Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by requerdanos on Friday January 22 2021, @06:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the bird-brained-idea dept.

Google parent Alphabet to shut down Loon, its internet-beaming balloon project:

Google parent company Alphabet said Thursday that it's shutting down Loon, a project aimed at beaming down internet connectivity from balloons floating in the stratosphere.

The project was born out of X, Alphabet's self-described moonshot factory for experimental projects, which has also developed the company's driverless car and delivery drone services. Alphabet, however, deemed Loon's business model unsustainable and said it couldn't get costs low enough to continue operation.

"The road to commercial viability has proven much longer and riskier than hoped," Astro Teller, who leads X, said in a blog post. "So we've made the difficult decision to close down Loon."

Loon, which debuted in 2013, was spun out of the X division three years ago. The project was meant to serve rural parts of the world that don't have robust broadband infrastructure, serving as flying cellular towers.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Alphabet's Loon Failed to Bring Internet to the World -- What Went Wrong? 15 comments

IEEE Spectrum has an interesting analysis on why this project failed.

Alphabet's Loon Failed to Bring Internet to the World -- What Went Wrong?

Loon's soaring promise to bring Internet access to the world via high-altitude balloons deflated last week, when the company announced that it will be shutting down. With the announcement, Loon became the latest in a list of tech companies that have been unable to realize the lofty goal of universal Internet access.

The company, a subsidiary of Alphabet (which also includes the subsidiary of Google), sought to bring the Internet to remote communities that were otherwise too difficult to connect.

It's not entirely surprising that Loon wasn't able to close the global connectivity gap, even though the shutdown announcement itself seemingly came out of the blue. While the company had experienced some success in early trials and initial deployments, the reality is that the inspiring mission to "connect the next (or last) billion users" touted by tech companies is more difficult than they often realize.

[...] Any network deployment is going to cost money, of course. And part of the problem with companies like Loon, according to Sonia Jorge, is that they expect unreasonable returns. Jorge is the executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI), a global initiative to reduce the costs of Internet access, particularly in developing areas. In the tech industry, "very fast growth has yielded expectations of very high and very fast returns," Jorge says, but in reality, such returns are uncommon. That goes double for companies connecting poorer or more remote communities.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:25PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:25PM (#1103843)

    Loitering over some place that needs cell/internet service could be a good idea and give Musk's satelites some competition. But doing it with balloons that wander all over in the wind must take an enormous number of balloons(?)

    Possibly better to use solar powered aircraft (with battery backup for overnight) like the ones built by AeroVironment -- https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-054-DFRC.html [nasa.gov]

    During 1998, the Pathfinder was modified into the longer-winged Pathfinder-Plus configuration. On Aug. 6, 1998, the modified aircraft was flown to a record altitude for propeller-driven aircraft of 80,201 feet on the third of a series of developmental test flights from PMRF on Kauai. The goal of the flights was to validate new solar, aerodynamic, propulsion and systems technology developed for the Pathfinder's successor, the Centurion, which is designed to reach and sustain altitudes in the 100,000-foot range. [19 miles, 30KM]
    ...
    AeroVironment envisions Helios as the ultimate solar aircraft that can offer virtually eternal flights in the stratosphere. It will build upon the technologies developed by Pathfinder and Centurion but will add an energy storage system for nighttime flying. From 25 to 50 percent larger than Centurion, the Helios will store up to two-thirds of the energy received by its solar array during the day and will use this stored energy to maintain its altitude overnight. Because it will renew its energy every day from the sun, the Helios will have flight endurance limited only by the reliability of its systems, meaning a practical limit of perhaps six months on station.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:19PM (#1103901)

      Solar powered planes and drones (electric) have already been proven. Then they can station keep and stay for days.

      Balloons are a waste of HELIUM. There is only so match under the ground in Texas and like. A lot just vented, and lost forever to space.

      So yes, LOON was LOONY. PING times should be better than satellites, but using up need supplies.

    • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday January 22 2021, @10:06PM

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday January 22 2021, @10:06PM (#1103938)

      Possibly better to use solar powered aircraft (with battery backup for overnight)

      Instead of an aircraft an airship [wikipedia.org] would be better. Cheaper, less energy to keep at altitude, and easier to launch and retrieve.

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:51PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:51PM (#1103858)

    In the meantime, SpaceX solved their project by going a little higher than their balloons.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:09PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:09PM (#1103869)

      The balloon idea never made sense. Cheaper satellite was always the answer.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday January 22 2021, @07:23PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 22 2021, @07:23PM (#1103879)
        I've launched balloons before but never a satellite.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:35PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:35PM (#1103885)

        Thousands of satellites required to get continuous coverage -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink [wikipedia.org]
        > The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion.[8]

        That would buy a lot of solar powered aircraft, and the aircraft just sit up there. One plane is useful by itself (when combined with a ground station for the network connection.)

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 22 2021, @08:05PM (7 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 22 2021, @08:05PM (#1103897) Journal

          The short term costs for local coverage is almost certainly much lower with a small aircraft. But, what are the long term costs for global coverage? I think it will take several aircraft to get the same coverage as one satellite. Lag will be lower with an aircraft, because it's closer, so that's a plus. Storms will disrupt aircraft, even if you have enough warning to move them out of the way. You'll lose aircraft to storms, and just plain aging within the atmosphere. Satellites, not so much.

          Somehow, I can't believe that Project Loon would have worked out a whole lot better with solar powered aircraft, than it did with balloons. Satellites would still make the program obsolete.

          • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday January 22 2021, @08:23PM (2 children)

            by mhajicek (51) on Friday January 22 2021, @08:23PM (#1103902)

            They can be well above the storms.

            --
            The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @12:48AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @12:48AM (#1103990)

              > Storms will disrupt aircraft, even if you have enough warning to move them out of the way.

              Wrong.
              Just to make the point stronger, the first post points out that the solar/battery planes/drones from AeroVironment/NASA fly at 100,000 feet. Tops of the tallest thunderstorms are about 70,000 feet.

              Since the solar planes were first developed, 20+ years ago, improvements in solar cell efficiency and cell cost reduction make them a better deal than they were back then.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:11PM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:11PM (#1104167) Homepage
                > Tops of the tallest thunderstorms are about 70,000 feet.

                Whatever a bloody foot is, join the bleedin' 20th century and learn some metric.

                The top of the *wet bit* of thunderstorms may top out about 20km, but we're talking electronic equipment, and you should probably be considering the top of the *electrical bit* of thunderstorms, which can be lightning like up to 40km (blue jets), but more nebulous up to 100km (jellyfish sprites)
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:27PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @08:27PM (#1103903)

            Depends on the Satellite height. MUSK is going for hundreds if not thousands to get his system to work since they are in low orbit for better ping times and get closer to the poles. Original Satellite Internet was one sat for western hemisphere in GEO Orgit. High flying phane 60,000ft (20km) would be fewer and better pings times then low orbit. Also replacements can be easily sent up and bring back the old for refurb. Lastly they would not screw with star gazing ot could be re positioned if they do.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 22 2021, @09:21PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 22 2021, @09:21PM (#1103927) Journal

              You introduce a point worthy of consideration.

              With thousands of sats in orbit, would it be unreasonable to establish a workshop in orbit? Thinking long term, it must be cheaper to gather a load of satellites, ferry them to a workshop, repair them, and return to orbit. I still have problems with allowing satellites to burn up in the atmosphere. It's such a waste of resources.

              At such time that we start mining those resources from the asteroids, then maybe we'll have "money to burn". Resources put into orbit from earth are worth thousands of dollars per pound, or more in some cases.

              Waste not, want not!

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by tizan on Friday January 22 2021, @09:43PM (1 child)

            by tizan (3245) on Friday January 22 2021, @09:43PM (#1103934)

            Just like cell phone towers killed satellite cellular. Very few people need internet at sea or north pole and in places like Africa putting towers with solar panels in rural areas was way cheaper than buying/running satellite cellphones ! Most people that needs it can be covered with towers. I am sure some entrepreneur will sooner or later provide cheaper internet via radio wifi technology or even via 5G tech using a mesh of towers than spaceX.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @04:14AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @04:14AM (#1104078)

              And, to bring balloons back into the equation, tethered balloons can be used to raise the transceivers to heights of several hundred feet (or more, if you're feeling particularly brave) to widen the area coverage per cell in locations where tower construction isn't feasible and/or the target population group is spread sparsely over a wide area.

              The military used tethered balloons in the years before satellites to do things like allow them to transmit on line-of-sight frequencies over mountain ranges, and over wider areas. Certain militaries probably still retain the facility to do so, not totally trusting their comms to be at the mercy of 2nd/3rd party satellite services.

              A quick search throws up

              http://www.allsopp.co.uk/ [allsopp.co.uk]

              There are probably others.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:59PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @06:59PM (#1103862)

    Google helped put a loon in the White House, so there's that.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Friday January 22 2021, @07:43PM (6 children)

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 22 2021, @07:43PM (#1103891)
      He's gone now, we can move on.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by slinches on Friday January 22 2021, @11:30PM (4 children)

        by slinches (5049) on Friday January 22 2021, @11:30PM (#1103970)

        Yes, move on to the next loon. A refreshing new flavor of lies hiding the same divisive behavior.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @11:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @11:48PM (#1103975)
          🙄
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:00AM (#1104024)

          Wait, you now admit the previous prez was a corrupt piece of garbage?

        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Sunday January 24 2021, @05:00AM (1 child)

          by slinches (5049) on Sunday January 24 2021, @05:00AM (#1104403)

          If this is a troll, so is the last one. One gets +5, the other modded down. Hmm ... I wonder why that is ...

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @05:37AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24 2021, @05:37AM (#1104416)

            An objective person would be able to answer that quite easily and support it with plenty of verifiable facts, but for you it's just plain sour grapes.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @07:20AM (#1104124)

        Salute the Marines!!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2021, @07:40PM (#1103890)

    Doesn't seem to be at https://killedbygoogle.com/ [killedbygoogle.com] yet

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 22 2021, @07:52PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 22 2021, @07:52PM (#1103892)

    Let's name a project Looney, propose a crazy idea based on hot air and see how long it can last!

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by esperto123 on Friday January 22 2021, @11:09PM (3 children)

    by esperto123 (4303) on Friday January 22 2021, @11:09PM (#1103962)

    We have a saying in brazil that can be translated as "someone who works for poor people begs for two", they were trying to get internet to the poorest and with less infrastructure, which can be a noble goal, but doesn't pay well, directly or indirectly (ads).
    On the other hand spaceX has something that reaches people and business with bad infrastructure but enough money to pay a reasonable price for the service, which is much more sustainable

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Captival on Saturday January 23 2021, @12:49AM (2 children)

      by Captival (6866) on Saturday January 23 2021, @12:49AM (#1103992)

      Right, but Google knew it wasn't going to be directly profitable from the beginning. So they wanted something else - publicity, clout or information harvesting. Whichever one it was must not have been valuable enough.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:39AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @02:39AM (#1104044)

        Google is so ungodly profitable, they could throw Friday night office parties lit by bonfires of burning 100 dollar bills. It's a rounding error to them.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @04:39AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 23 2021, @04:39AM (#1104083)

        Correct, the infrastructure project wasn't going to be profitable, the services running on top of it were the potential money maker.

        Google et al no doubt know that data mining the harvested data of poor people just isn't economically worth it, I mean, trying to sell our plastic driven lifestyle to people too poor to have a pot to piss in?

        The only people interested in any harvested data from the poor would be sociologists and 'big government', with the only potential profit there being in selling access to the data to 'big government', or allowing them access to it on some sort of quid pro quo basis, in fact, the whole scheme was probably intended to be used by Google that way, we give your poor internet access, and what we want in return is......

(1)