10 ms·
Google Nears $1 Billion Investment in SpaceX
- fatbat 12y agovia Google: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fgoogle-nears-1-billion-investment-in-spacex-1421706642&ei=ZKy9VKboGc6oyATA2YCICA&usg=AFQjCNE_5ge3jrWUtjkXqiEHh6Mfzp0gyw&bvm=bv.83829542,d.aWw http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...
- zodiakzz 12y agoGosh. Would it be illegal for HN to do this automatically?
- rainboiboi 12y agoWhy not? It's a publicly available link.
- discordance 12y agoThat wouldn't hold. Links to copyrighted content (eg torrents) are often publicly available, and are not considered legal.
- aptwebapps 12y agoYes, but it links, via a redirect, to the copyright holder's own website. As someone commented upthread, if they want to block it, they can.
- freehunter 12y agoWeez got busted for using publicly available links to access private information.
- aptwebapps 12y agoDo you think that pertains here or are you being argumentative? Or do you wish to make a larger point about the idiocy of the CFAA?
- erikpukinskis 12y agoWhy are you being mean? You suggested that content being hosted on a copyright holder's website was enough protection. They cited an example where it wasn't. It just means the specifics of the case law are relevant here and a blanket pronouncement isn't sufficient.
- aptwebapps 12y agoI'm sorry if I was brusque but it's annoying when people don't look at the whole picture when making an argument but rather focus on a narrow interpretation that allows them to make a point. Do you not see a difference between published newspaper articles and AT&T's customers' private information, however poorly guarded? Do you think a judge would? Maybe freehunter didn't see the difference either and I'm just a cynic.
- freehunter 12y agoYeah there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. Google links to news articles with or without permission. They even got sued for doing so. Just because Google is doing it doesn't mean it's legal, and even if Google has permission it doesn't mean everyone else has permission. As for what a judge would think, the fact that you had to find a way around their content protection gave a clear sign that they were trying to protect their content. The DMCA doesn't really discriminate when it comes to the difficulty of copyright circumvention.
- aptwebapps 12y agoFirst of all, let me apologize for not being more charitable with my assumptions. As to the actual point, WSJ has a paywall in place which they deliberately open to let Google through. Not just Google's crawler, but visitors using Google's search page as a referrer. It's quite different than AT&T being incompetent or negligent with their customers' private info. WSJ is the owner of the content and they are making a strategic decision to allow this behavior. Again, I wish I hadn't been rude. It would have been nicer to have this exchange without it.
- moroniclimited 12y agoJust use https://paywallbypass.org/ https://paywallbypass.org/ which works like this: http://paywallbypass.org/?q=http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-nears-1-billion-investment-in-spacex-1421706642 http://paywallbypass.org/?q=http://www.wsj.com/articles/goog...
- Springtime 12y agoUnfortunately it doesn't bypass it here. The site routes the page through Google Translate but the article is still behind the paywall.
- TezzellEnt 12y agoThey seem to have blocked this option, as well as the Google link in the top level comment.
- jmtame 12y agoI love that this link is here, IANAL, but I'm curious: would pasting this link here violate the CFAA or Web Entertainment Theft Bill since it's bypassing a paywall? Would it count as a misdemeanor in that case to actually follow the link?
- jzwinck 12y agoThe paywall allows users of Google to view the article. By clicking the link, you are using Google. It seems like everyone is in accord here. If the site wants to change their paywall to block Google users, they should go ahead and do that.
- nostalgiac 12y agoExcept then they would destroy their Google search rankings ;P Which is the exact reason you can access it through Google.
- adventured 12y agoI'm pretty sure this wouldn't violate Tennessee's WETB. There's no subscription account involved and being shared, a requirement.
- AYBABTME 12y agoAnother one not behind paywall: http://gizmodo.com/report-googles-finalizing-a-1-billion-investment-in-s-1680500143 http://gizmodo.com/report-googles-finalizing-a-1-billion-inv...
- pbiggar 12y agoIt says Google inc - do they mean through Google Ventures or something different?
- mikeyouse 12y agoGoogle Ventures' budget is reportedly nearer $300-$500M/year so I would imagine this is something different. There were rumblings of Satellite internet coming out of GoogleX but this seems to fit with their new Energy / Access group (Where Project Loon ended up) too. So my answer is that it definitely won't maybe end up in Google Ventures.
- zalzally 12y agoGoogle Inc. does direct investments from time to time. Also they have their growth investment arm, Google Capital, which has invested some large sums recently in Glassdoor, etc. (but surely not $1B in one company unless they acquired that company). Perhaps Google Inc. is leading the investment with the round consisting of many undisclosed players across private equity, etc.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- sixQuarks 12y agoI'm optimistic about satellite internet done right, but I'm worried the speeds and lag are going to make it a bit frustrating compared to fiber. In 5 years (when this will be completed), I think virtual reality will be penetrating the masses. Can satellite internet handle virtual meetings, virtual online gaming, etc without major lagging?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- ramidarigaz 12y agoThese are going to be LEO satellites (no higher than a few hundred km), instead of GEO satellites, which would make the lower bound of the latency pretty low (comparable to cable or DSL).
- jarcoal 12y agoThis helped me visualize how close LEO satellites are, as well as how far away others are (e.g. GPS). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalal...
- interdrift 12y agoI don't see why something with a log-in restriction should be in the top posts..
- ossreality 12y agoMight want to search HN for wsj.com. This is a daily occurence.
- TaylorAlexander 12y agoI don't see why it shouldn't. This has been the case pretty much every day for a long time so clearly it isn't against the rules. I agree that it isn't ideal but it's better to link to a good source than to find a poorly written article that is free to access.
- pcarolan 12y agoMakes me wish average joe could buy spacex stock. Willing investors shouldnt have to be elite or accredited. Just believers and supporters of a better future.
- mikeyouse 12y agoThat's all well-and-good for SpaceX but it proved to be pretty catastrophic for the dozens of pump-and-dumps that bankrupted many Americans when we tried that previously.
- elberto34 12y agoSounds good in theory, but nowadays what happens is companies go public when they are fully valued, making them ripe for collapse when insiders take advantage of the liquidity to exit positions. When companies go public early, opportunities are created for retail investors to make huge money (AOL, Dell, Amazon, Walmart to name a few examples). Now it's like, you get to buy at the very top and it's for your own good. horaaaaay
- Gustomaximus 12y agoIf you believe that then short some of these companies. I agree the game can be a little rigged but there is still massive opportunity to invest well on the open market.
- marincounty 12y agoI know what you are getting at, but by the time the average Retail Investor can even get the opportunity to short the stock it is truely gambling. "In a hot IPO, when many investors are clamoring to get shares, many of those who do get the newly issued shares will flip it—immediately sell it in the open market for instant profits. The investment bank must, by law, sell the new shares at the offering price regardless of demand. Because of the demand for the new issues, they have to be allocated, and usually it's the biggest clients of the investment bankers who get the issue—small investors almost never get to participate" http://thismatter.com/money/stocks/investment-banking.htm http://thismatter.com/money/stocks/investment-banking.htm
- logn 12y agoI'm glad that net neutrality limbo doesn't actually hurt investment in infrastructure! Musk said the Internet access would be "unfettered certainly and at very low cost". https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/531996243904716800 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/531996243904716800 Hopefully there's a way around needing a satellite dish, aside from dishes that share their connection over wi-fi.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rndn 12y agoWhat are the main target markets of this investment? Africa and Southeastern Asia?
- Florin_Andrei 12y agoYes, and all Comcast sufferers in the US.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- karmicthreat 12y agoConsidering satellites at that altitude and quantity would be ideal for cell handsets. I would be surprised if Apple wasn't trying to get a piece of this action as well.
- logicallee 12y agoEDIT: Even if he wanted to, Cook doesn't have enough power at Apple, practically, to be actually in a position to do that yet. I mean clout. He literally can't personally decide to do that (yet) and just do it. The Apple watch is the first category or undertaking of a similar size and novelty, and has yet to be accepted or succeed. (It will.) My comment is being misinterpreted so I've clarified above. My comment isn't about what Apple can 'afford to do' it's about what Tim Cook can 'afford to do' (politically and in terms of consequences.)
- adventured 12y ago$150 billion in cash says otherwise. Apple could step in at $1.5 or $2 billion, at twice the valuation, and the deal would be theirs most likely. If not, then for the same price tag, they could just launch their own network.
- themartorana 12y agoI think Musk keeps control pretty tightly held. A Google investment isn't something SpaceX can take without his say-so. So Apple can't randomly drop $2B and win the day - If SpaceX takes the investment, they likely a) leave most control with Musk, and b) are the right partner, the one Musk was looking for.
- threeseed 12y agoTim Cook in case you forgot is the CEO of Apple and has been instrumental in its success. He is also ridiculously well respected within Apple. Not sure what more he could do. That said he isn't stupid enough to invest in something like this. Apple doesn't benefit all that much from having more people on the internet. Google does.
- tobico 12y agoI like the way they've written this article as if it's an extended tweet. Short and to the point.
- jacquesm 12y agoThat's effectively and end-run around the whole net-neutrality debate.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- flamedoge 12y ago> 648 satellites in low-Earth orbit Something tells me this might be a little problematic in the future.
- tyho 12y agoWhy?
- flamedoge 12y agodunno. orbital debris?
- TaylorAlexander 12y agoRemember that this space is significantly larger than the total surface area of the Earth, since it represents a sphere larger than the Earth. Imagine the satellites are the size of an outdoor garbage receptacle. Do you think 600+ of them floating around really presents some risk of collision? There's probably more garbage bins just in New York City, and this is spread over an area much larger than the surface of the Earth. Space is really, really large. Using the intuition you developed while living on the surface of the Earth provides you little help when thinking about space.
- fixedd 12y agoThe asteroid belt, which is positively TEEMING with possible collisions... billions of objects... yeah, we don't even bother. Ninety-nine (point nine nine nine...) times out of a hundred you won't hit anything. Space is big.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoWell, to be honest, orbits are more like corridors so the risk of collision increases a bit. But still, if they're at least a little bit careful about avoiding generation of space junk, there shouldn't be a problem.
- Gustomaximus 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- hristov 12y agoCan someone with some experience in satellites tell us what is possible in terms of satellite internet. For example, I really doubt most individual people would be able to actually connect directly through satellites. If that is the case, a satellite radio would have to detect and distinguish millions of different simultaneous data streams. I doubt there is enough spectrum for this.
- dangrossman 12y agoHughesNet has 600,000-some subscribers. WildBlue has over 300,000. They're satellite ISPs with 12-15mbps residential service.
- skj 12y agoGenerally satellite ISPs are dial-up for upload and use the satellite link only for download.
- artimaeis 12y agoI can't speak for Hughes but I was a trained tech for WildBlue /Exede. Neither of their services have ever used dial-up for upload. While early generation WildBlue services were fairly slow on the upload, Exede was able to push 4+ mbit to the subscriber fairly constantly.
- ghshephard 12y agoThat was true 10 years ago. I'm on a 50 GB/month Satellite link that is many, many miles away from any type of alternative comms right now. Everything, upload and download, is through the GeoSynch Satellite. 600 ms latency, but data rate is pretty good - around 10 mbits/second.
- aptwebapps 12y agoIn the past such services have used geosynchronous satellites, at least far as I am aware. The problem with that is the great height of the satellites means a pretty serious lag. IIRC, about 250 ms, round trip. LEO satellites, however, would have a tiny amount of lag added.
- espitia 12y agoHaving just finished watching The Men Who Built America[1], Musk reminds me so much of the great American entrepreneurs of the last 200 years (Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Ford, Carnegie). Ridiculously ambitious and fearless entrepreneurs who literally by sheer force of will moved humanity forward. [1]http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america (available on Netflix)
- hueving 12y agoIt's definitely possible, but he's not in that category yet IMO. If Tesla actually makes a car that middle class Americans want and can afford, then he can seriously disrupt the motor industry and be on par with those guys. At this point though, Tesla could go out of business and it would just be a footnote in automotive history 30 years from now. SpaceX is similar at this point, it's on the path to something great, but right now its just an early competitor in the private space industry.
- smackfu 12y agoQuite an illustrious group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) Just pointing out some people have a VERY different opinion of those rich men.
- j-b 12y agoThe origin of the term is quite interesting. From the wiki link: The term robber baron derives from the medieval German lords who charged nominally illegal tolls (tolls unauthorized by the Holy Roman Emperor) on the primitive roads crossing their lands or the larger tolls on ships traversing the Rhine—all such actions without adding anything of value,(see robber baron) but instead lining one's pockets to the detriment (added costs) of the common good.
- brianstorms 12y agoI've been wondering if part of this SpaceX satellite gambit is to help Tesla Motors. Think about it: if and when there are 500,000 or a million or several million Tesla vehicles (including the Model 3) all over the world, plus thousands of SuperChargers, and they all need to be connected to the Net for messaging and value-added services, then what better way than to just have 'em connect to the SpaceX service? Right now Tesla Model S vehicles connect via AT&T (at least in the US, don't know what the carriers are in other countries). It's a tiny number of "devices" connected to the network so it is probably expensive for Tesla. At some point it gets really expensive. One assumes the Model 3 will have the same always-on connection that the Model S/X has. Millions of Models S/X/3 around the world mean a lot of communications costs. And then there are the SuperChargers, that will in time no doubt be communicating with cars too, to improve the user experience. I suspect a few million "devices" connected to the SpaceX version of global wifi would be way cheaper than connecting to a dozen or two carriers in countries around the world. Just a theory.
- DenisM 12y agoYou're overestimating the cell connectivity costs. Amazon Kindle is permanently on 3g/4g, and the device itself costs less than $200.
- skeletonjelly 12y agoThe content isn't that large, and I believe it was only free with the Keyboard version.
- stephentmcm 12y agoStill free on the new 3g enabled models. But when you say 'free' it only allows you to browse Amazon and buy Amazon books so they just build the costs into those... So thanks to everyone who buys eBooks on Amazon and funds my Kindle DX's 3g connection :)
- brianbreslin 12y ago
- JSno 12y agospacex has former @o3b CEO and former @iDirect CTO. They show their ambitions about advancing to satellite field.
- zkhalique 12y agoGoogle will now compete with NASA? I kind of wishes SpaceX would stay independent!
- istvan__ 12y agoIt would be awesome to have commercial flights to space in our lifetime!
- cft 12y agoIt's quite amazing how this values SpaceX at 10bn, less than 50% of WhatsApp. This makes me think that there's something systemically wrong with the current incarnation of post-oligarchic shareholder-controlled short term interest based capitalism. One can argue that WhatsApp has better money making potential than SpaceX, but that is only because the whole system is warped.
- narag 12y agoSpaceX could be higher long term.
- tuna-piano 12y agoWhile I see your point, I think there are two important things to remember here. (Note: I understand the long term implications of an interplanetary species, just providing context) A) whatsapp improves the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people. You don't necessarily need an absurd customer lifetime value to get a $19b valuation with that many people using your product. B) SpaceX provides almost no current value to anybody. And the people it does provide value to are "free riders" in the sense that they love watching space travel and get to watch SpaceX regardless of whether or not they pay for it. Just an inexact thought experiment. Let's say we poll the roughly 1b people living in first world, and ask them each to pay $10 to see SpaceX do whatever SpaceX does. How many people even think it's worth $10?
- sbov 12y agoWhile I can see how whatsapp can be valued higher than SpaceX, I don't see how this logic makes sense on any level. You could use the exact same logic to make any B2B company seem worthless when compared to a consumer app.
- raverbashing 12y ago"SpaceX provides almost no current value to anybody." Well, someone payed SpaceX for a delivery flight to the ISS the other day, they're certainly providing value in that context
- cft 12y agoI use Iridium a lot, and you need a clear view of the sky. Would it work indoors? Otherwise it'd be a very serious limitation.
- jacquesm 12y agoCable and DSL also have an 'outdoors' component, adding an external antenna for either improved bandwidth or to get the thing to work at all should be an option for a new broadband medium. And when you're on the move that doesn't matter. One way to make it work untethered indoors is to simply bridge the satellite downlink box to a wifi repeater. That would get you coverage indoors and outdoors from regular devices around your house, and if they sell enough of these downlink boxes they could conceivably pool the bandwidth by creating a mesh of them. All kinds of interesting options, even if it doesn't work directly indoors.
- minusSeven 12y agoStupid website asks to subscribe or login to read every time. Can't read it.
- andrewhillman 12y agoGoogle Nears $1 Billion Investment in SpaceX Infusion Would Back Push to Provide Internet Access Via Satellites SpaceX delivered cargo to the international space station last week. SpaceX delivered cargo to the international space station last week. NASA/REUTERS By ROLFE WINKLER, EVELYN RUSLI and ANDY PASZTOR Jan. 19, 2015 5:30 p.m. ET Google Inc. is close to investing roughly $1 billion in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to support its nascent efforts to deliver Internet access via satellites, according to a person familiar with the matter. The investment would value SpaceX, backed by Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk , at more than $10 billion, according to this person. It isn’t clear what exact stake Google could end up with in the fast-growing space company. If Google completes the deal, it would be the Internet company’s latest effort to use futuristic technology to spread Internet access to remote regions of the world, alongside high-altitude balloons and solar-powered drones. By extending Web access, Google increases the number of people who can use its services. Spokesmen for Google and SpaceX declined to comment. News of Google’s potential investment was reported by tech blog The Information. Google has been considering satellite-based Internet service for more than a year. In late 2013, it hired satellite-industry veteran Greg Wyler, who at one point last year had more than 10 people working for him. Mr. Wyler left Google last summer and is now developing his own satellite-Internet venture. SpaceX builds and launches rockets and spacecraft. Mr. Musk last week described a general concept for SpaceX to launch hundreds of satellites into relatively low orbit to deliver Internet access across the globe. Mr. Musk told BusinessWeek the project could cost $10 billion to build and take at least five years, but gave no details about funding or manufacturing plans. For several months Mr. Musk has been mulling ways to expand SpaceX’s rocket-and-spacecraft manufacturing operations to designing and building satellites, according to aerospace-industry officials who have talked with him. Though short on specifics, his latest comments were the clearest sign yet of a long-term commitment to such expansion plans. It is likely to take years to establish designs and potentially set up a specialized satellite-making facility. But SpaceX already has some important building blocks. Industry officials said the company builds its own navigation and flight-control systems for spacecraft, which could provide some elements for satellites. There also are synergies between parts SpaceX makes today for solar arrays on spacecraft and such devices intended for satellites. One big technical and financial challenge facing the proposed venture is the cost installing ground-based antennas and computer terminals to receive the satellite signals. That issue has bedeviled some earlier Internet-via-satellite projects and threatens to complicate Google’s efforts, satellite industry officials and consultants say. Another unanswered question is how SpaceX plans to transmit Internet signals to Earth. The company isn’t believed to control rights to radio spectrum. Mr. Musk has discussed using optical-laser technology in his satellites, according to a person familiar with the matter. That technology works by beaming information from satellites in space. But lasers wouldn’t be a reliable way to deliver Internet service to Earth because, unlike radio waves, they don’t easily pass through clouds. The talks are somewhat unusual for Mr. Musk, who has resisted most outside investments that could reduce even slightly his control over SpaceX. Industry officials said if problems arise, SpaceX might need additional capital in the next few years to fund new rocket development and more launches. It isn’t clear what terms are under discussion. The Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Musk’s interest in satellite-Internet service in November, saying he was talking with Mr. Wyler. Mr. Wyler last week said his new venture, OneWeb Ltd., had secured funding from Richard Branson ’s Virgin Group and chip company Qualcomm Inc. Mr. Wyler said he hopes to provide Internet service from a constellation of 648 satellites in low-Earth orbit, using a large block of radio spectrum he controls. Mr. Wyler estimated the plan would cost as much as $2 billion. Messrs. Musk and Wyler stopped working together because of disagreements over control of any joint project, according to a person familiar with their discussions.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- sidcool 12y agoI am not surprised. In one of the Ted Talks, Larry Page had clearly mentioned that he would rather leave all his money to someone like Elon Musk than donating to a Charity. He is going down that path. I think this is a great move by Google. Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_page_where_s_google_going_next?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_page_where_s_google_going_nex...
- corford 12y agoWith LEO satellite internet, would download/upload speeds be symmetric (like SDSL) or would uploading be much slower (like ADSL)?
- rhino369 12y agoYou could do it either way, but probably asymmetric due to usage patterns.
- talalbaweja 12y agoCould anybody give me a solid reason why would Google invest in SpaceX?
- TeMPOraL 12y agoIn general, because they're awesome. In particular, because Google also wanted to be in global-internet-coverage business (see e.g. Project Loon).
- pmurphyirl 12y agoI've put up some thoughts on this and Google/SpaceX' wider rationale and would love the HN community's thoughts: https://medium.com/@pmurphyirl/why-is-satellite-internet-hot-right-now-31b658c76d1c https://medium.com/@pmurphyirl/why-is-satellite-internet-hot...
- dang 12y agoWe (edit: briefly) changed the url from http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-nears-1-billion-investment-in-spacex-1421706642 http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-nears-1-billion-investmen... because (a) this confirmation supersedes that information and (b) paywalls lead threads off-topic. Edit: Never mind. So many posts of the confirmed news are popping up that there needs to be a new thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8919901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8919901 is a reasonable article and not behind a paywall, so it may as well be the one.