some sort of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station ,
limited by the constraints of available technology and budget for experiments at that time.
And not that pioneering (conceptually at least) either, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic from 199x...
Both Starlink and Loon are phased-array based routing setups. Traditional comm satellites are neither of those, they're bent pipes. Cell towers are routed, but not phased array.
Or was it because Larry and Elon were good friends?
The original effort was all the way back in 1997 by a company called Teledesic. But it was essentially abandoned after other satcom constellations like Iridium when bankrupt.
Loon was an interesting attempt. I'm surprised we don't see any one trying to make HAPS (high altitude solar powered drones, essentially) work for communications. In principle they can do the same as satellites but more effectively and at better latency. A good HAPS network over the US could probably offer better than Starlink service for cheaper.
Loon was an interesting attempt. I'm surprised we don't see any one trying to make HAPS (high altitude solar powered drones, essentially) work for communications. In principle they can do the same as satellites but more effectively and at better latency. A good HAPS network over the US could probably offer better than Starlink service for cheaper.
Facebook's Aquila was a HAPS drone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Aquila
Do you know why they haven't taken it further? The page talks about Zephyr drones as a follow-up, but I can't find much about them actually doing any further tests.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/26/facebook-abandons-plans-...
My understanding is that FB hired lots of smart people who were very good at building research prototypes but not as experienced in building low cost products. Eventually the company refocused on the "metaverse" and many of the personnel at the Connectivity Lab were transferred to Amazon Kuiper.
My understanding is that FB hired lots of smart people who were very good at building research prototypes but not as experienced in building low cost products. Eventually the company refocused on the "metaverse" and many of the personnel at the Connectivity Lab were transferred to Amazon Kuiper.
[deleted]
The bottleneck was always getting satellites up in space. SpaceX has an effective monopoly on launches at this point, so it isn't a surprise that they were the first ones to establish themselves in the satellite internet market.
It has nothing to do with the monopoly. They built rockets that cost about 20 million to launch and everyone else's rockets cost about 60 million to launch. This is internal costs for the launch providers. On pricing, what customers pay, the difference is hardly so stark because SpaceX doesn't leave money on the table without good reason given their superior reliability and human capability.
That cost win was because of reuse and reuse gave them a fleet. The launch market was inelastic and they had all this launch capability and not enough customers so they became their own customer with their excess capacity and now Starlink is successful enough that commercial launch will soon take a back seat to Starlink internal launches.
That cost win was because of reuse and reuse gave them a fleet. The launch market was inelastic and they had all this launch capability and not enough customers so they became their own customer with their excess capacity and now Starlink is successful enough that commercial launch will soon take a back seat to Starlink internal launches.
The ~$40 million dollars of savings that SpaceX saves per launch is only truly significant because SpaceX was so successful at trimming costs elsewhere.
That SpaceX was able to launch 60 satellites per launch vs competitor's 6 and was able to build them for $1/4 million per satellite vs a competitors $10M made a lot more difference in terms of constellation viability than the launch cost.
That SpaceX was able to launch 60 satellites per launch vs competitor's 6 and was able to build them for $1/4 million per satellite vs a competitors $10M made a lot more difference in terms of constellation viability than the launch cost.
Rockets are just really expensive. It's hard to get stuff into orbit cheaply, and even now I wouldn't be surprised if Starlink is a net-loss product for SpaceX still.
Google's business strategy for the longest time has revolved around selling software services. AdSense, YouTube, Google Drive - all of these are services they can scale up by turning a knob and waiting for servers to spin up. Rocket science is a whole different ball game, and one that most businesses simply can't justify regardless of the scale they're at.
Google's business strategy for the longest time has revolved around selling software services. AdSense, YouTube, Google Drive - all of these are services they can scale up by turning a knob and waiting for servers to spin up. Rocket science is a whole different ball game, and one that most businesses simply can't justify regardless of the scale they're at.
Rockets are getting quite affordable, especially if you build and operate them at cost. So are satellites, when you mass produce them. If you can do both of those, you can operate an effective and likely profitable internet constellation (and various other constellation use cases if your bus is easily extended or replaced.) Amazon, with Blue Origin's help, has a decent shot. China will have an relatively easy go with it. A couple of smaller players will fill niches with smaller specialized constellations and that'll be good enough and provide internet to most people who can afford it but who live outside of fiber, cable, and cellular coverage (millions of families in the US alone and these LEO constellations are of course global by nature.)
Starlink is reportedly returning a profit now.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/ars-live-caleb-henry-j...
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/ars-live-caleb-henry-j...
Any possibility of in future they can?
Yes. The project was “global bit” or “gBit” and it was also looking at a satellite constellation. It got cancelled in 2014ish. This was unrelated to Loon
Source: got approval to transfer to work on it the very day it was cancelled.
Source: got approval to transfer to work on it the very day it was cancelled.
Before that (2008-2010, I think) Google was also involved with o3b satellites, and later linked them to Loon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C4...
Google eventually sold its stake in O3b around 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C4...
Google eventually sold its stake in O3b around 2016.
Interesting! Sorry it was cancelled, and hopefully you ended up well in any case.
Would have been such a galactic halo for the Google brand. Not sure how the financial spreadsheets looked, but those don't do well in accurately quantifying brand value.
Would have been such a galactic halo for the Google brand. Not sure how the financial spreadsheets looked, but those don't do well in accurately quantifying brand value.
Starlink is a futurist project which is really what Elon Musk wants to be. For something like Google they wouldn't do this typically because as a company and their leadership they aren't futurists.
Google has typically invested in existing viable technologies and forced them into a lower price point to make them more available. Google fiber was introduced 14 years ago when that kind of speed was unheard of. At the time most ISPs wanted to have bandwidth caps and rate limits because they were afraid of people abusing the network. Google came in and showed that it was viable to do at a price point for the residential consumer. This forced the market to adapt. Google also had a similar program with cellular service as well.
Google has typically invested in existing viable technologies and forced them into a lower price point to make them more available. Google fiber was introduced 14 years ago when that kind of speed was unheard of. At the time most ISPs wanted to have bandwidth caps and rate limits because they were afraid of people abusing the network. Google came in and showed that it was viable to do at a price point for the residential consumer. This forced the market to adapt. Google also had a similar program with cellular service as well.
your comments remind me of some related, potential factors. I was at Google in the early aughts... definitely had some mega futuristics visions (including later with moonshot).
But their CFO (excellent, loved by everyone) had major traditional telco background, so GoogleFi was natural idea, despite it's limited market traction. And you are right -- Google dominant mindset was "ad supported" everything.
Separately, Musk of course was physics major. Google 99% CS. So mindsets and ideas vary (with plenty of overlap too)
But their CFO (excellent, loved by everyone) had major traditional telco background, so GoogleFi was natural idea, despite it's limited market traction. And you are right -- Google dominant mindset was "ad supported" everything.
Separately, Musk of course was physics major. Google 99% CS. So mindsets and ideas vary (with plenty of overlap too)
I think you are referring to Nikesh Arora, who runs Palo Alto Networks, the telco guy. He was the business guy, not the CFO.
I don't think Look etc was seen as competitive to Google Fi at all. If anything, that would have been a distribution channel. It was entirely execution-related. Musk is much more serious at shipping than Google where X was mostly Sergey's playground of hobby projects.
I don't think Look etc was seen as competitive to Google Fi at all. If anything, that would have been a distribution channel. It was entirely execution-related. Musk is much more serious at shipping than Google where X was mostly Sergey's playground of hobby projects.
Nikesh was a telco guy, too.
But I was referring to Patrick Pichette, Goog CFO. Before Google, Patrick was at Bell Canada, as President of Operations and CFO.
Agree with your sentiment about Musk shipping.
Agree with your sentiment about Musk shipping.
It's great to be uber ambitious and futuristic, but not everyone needs to be. Some companies should excel at solving smaller problems. Like search, smaller AI etc.
Google invested in SpaceX specifically for Starlink. I hope the OP sees this.
I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.
Have you heard of google X? I think they call it the moonshot factory.
disagree. it’s only recently that google dropped X and moonshots. loon and the wing thing come to mind. sure, now, google isn’t very futurist (look how they botched AI execution), but in the time that starlink was developed, google was very much still futurist.
> speed was unheard of.
lol. only in the usa.
> At the time most ISPs wanted to have bandwidth caps and rate limits because they were afraid of people abusing the network.
lol again. it was all about monopoly incentives.
do you even analyze, bro?
sorry if this comes off too snarky, i have good intentions. i just find your insights very far off base.
> speed was unheard of.
lol. only in the usa.
> At the time most ISPs wanted to have bandwidth caps and rate limits because they were afraid of people abusing the network.
lol again. it was all about monopoly incentives.
do you even analyze, bro?
sorry if this comes off too snarky, i have good intentions. i just find your insights very far off base.
Considering that I've worked at ISPs since the early '90s when they were dial-ups and watched them grow up into something more, Yes I would say that I've analyzed.
You offer no evidence of any futurist thing that Google has done. At least nothing to the scale of what Elon Musk has done. Everything Google is done has been a calculated safe risk taking a small step forward in technology that was safe. It was absolutely intended to embed their position as a global leader in search and nothing else.
So you can be snarky all you want but it's more important to be correct and back up your statements with evidence. Even Google coming out with Chrome was not a futurist moonshot it was simply taking advantage of the fact that all other browsers sucked and they wanted to cement their position as a search leader and tracking what people do.
You offer no evidence of any futurist thing that Google has done. At least nothing to the scale of what Elon Musk has done. Everything Google is done has been a calculated safe risk taking a small step forward in technology that was safe. It was absolutely intended to embed their position as a global leader in search and nothing else.
So you can be snarky all you want but it's more important to be correct and back up your statements with evidence. Even Google coming out with Chrome was not a futurist moonshot it was simply taking advantage of the fact that all other browsers sucked and they wanted to cement their position as a search leader and tracking what people do.
Project Loon was futuristic. It did not achieve the scale of Starlink because it failed, not because it wasn’t futuristic.
Google also invested early into self-driving cars and remains well ahead of Musk in that area.
Google also invested early into self-driving cars and remains well ahead of Musk in that area.
According to you balloons with radio transmitters are futuristic technology. It didn't achieve scale because the benefits that it offered were too small, and it was too impractical. There was literally nothing futuristic about it at all.
You have to understand that starlink itself is only quasi-futuristic and it's the idea of SpaceX that is futuristic. Starlink is just a spin-off. Bringing faster satellite internet around the world is certainly a benefit and a step up from iridium and other satellite providers but SpaceX wasn't founded to make starlink happen. Starlink happened because SpaceX was a thing. SpaceX is a thing because Elon Musk's future vision is for the human species to become multi-planetary.
Show me anything that Google has done approaching that scale of future vision. Till we understand I don't know if Musk will actually achieve these visions but that is what is driving the offerings that he has.
You have to understand that starlink itself is only quasi-futuristic and it's the idea of SpaceX that is futuristic. Starlink is just a spin-off. Bringing faster satellite internet around the world is certainly a benefit and a step up from iridium and other satellite providers but SpaceX wasn't founded to make starlink happen. Starlink happened because SpaceX was a thing. SpaceX is a thing because Elon Musk's future vision is for the human species to become multi-planetary.
Show me anything that Google has done approaching that scale of future vision. Till we understand I don't know if Musk will actually achieve these visions but that is what is driving the offerings that he has.
Agreed.
Lofting up balloons, an technology from the 3rd century, carrying radios, a technology developed a century ago, and having the whole thing fail because it was a stupid idea, that's some real futuristic stuff right there.
Lofting up balloons, an technology from the 3rd century, carrying radios, a technology developed a century ago, and having the whole thing fail because it was a stupid idea, that's some real futuristic stuff right there.
I've worked at ISPs (on and off) since mid-90s, including starting one from scratch (ISDN and T1 bank) and building out a national colo/hosting offering for a mega telco you've heard of. I also worked at Google, not in Google Fiber but I worked with that org deeply during the post-POC (ie post-Nigeria) initial and then subsequent locations. So I reject your appeal to authority both as a matter of principle (logical fallacy) and personal experience.
I don't need to offer evidence, it is visible if you merely look for it. X (not twitter, google X) was a big money loser because it was too futurist, and Ruth killed it. Google took very large risks back then. They weren't even risks, they were known to have limited or no commerical value and they were experimenting with simply what might be possible. Not completely in a Bell Labs sense, but not all that far from it.
I mean even Waymo should be clear evidence.
I didn't mention Chrome, or "even Chrome", so not sure why you mention that. Chrome was not futurist. It was less about other browsers' sucking, and more about controlling HTML so that MSFT wouldn't, because MSFT was too narrow-minded. Google didn't have a desktop OS (even now, ChromeOS isn't viable outside of niche use cases) so they were highly depending on the browser functioning in a way they could asset control over it. At that time it was definitely not about tracking people. They just lost their way.
I thought you were just off base before, but here you are just plain wrong.
I don't need to offer evidence, it is visible if you merely look for it. X (not twitter, google X) was a big money loser because it was too futurist, and Ruth killed it. Google took very large risks back then. They weren't even risks, they were known to have limited or no commerical value and they were experimenting with simply what might be possible. Not completely in a Bell Labs sense, but not all that far from it.
I mean even Waymo should be clear evidence.
I didn't mention Chrome, or "even Chrome", so not sure why you mention that. Chrome was not futurist. It was less about other browsers' sucking, and more about controlling HTML so that MSFT wouldn't, because MSFT was too narrow-minded. Google didn't have a desktop OS (even now, ChromeOS isn't viable outside of niche use cases) so they were highly depending on the browser functioning in a way they could asset control over it. At that time it was definitely not about tracking people. They just lost their way.
I thought you were just off base before, but here you are just plain wrong.
We shouldn't be filling low or it with all this junk that's going to be obsolete in 10 years.
What a huge waste of energy, orbital space and pollution of the upper atmosphere when these eventually come back down, Elon needs to stop.
What a huge waste of energy, orbital space and pollution of the upper atmosphere when these eventually come back down, Elon needs to stop.
> We shouldn't be filling low or it with all this junk that's going to be obsolete in 10 years
Starlink's cannot stay in their low Earth orbit for 10 years even if they wanted to. They have a limited amount of fuel to counteract the air drag.
Starlink's cannot stay in their low Earth orbit for 10 years even if they wanted to. They have a limited amount of fuel to counteract the air drag.
No. They could not even get fiber rolled out to the US. They started well but it requires immense power in local and federal level that takes decades (yes, decades) to accommodate.
Starlink would have then their focus out of search and AI which they clearly understand better and dominate.
Also, there is nothing innovative from Musk itself as far as starlink goes. More than half of research and implementation is funded by USG and Tax Payer funded rebates and concessions.
Starlink would have then their focus out of search and AI which they clearly understand better and dominate.
Also, there is nothing innovative from Musk itself as far as starlink goes. More than half of research and implementation is funded by USG and Tax Payer funded rebates and concessions.
> Also, there is nothing innovative from Musk itself as far as starlink goes. More than half of research and implementation is funded by USG and Tax Payer funded rebates and concessions.
And the other half?
Isn't the system for delivering them to orbit at low cost an innovation?
And the other half?
Isn't the system for delivering them to orbit at low cost an innovation?
Other half is funded by LPs. Yes, Musk is not putting his own money. He is the CEO but program is funded by LPs. I am not denying all innovation. Certainly, any joe-moe-schloe can't do it. But, talent pool is funded and operated in direct parternship with NASA scientists and staff. It's not that Starlink built it's own talent pool. My point is that he does not give credit whether it belongs and there are certainly more players in success of Starlink than Musk himself.
> More than half of research and implementation is funded by USG and Tax Payer funded rebates and concessions.
Absolutely not. SpaceX/Starlink didn't receive any money from the government. They tried to get a 800 million dollar subsidy, but it was revoked. Even then Starlink has cost a lot more than that to design, deploy and operate.
Absolutely not. SpaceX/Starlink didn't receive any money from the government. They tried to get a 800 million dollar subsidy, but it was revoked. Even then Starlink has cost a lot more than that to design, deploy and operate.
SpaceX has received something like $20 billion from NASA and the DoD, to launch things into space and resupply the ISS and shit starting like 2008. It's fair to say Starlink has not received any funding from the government since that $800 million was rescinded though, but the line between SpaceX and Starlink's money is a bit fuzzy.
Those weren’t subsidies, like the parent was talking about.
SpaceX provided services for the government at bargain prices. Your tax dollars were very well spent.
SpaceX provided services for the government at bargain prices. Your tax dollars were very well spent.
The fact you have a salary doesn't mean your boss is paying for your kids education.
There's nothing fuzzy about it.
There's nothing fuzzy about it.
Google Fiber's real purpose was to give large ISPs the kick they needed to take high speed fiber rollout seriously. And they (partially) succeeded at that, at least in urban areas.
A lot of Google's best products was based around giving competitors a much needed kick, it seems (Gmail, Nexus One, even Chrome originally).
revisionist history
Rockets are expensive Google should team with Blue Horizons or SpaceX to use their rockets to launch their version of Starlink or rent Starlink's satellites for cheaper to establish their Internet in space.
Meta tried that, but unfortunately their satellite was on one of the few rockets that blew up ...
> their satellite was on one of the few rockets that blew up
So there was some positive aspect to losing that rocket after all. :)
A world where meta has the global satellite network happening instead of current StarLink would likely be a worse one for humanity.
So there was some positive aspect to losing that rocket after all. :)
A world where meta has the global satellite network happening instead of current StarLink would likely be a worse one for humanity.
Seems like a natural idea for (early) Google. Any insights into why nothing like it happened?