Vast Space seeks to diversify by building satellites as well as space stations
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
5 year operational lifetime intent, to coincide with the insane depreciation schedule actually used by businesses on server hardware (valueless in 5 years or less). Oh boy--more space junk. galore.
Upvote
14
(27
/
-13)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
I mean I get it, but every additional batch of satellites that has to be launched and positioned increases the odds of a collision with something already up there, maybe in an orbit where it wasn't intended to be. (All this also increases the odds of one of these players failing to manage or notice a slowly degrading orbit for one of their many thousands of satellites.) Basically just a numbers / odds game. So while the kessler comments aren't too original at this point, ironically, the longer we go the more relevant they become in this scenario.
Upvote
22
(25
/
-3)
I always wanted a space-faring future, but I didn't dream it'd be like... this?
When Starlink started, there was a significant outcry from astronomers how they would make it difficult to observe the universe, but most of all, how they would desecrate the sky. Those in favor said it'd be worthy for the cheap, globally available internet it brings to all humankind.
Some in the community pointed out that a just a few years prior indigenous Hawaiians were protesting the construction of new observatories in Mauna Kea, as it would desecreate their mountain. Astronomers defended that they would bring unparalleled views of the universe for all humankind.
So... I don't want to be a contrarian in the persepective of half a million sattelites bringing services from the sky, but it does feel that we are losing somethin that I can't quite articulate, and that we don't discuss often enough. The best seafront, once available to all of our ancestors, will now be walled beyond view.
When Starlink started, there was a significant outcry from astronomers how they would make it difficult to observe the universe, but most of all, how they would desecrate the sky. Those in favor said it'd be worthy for the cheap, globally available internet it brings to all humankind.
Some in the community pointed out that a just a few years prior indigenous Hawaiians were protesting the construction of new observatories in Mauna Kea, as it would desecreate their mountain. Astronomers defended that they would bring unparalleled views of the universe for all humankind.
So... I don't want to be a contrarian in the persepective of half a million sattelites bringing services from the sky, but it does feel that we are losing somethin that I can't quite articulate, and that we don't discuss often enough. The best seafront, once available to all of our ancestors, will now be walled beyond view.
Upvote
23
(28
/
-5)
The CEO says:
The private, for-profit companies that are also successful are definitely not diversified, but rather focused on narrow avenues. Even the most notorious one, SpaceX, is focused on lifting objects to orbit, with Starlink building communication satellites, for some extra flavoring. Both SpaceX and Starlink are doing achieving something difficult and deserve the praise. But they're not diversified, and they're the most prominent (loudest) in the field.
You might argue about Northrop Grumman, which built the JWST and does some other launch-related work, but... are they successful from their space work? Rather, I think they're profiting a lot from the US military. Yes, they have successful space-focused projects, but they're not a space company.
I think "diversification" is somewhat in opposition with "space company", because space is hard, and you can't usually afford diversity. Unless you're a defense-funded giant, I guess.
Citation sorely needed. Isn't rather the opposite true? The only organizations I can think of that are both successful and diversified are the massive governmental space agencies, e.g. NASA, ESA and JAXA.
The private, for-profit companies that are also successful are definitely not diversified, but rather focused on narrow avenues. Even the most notorious one, SpaceX, is focused on lifting objects to orbit, with Starlink building communication satellites, for some extra flavoring. Both SpaceX and Starlink are doing achieving something difficult and deserve the praise. But they're not diversified, and they're the most prominent (loudest) in the field.
You might argue about Northrop Grumman, which built the JWST and does some other launch-related work, but... are they successful from their space work? Rather, I think they're profiting a lot from the US military. Yes, they have successful space-focused projects, but they're not a space company.
I think "diversification" is somewhat in opposition with "space company", because space is hard, and you can't usually afford diversity. Unless you're a defense-funded giant, I guess.
Upvote
-3
(17
/
-20)
Satellites are where the money is at. Even for SpaceX they are not a launch company anymore, they are satellite company that also launches rockets. By revenue, Starlink makes majority of the money for SpaceX.
Companies like Rocket Lab launch rockets, build fully integrated satellites, build payloads, sell satellites BUSs and components, and sell software.
Most of all the "old space" companies are similarly diversified, usually with the exception of rockets or software.
I think another avenue of diversity for a lot of these new space companies would be electrical ground equipment.
Upvote
45
(45
/
0)
SpaceX doing launch and running an ISP shows that they are diversified (they adding social media and xAI shows that they are way more diversified now)
Even Rocket Lab that just does launch and sat building shows that they are diversified. Yeah, what you learn having a second stage putting a sat in the correct orbit can be used to develop a sat bus. But they are still separate and different enough markets to say that they are slightly diversified.
Vast doing space stations and space buses (lots of commonality in hardware) is less diversified than the old SpaceX that did launches and run an ISP.
EDIT:
Just to repeat myself but to clarify. Starlink isn't just SpaceX building telecom sats, it's SpaceX running a global ISP that sells their service in 100+ countries following 100+ countries national laws for how an ISP has to behave.
For example, I know that in my country, Starlink is required to follow court orders that block certain sites at the ISP level.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Pretty sure that all of the companies listed sell sat buses. Similar products to what Vast is now trying to sell
For example Lockheed Martin has the LM series. Their option for 15kW is heavier, but allows for a heavier payload.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont.../LM400-LM2100_LM50_Product_Card_Final_Web.pdf
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
A bunch of big communications constellations is questionable when it comes to the amount of metal burning up in the atmosphere. The numbers for data centres dwarf the amounts Earth gets from meteors. I hope these are just numbers to fleece investors and not something that will actually happen.
Upvote
-7
(2
/
-9)
I've been out of the loop, but I'm eager to see parts 2 & 3 of the data-centers-in-space deep dive. This seems like a pivot to the 'selling shovels during the gold rush' approach, which will be profitable if the inertia carries this movement forward enough to spend real $$ on things in orbit. It's hard for me to differentiate between 'Company X [announces they may intend to at some point in time] invests [from 0 up to] MEGA_DOLLARS in Y' vs real money on real things.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
They don't sell the buses themselves. I would consider them more "platforms" on which they build their satellites and the bus is often still unique to the program. Similar to how cars have common platforms. Hardly bespoke though. NASA is really the only one getting bespoke stuff.
There's always going to be some level of customization to integrate with a payload, both on software and physical interface. Even for a "turn key" bus.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I don't know, space is really big. If I said, we will build 500,000 buildings on the surface of the earth, you wouldn't think that would require them to be particularly close. Now add layers of altitude.
On the other hand, dependency on a vast array of satellites (and see adjacent article about threats to undersea cables which may get replaced by even more satellites) could result in a disaster if there was an extreme solar storm, a bad actor setting off a nuke in orbit, etc. So I don't think Kessler syndrome is the only thing to worry about.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
A five-year lifetime allows for improving the bus as the technology improves while also allowing for economies of scale to bring down the per-unit cost (and price). So that part appears well thought out. But a few questions remain.
What about disposal? Will Vast also be developing a satellite that ferries other satellites into decaying orbits? Or brings them to a central location for salvage? And will the FCC allow them to fly without such a plan? (IIRC, Starlink has moved its satellites into a lower orbit in part to help clear the skies on a regular basis.)
And what about bandwidth? Is there enough room in the spectrum to allow these satellites to all beam down information 24/7?
IMHO, just as is the case with Vst's plans for habitats, the idea is interesting but a lot of details need to be worked out.
What about disposal? Will Vast also be developing a satellite that ferries other satellites into decaying orbits? Or brings them to a central location for salvage? And will the FCC allow them to fly without such a plan? (IIRC, Starlink has moved its satellites into a lower orbit in part to help clear the skies on a regular basis.)
And what about bandwidth? Is there enough room in the spectrum to allow these satellites to all beam down information 24/7?
IMHO, just as is the case with Vst's plans for habitats, the idea is interesting but a lot of details need to be worked out.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Space companies turning to bus providers is something like 'all creatures become crabs' apparently.
This seems like an odd product in that market unless their cost is a lot lower then the competitors mentioned. Hard to imagine how they could 'scale faster' when others are already launching satellites in that class (K2), or have produced 100s of sats that are smaller but still sufficient for 90% of the missions out their today (York, Terran). As mentioned by a few comments the payload mass is low, way too low for the power level being offered, and the bus mass is quite high for an all electric propulsion platform (implied by their comments).
Generally when companies who have a core business providing a service or feature start selling the pieces they need to provide that service to others, its a sign that the original business case is too weak to justify reinvesting those resources into it. The exceptions that work are ones where the side business helps solidify the main one in some way (for example SpaceX with Starshield vs Starlink - its a 'side business' but one that provides a similar service to their main one, just to US Gov customers). Not a great sign overall for Vast I suspect.
This seems like an odd product in that market unless their cost is a lot lower then the competitors mentioned. Hard to imagine how they could 'scale faster' when others are already launching satellites in that class (K2), or have produced 100s of sats that are smaller but still sufficient for 90% of the missions out their today (York, Terran). As mentioned by a few comments the payload mass is low, way too low for the power level being offered, and the bus mass is quite high for an all electric propulsion platform (implied by their comments).
Generally when companies who have a core business providing a service or feature start selling the pieces they need to provide that service to others, its a sign that the original business case is too weak to justify reinvesting those resources into it. The exceptions that work are ones where the side business helps solidify the main one in some way (for example SpaceX with Starshield vs Starlink - its a 'side business' but one that provides a similar service to their main one, just to US Gov customers). Not a great sign overall for Vast I suspect.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Your 500k buildings aren't moving relative to each other.
The sats are moving and crossing each others paths.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
It's not a coincidence that everybody is talking about building space rollercoasters and space hot dog stands as SpaceX is getting ready to IPO.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Space is big....but Earth orbit is getting very crowded with junk from launches, and abandoned satellites, and so on. And intentionally filling it up with intentionally-shortlived orbital satellite platforms, as well as their own launch-junk, for nothing but digital beanie babies is beyond shortsighted.
Upvote
-10
(1
/
-11)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Yeah once AI finally crashes (nobody has made money on it except the chipmakers) all these super duper everything in the sky plans will likely go away.
I mean if power in space is cheap and easy why not generate power in space and beam it down to Earth. Hell you could beam it right to those power hungry terrestrial datacenters.
Last edited:
Upvote
6
(9
/
-3)
Can someone explain the orientation of these please? Will they be geostationary around the planet? I know the surface area is not that large compared to the Earth, but they would shade the planet a tiny amount, wouldn't they?
Upvote
-10
(0
/
-10)
According to TFA, they will be in a variety of orbits ranging from LEO to cislunar.
And the amount of shade will be negligible.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
wouldn't you need to actually build a space station before your doing anything else "as well"?
Upvote
-4
(2
/
-6)
You ever play SimCity2000 and place a Microwave power station, with disasters enabled?
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Yeah, well, what else? Can't blame them for jumping on that wagon. But if the orbital data centre thing doesn't pan out for whatever reason, gonna be a LOT of casualties.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
15kW is in Starlink V2 range. So this bus is good for more things than just datacenters.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)