Top
Best
New

Posted by everfrustrated 3 hours ago

Rocketlab acquires Iridium(investors.rocketlabcorp.com)
197 points | 111 comments
proee 2 hours ago|
We have a bright future full of endless "space-junk". As the price to orbit drops, people will inevitably send up more and more satellites that have questionable value. In 100 years will the sky at night just be a massive grid of dots moving across the sky?

Who will create the first advertisement in space using satellites as pixels to create their company logo? Maybe they can add some color and animations for kicks.

Edit: Another note on space junk is the effect on our atmosphere with all the "burning-up" of various materials. Apparently they don't just completely vaporize, but instead leave behind micro particles that float around for a long time. People are studying this and hopefully raising appropriate alarms (Making the case for wood satellites).

Centigonal 1 hour ago||
Hank Green did a video recently advocating for an "orbit value tax" -- like a Georgist Land Value Tax, but for orbits. This tax would, among other things, help fund orbital cleanup and internalize the externality of polluting orbital shells. It's an idea that deserves more discourse IMO.

Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLjW6zuYmos

nba456_ 1 hour ago|||
And who does the tax get paid to? Some mythical Global Government that will totally work this time?
steveBK123 1 hour ago|||
My new startup, SPECTRE.

It's a new SaaS play - Satellites As A Service. That is, your satellite gets to stay in orbit as long as you pay me.

Otherwise my satellite killer eats them.

LunaSea 1 hour ago||||
Any company removing space debris from orbit. Like a carbon capture price to offset your launch.
nba456_ 1 hour ago|||
What you're describing is a global government, otherwise that can't be enforced.
NDlurker 48 minutes ago|||
US could sanction countries/corporations/people who don't comply.
sakjur 12 minutes ago||
Could the US effectively sanction BRICS these days?
jqbd 56 minutes ago|||
US can enforce US satellites, no?
swiftcoder 53 minutes ago|||
Provided they are launched in the US, on a US-owned carrier? Most likely

Can't necessarily stop a multinational firing things to space on Russian/Chinese/ESA launch vehicles

rvnx 46 minutes ago|||
Maybe but if so, it would mean that US spontaneously would go against one of their main strategic interests for the planet ? Doesn't makes too much sense.

It's like this bicycle meme where the person puts a stick in its wheels.

It's for the same reason that petrol cars are encouraged in the US.

Punishing SpaceX will lead to a bigger financial crisis, an upset Elon Musk who might refuse to fund the next democratic election and dozens of thousands of lost jobs (fortunately they already became millionaire, riding the right rocket) for a problem that most of the rich population doesn't care about.

Because in the city, it's about your petrol car, big trucks, and nobody to see the stars and a bit more pollution doesn't change much at that scale from their eyes.

CFCs (these gazes destroying ozone) were a notable exception, because it would lead to death of everyone (the same way that petrol with lead), except death, universally there was no advantage to defend.

But a space filled with US satellites is a great advantage for the US, since they are the only ones with the capabilities to deploy thousands of them, and it's a big business for military intelligence.

I can imagine the main reason they are going to regulate, is so that older satellite debris don't destroy the new shiny satellites, but beauty of the sky is going to be the very least important factor.

pantalaimon 44 minutes ago|||
In low earth orbit, space debris removes itself after a few years
Sanzig 5 minutes ago||
Eh... no, not really. At low altitudes (<500 km), sure, but much above 600 km you are starting to look at decades for a passive deorbit depending on solar cycle and ballistic coefficient.
mukbangpervert 1 hour ago|||
The video discusses this directly.
iamtheworstdev 27 minutes ago||||
Ugh. People already trying to find ways to gate keep space by raising the financial barrier to entry before we've even been able to capitalize on cheap space flights. I'm sure SpaceX and others will be against this until suddenly, they're not, when they realize they're one of the few that can even afford to pay it.

Like when Amazon finally had warehouses in all fifty states and suddenly quit campaigning against online sales tax.

Centigonal 8 minutes ago|||
One of the arguments Hank makes in the video is that SpaceX is (via starlink) rapidly occupying large portions of useful LEO shells, which crowds out future competitors or users of that orbit (i.e. you can't put more satellites into the orbit without risking collisions, especially satellites that aren't part of the existing constellation), and that the natural consequence of not regulating orbital space in some way would be to lock in the first movers in an orbital shell as the only organizations that have access to that orbit.
lstodd 58 seconds ago||
>that SpaceX is (via starlink) rapidly occupying large portions of

Which is utter bullshit. Quite painful to hear too. LEO is not your average american homeless stolen mart cart. Can we please rise to some more insighful level of discourse?

Sanzig 7 minutes ago|||
I mean, presumably, the tax would apply per-spacecraft with a price adjustment for orbit lifetime and how busy a particular orbit is, so a small constellation of 5-10 short lived microsatellites wouldn't have a huge entry barrier.
nradov 1 hour ago||||
Do you think Russia will be willing to pay a tax on their new Rassvet constellation?
DarmokJalad1701 32 minutes ago|||
> orbit value tax

How about No?

Grosvenor 5 minutes ago|||
A major plot point in the Red Dwarf books is about Coca-Cola sending a fleet of space ships out to blow up stars so they can spell "Enjoy Coca-Cola" in the sky.

One of those ships crashes and the boys from the Dwarf find the service mechanoid, which is how they get Kryten.

m4rtink 1 hour ago|||
In practice the lower cost of access to space had made it viable to star requiring people to at least deorbit their upper stages, something that was long a no-go, with the excuse being that the extra fuel and redundancy would eat too much into the payload mass.

Nowadays it is generally frowned upon if you leave upper stages in orbit or if your satellite fragment spontaneously. There are of course exceptions (like some chinese launches leaving massive core stages in orbit that ten randomly fall back a couple months later) but AFAIK the situations seems to be actually improving due to the added robustness, that was only made possible by cheaper access to space.

s0rce 2 hours ago|||
There is a legitimate concern with space junk hitting useful stuff or even manned spacecraft but I think space is big and the sky won't appear bright soon. Not all satellites are that reflective and they need to reflect the sun, they don't just glow visibly.
TheJoeMan 1 hour ago|||
At present, I don't believe there are industry standards / codes mandating minimization of reflectivity. My understanding is that SpaceX has engineered for this from their own internal requirements and "goodness of their hearts" (which may be related to avoidance of public pushback). As we anticipate a major scale-up of LEO in the future, it follows that "cost pressures" may (mal)incentivize players to skip this concern.
ralfd 1 hour ago||
> "goodness of their hearts" (which may be related to avoidance of public pushback)

I hate this cynicism in everything. People didnt work there 10 years ago to be millionaires in a far away IPO, they worked there because they are Team Space.

swiftcoder 1 hour ago|||
Nonetheless, the company didn't start the whole non-reflective paint thing until well after the complaints started streaming in, significantly less than 10 years ago (DarkSat launched in 2020)
birdsongs 15 minutes ago|||
I think the cynicism is warranted when the CEO was instrumental in the downfall of democracy in the US.

Sure, some of the employees are team space. The money is funding a transition to autocracy though, so. I remain skeptical of their motives.

Lendal 1 hour ago|||
It's already a massive grid of moving dots. You can see it from the ground in certain dark-enough areas, but in order to see it in space you have to get outside LEO, like Artemis did. They don't have lights but they are shiny and they catch the sun, making them easily visible from certain angles, which the Artemis photos illustrated.
Rover222 7 minutes ago|||
Incredible how the first instinct is just to complain about progress these days. The degrowth mindset is really taking hold.

There is a huge amount of "space" available even in low orbital shells. Which also naturally decay.

nba456_ 1 hour ago|||
Oh great the NIMBYs are coming for space now.
Dig1t 4 minutes ago|||
Junk yes, but think of the new science and industry it will enable as well. Microgravity experiments, new space stations, space tourism, new types of manufacturing in space, asteroid mining. Any technology is a double edged sword, but the benefits surely outweigh the drawbacks here.
stuxnet79 1 hour ago|||
On the positive side, clearing out all this space junk could end up being a meaningful contributor to global GDP. See also Planetes [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

throw-the-towel 26 minutes ago|||
I wish clearing out all the CO2 from the atmosphere became a meaningful contributor to global GNP.
wuliwong 1 hour ago|||
Thanks for reminding me, I started watching this and forgot about it!
Matumio 1 hour ago|||
Not a grid of dots, a ring! https://earthsky.org/human-world/kessler-syndrome-colliding-...

It's a tragedy of the commons situation. And given how well we are able to regulate those kind of situations globally, I'm rooting for the ring.

tonic_note 1 hour ago|||
Satellite broadband stonks in shambles after the inevitable Kessler syndrome
Mistletoe 46 minutes ago|||
Dark night skies will probably be one of the main selling points for the off world colonies. I can see the Bladerunner-esque ads now.
taneq 1 hour ago||
It’s already starting to be like that. If you get far enough out into the bush away from light pollution and watch the stars for a bit, you can see the grid of satellites orbiting. It’s kind of cool but also kind of depressing.
bell-cot 1 hour ago||
"Unobstructed view of the stars" will soon be how space tourism companies upsell their customers to higher orbits.
JanSolo 2 hours ago||
I think they saw how SpaceX was using Starlink as launch lever to provide SpaceX a baseline of regular launches at bare-minimum cost. As RocketLab starts to scale up, being able guarantee a minimum number of launches is a significant hedge against the dips in the global satellite market.

Also, RocketLab builds their own sats and can add the Iridium constellation replacements to their order book. It's a win-win. A smart move by Peter Beck and his team.

NetMageSCW 2 hours ago|
What does Tesla have to do with Starlink or launch services?
JanSolo 2 hours ago|||
Derp; I meant SpaceX.
nonethewiser 1 hour ago||
Might be one-in-the-same soon enough
pulse7 2 hours ago|||
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster ?
Centigonal 2 hours ago||
"Rocket Lab acquires Iridium" sounds like a notification out of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Anno 2205.
phildenhoff 2 hours ago||
Rocket lab used to be a New Zealand source of pride, having started there. From the press release, now it’s American. What happened?
MyelinatedT 2 hours ago||
It was always an American company. In order to launch rockets from countries in the US sphere of influence (even from NZ), companies must obtain an FAA license.

Rocket technology itself is so intensely regulated by US export control laws that it’s practically impossible to develop an orbital launch vehicle without being a US- or Europe-registered company.

It is a real shame. It also looks like a lot of engineering work is shifting away from NZ — Auckland seems to be focusing more on operations and space systems, and the launch stuff is moving to the US with Neutron.

ortusdux 2 hours ago|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab#United_States_move_...
khurs 1 hour ago|||
SpaceX previously said that are not allowed to hire foreign nationals generally.

So guess NASA told Rocket that if they want American contracts, they need to move?

https://qz.com/794101/elon-musk-explains-why-he-doesnt-hire-...

ericmay 2 hours ago|||
Needs access to American capital markets, contracts, governance structures, and jurisdiction (applicable law).
y0ssar1an 1 hour ago|||
at least it's still got a bunch of Kiwi engineers building the Rutherford engine.
bell-cot 1 hour ago|||
It sure doesn't help that New Zealand's housing market is one of the most unaffordable in the world.
rr808 15 minutes ago||
Compared to LA even NZ looks cheap
elzbardico 2 hours ago|||
Capital probably, market access. It is pretty hard to raise capital for high risk ventures like that everywhere in the world other than the US.
micromacrofoot 1 hour ago||
same thing that always happens to companies, money
everfrustrated 3 hours ago||
RocketLab gains spectrum + profitable satellite company
davidpapermill 2 hours ago||
> Rocket Lab has secured commitments for a $3.6 billion bridge loan from Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo to fund the cash portion of the acquisition.

Given the timing, this seems like a risky move as they'll be issuing debt in mid-2027 to refinance the bridge, at a time the market could be saturated / corrected.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/rocket-lab-bu...

espadrine 2 hours ago|||
Iridum gains 23 launches per year with 100% success rate in the past 12 months, a satellite manufacturing pipeline with 6 satellites produced and launched, and a cost-to-orbit of $25K/kg operational (with an in-development design targetting $4K/kg).

They are late compared to SpaceX, to be sure: 150 launches per year, 2400 satellites manufactured per year, $3K/kg operational with F9, target $200/kg in development with Starship.

panick21_ 2 hours ago||
You act as if 'launch' is a thing. All Rocket Lab launches ever combined don't even fill a single SpaceX rocket. Those are not the same thing.

Lets see their reliability when they have a bigger rocket and if they can land reliably. Because their rocket will be quite expensive to build.

schainks 2 hours ago||
I think that’s the point of their niche right? They are already plenty reliable. Also let’s them do stuff like this:

https://rocketlabcorp.com/updates/victus-haze/

wongarsu 2 hours ago|||
And access to a customer base. A lot easier to sell them new services if they already have a big contract with you
NetMageSCW 2 hours ago|||
A profitable satellite company with a lot of debt and satellites that target the previous model of bespoke terminals when the market is moving to satellite service on regular phones.
lxgr 46 minutes ago|||
Iridium is launching 5G standards-based direct-to-device capabilities this year: https://www.iridium.com/services/iridium-ntn-direct
amluto 2 hours ago||||
> the market is moving to satellite service on regular phones.

I don’t think there a unified “market” here. The fixed rooftop terminals and fixed-ish roaming terminals use high (tens of GHz) frequencies with correspondingly wide bandwidth, have excellent beamforming capabilities and some degree of MIMO to improve spectrum reuse, and consume an amount of power that would be outrageous for a phone. Phones don’t have reliably clear views of the sky and have much weaker RF capabilities.

Oh, and phones are well served by existing 4G and 5G networks in dense areas, with better spectrum reuse than seems practical for a satellite constellation.

I expect that we will actually see two separate markets that happen to share the same satellites and backhaul.

piltdownman 1 hour ago||
//I don’t think there a unified “market” here.

You mean like the ASTS/Vodafone partnership that birthed the Satellite Connect Europe?

https://www.vodafone.com/news/newsroom/technology/satellite-...

https://www.vodafone.com/news/newsroom/technology/vodafone-a...

Or like the US JV where they provide the infra for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260513491108/en/AST...

//Phones don’t have reliably clear views of the sky and have much weaker RF capabilities.

And they appear to have circumvented that, although ease of scaling remains to be seen.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/comments/1k6whtf/rak...

lxgr 35 minutes ago|||
They didn't circumvent phone antennas being largely omnidirectional (unlike VSAT or phased arrays, which are highly directional) and as a result having much lower gain, they just work with it, just like Iridium, Globalstar, Inmarsat, Thuraya, and all the other early players in what's now called "direct to device".

The market is as bimodal as ever on the device side: On one side, you have small, battery-powered, (mostly) omnidirectional device antenna, portable devices that mainly operate in the L-band, which works much better in these conditions; on the other side, you have highly sophisticated, steered, high power (dozens of watts) antenna arrays operating in the Ku or Ka band.

On the satellite side, both can be served by the same satellites, as has been the case for e.g. Inmarsat's I-6 series and Starlink's direct-to-cell capable satellites (I believe these all include Ku-band coverage as well).

amluto 1 hour ago|||
My claim is that these are not the same market as the traditional Starlink service.
hobonation 2 hours ago|||
Iridium terminals can be very power-efficient. Consumer ones are the size of a deck of cards and can last for days.
Scoundreller 35 minutes ago||
I wonder how much of the power-efficiency is due to being much slower.

Don’t need to blast and beam-steer if you can deal with poor SNR by taking your time to differentiate the 0s and 1s?

Which is more power efficient per megabyte?

(But I get it: sometimes a few bits is all you need)

lxgr 22 minutes ago||
All of it. You can't really get around physics.

Iridium has historically targeted low-power, omnidirectional terminals (antennas can be larger at lower frequencies without requiring steering than at higher frequencies).

They recently had some forays into steered, high-bandwidth antennas with their Certus line and their second-generation satellites that now allow native packet switching (the first gen was circuit-switched at 2.4 kbps only), but that brings you into the bandwidth-limited regime, and is honestly just a waste of scarce L-band spectrum and much better served by all the Ku- and Ka-band LEO competitors.

It's going to be interesting to see if Rocketlab start also serving that market, like some of their main competitors already are.

Symmetry 2 hours ago||
The spectrum is the big thing. If they wanted a revenue stream they could just buy bonds.
pelorat 2 hours ago||
I like RocketLab. Looking forward to Neutron etc. But this is a bad investment, no other way to put it.
petesergeant 1 hour ago||
> But this is a bad investment

Brother, share with us a sentence or two of why you think so

Joel_Mckay 1 hour ago||
Uncertain what Iridium global RF band allocation holdings were worth.

If it is still pole-to-pole global monolithic coverage, than hardware/legacy-protocols are of secondary interest. Modern SDR transceivers with proper RF beam-steering front-ends could retrofit the business while slowly phasing out legacy hardware.

But I do agree, Iridium was too pricey for most consumer product markets, and there were several other satellite broadband services.

Additionally, Starlink Direct to Cell (VoLTE) service now leverages global cellphone client infrastructure. It would be extremely foolish to compete with something proprietary. =3

wateralien 2 hours ago||
“Rocket Lab” not “RocketLab”. Although I think the latter is better.
khurs 1 hour ago||
Good to see the competition making moves, SpaceX's huge lead isn't ideal.
Joel_Mckay 1 hour ago|
Starlink Direct to Cell (VoLTE) service now leverages global cellphone client infrastructure. It would be extremely foolish to compete with something proprietary. =3
ryandvm 1 hour ago||
I dunno. I would be surprised if a 30 year old telecommunications network is going to be technically competitive with a SpaceX's LEO network that is still launching satellites as we speak.

How much market is there for people that just want low speed connectivity from the middle of nowhere?

denotes 1 hour ago||
Sailors may be a small and dwindling community, but this is our core use case. When you are sailing offshore you need to download weather predictions so that you can chart your course to catch favorable winds. My experience with Iridium is that you open a targeted set of ports for the modem to feed your phone via, and then you don't have to think about it again. 100+ nautical miles offshore and it just works.
ttul 1 hour ago|||
It’s not about Iridium. It’s about Iridium’s customers and partnerships. RocketLab hopes to launch their own satellites presumably and then can sell significantly improved services to them, without having to build a customer base from scratch.
lxgr 17 minutes ago|||
> How much market is there for people that just want low speed connectivity from the middle of nowhere?

Militaries generally find this capability pretty relevant, among others, and they have deep pockets. They were the ones to bail out Iridium the first time around, after all.

m4rtink 1 hour ago|||
AFAIK Iridium is part of some important airliner navigation systems and standards - while a niche, it can still be very lucrative business. and I would not be surprised if it was embedded like this into various other systems that are less cost sensitive.
lxgr 14 minutes ago|||
Yep, it's one of only two satellite communications systems certified for both GMDSS/SOLAS and aviation operation and safety (ATC) use cases, and the only global one at that (the other one being Inmarsat/Viasat, which does not work near the poles due to being GEO based).

It took Iridium over a decade to get that certification; availability and political concerns are probably much larger in that segment than for e.g. home or passenger entertainment Internet use.

In the medium and long term, I can see the high-throughput LEO players eat Iridium's lunch for aviation, though; small antenna size (and the lower drag that goes with it) used to be their main advantage over Ku and Ka band offerings, but now most airlines want passenger connectivity anyway, and once you have that, the pressure to just get that certified for safety (with HF as backup, which you need anyway as far as I know) is going to be significant. The case for shipping is probably similar and even stronger.

cozzyd 31 minutes ago|||
yes, for example it's used on high altitude balloons.
kilroy123 1 hour ago||
You realize they have a new network of satellites, right? It works much better than the old version with the 90s tech.

A lot of remote IOT devices use Iridium, as well as the US government or DoD.

gigatexal 1 hour ago|
Who? is buying who?

I guess good for them and for the folks who just got paid.