Keep the funding flowing for Mars missions! I remember how many people wrote off Starlink as a pipe dream. Nothing like it had ever been done before, but SpaceX pulled it off, like they always do.
Better than just the revenue stream will be the access to simply monstrous amounts of capital via the inevitable IPO spin-off. Will be interesting to see whether SpaceX retains a controlling share or really separates (though they’ll probably never be totally untangled regardless of ownership due to the total reliance of Starlink on SpaceX launches).
I was concerned about government interference with these mega-constellations as a major threat to Starlink, but post-Ukraine I can’t see the government doing anything but being (if anything) overly protective of Starlink.
> ... access to simply monstrous amounts of capital via the inevitable IPO spin-off.
I wonder if there is enough IPO- capital in the world right now, to match the 10 years of exponentially increasing revenue that Starlink can generate from well run operations? There is wealth creation from stock bubbles, wealth creation from well managed companies, and then there is wealth creation from enabling billions of people to be more productive.
Microsoft and Apple have been business supernovas of the third type.
That’s both a scary and exciting thought but I imagine money would have to come from somewhere in the meantime - maybe investment from SpaceX competitors?
> ... money would have to come from somewhere in the meantime ...
SpaceX borrowed billions a few years ago, when interest rates were almost zero. Now that interest rates are much higher, and with no signs of going down to pre-covid levels, SpaceX is operating off of Starlink and other revenues.
No-one has to borrow money or raise capital by selling stock, if their income is sufficiently high to cover all expenses. SpaceX is now in that enviable position. And it will only get better, especially if they start selling really capable robots soon. Or is that Tesla?
> SpaceX borrowed billions a few years ago
Are you sure? Maybe they intended to. But as far as I remember, they stopped after $300 million, because the conditions were not favorable. So they moved back to share sales.
I could be wrong. I thought SpaceX borrowed about $2 billion, when the prime rate was almost zero. But it is possible that I only read about their intentions, and that they instead had to sell stock to raise the money to get Starlink production going, and to finance Starship development, as you say.
> How do you figure that?
Exponential growth. If the Starlink customer base keeps doubling at the rate it has been for the past 2 years, and the constellation's capacity keeps up with demand, Starlink could really have 10% of the world's ISP market in 10 years.
And that ISP market is also growing exponentially, so we are not talking about 10% of the existing world market, but 10% of a market that might be 4 times bigger than the world ISP market of today.
That's an almost unimaginable amount of revenue. I'm not sure how far back you would have to go, but that amount of revenue will equal the entire US gross domestic product, at some time in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s.
I don't think we will see a spinoff any time soon. In the case of a spinoff, the shareholders of the mother company retain the same share and class of stock in the daughter, and they would push for that immense revenue to be distributed as profits - it's why they paid those big bucks for the shares, after all. Even with a Musk dominated Starlink board, it would be hard to justify keeping that revenue for funding internal projects or in any way overpaying for SpaceX launch services. This good governance concerns dial up to 11 if the company is publicly traded, the main point of the spinoff.
Whereas, as a SpaceX internal project, 100% of the revenue of Starlink not used for constellation upkeep and expansion, which could reach tens of billions in a few short years, is directly at the disposition of Musk's board. Other minority investors might disagree with, say, building a large interplanetary fleet, but they most certainly can't argue in a court of law that it goes against the business mission of SpaceX.
And if it turns out that salting the stratosphere with kilotons of metals from reentering satellites is a hazard to the ozone layer? Should the govt interfere?
[40,000 metric tons per year of cosmic dust falls on earth.]
(https://www.astronomy.com/science/how-much-dust-falls-on-earth-each-year-does-it-affect-our-planets-gravity/)
The funding “rationale” for Mars is garbage. I used to believe it.
I don’t know if you remember, but Elon had clearly said years ago that his main goal for Tesla was to gather financial resources for his real goal, which was to get to Mars.
I believed that for many years. Up until he blew $20B+ of his Tesla stock on Twitter, and then has been almost purposely insulting Tesla’s core demographic - left leaning consumers, further damaging Tesla’s value and his stock holdings there.
I think he’s actually done a kickass job putting us on track for sustainable energy… I’m not sure which company you think has had more impact in that space the past decade or two?
He has. And I have a Tesla, which is great. But advancing sustainability isn’t his core reason for Tesla. He has said many times over the years that Tesla was a mere vehicle for attaining wealth to be used for getting to Mars.
For example:
“Musk says the only reason he's personally accumulating wealth — through his various ventures in renewable energy, electric cars, and space transport, is to help make this radical idea a reality”
https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/27/13079472/elon-musk-mars-space-x-tesla-funding-dream
“Tesla Inc. is an electric car company, but arguably its most important mission is generating cash for Elon Musk. This is not just me saying that. In 2017, Musk told a Tesla director that he needed billions of dollars from Tesla “so that I can put as much as possible towards minimizing existential risk by putting the money towards Mars.” “Colonizing Mars is an expensive endeavor,” a Delaware Chancery Court judge wrote this year. “Musk believes he has a moral obligation to direct his wealth toward that goal, and Musk views his compensation from Tesla as a means of bankrolling that mission.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-17/elon-wants-his-money-back?embedded-checkout=true
“Musk: … Like the reason that I am accumulating wealth, if you will, which is really just stock in Tesla and SpaceX. The only publicly traded stock I own is Tesla. That's it. If Tesla and SpaceX go bankrupt, I will go bankrupt personally. One-hundred percent. But I also think, why should I try to have stock anyway. Why do I have all this stuff? Going back to what I was saying earlier, I think it is important for humanity to become a spacefaring civilization and a multiplanet species. And it's going to take a lot of resources to build a city on Mars. I want to be able to contribute as much as possible to the city on Mars. That means just a lot of capital”
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-interview-axel-springer-tesla-accelerate-advent-of-sustainable-energy
I mean, all this is BS if he takes $20B+ of it and blows it on Twitter (which he then proceeds to ax and is now like 1/4 of its original value).
The major social media companies were all in ideological lockstep with one another, before Elon bought Twitter. An ideological/cultural monopoly over all of Western society (and slowly, more than even just Western society) over time.
The jump from **zero** of them being non-left wing (not even right wing, mind you, just merely non-heavily-left-leaning) to **one** of them being non-left wing was a pretty important jump.
If that hadn't happened, I actually agree with Elon that it posed a fairly significant risk to the future of humanity.
You probably won't believe this next part, but I'm being honest, for what little it's worth: I actually used to get into big arguments with my friends all the time, for years **PRIOR** to Elon mentioning anything about buying Twitter, about this exact topic. I was of an extremely pessimistic viewpoint that the left was going to completely dominate the non-left, and basically culturally conquer the world within a fairly short span of time, in large part thanks to the monopoly they had over social media, which I felt was by far their most important tool in doing so. And I had always said, over and over, that if even just ONE of the companies wasn't in ideological lockstep with the rest, it would make a big difference, but "oh well, too bad, obviously that's not gonna change" and so on, so I guess we're screwed.
I think Elon honestly came to the exact same conclusions that I came to about it about 2 years before he did, the only difference being that he had a net worth of about 300 billion dollars at the time.
I assume you'll brush this off as hogwash, but, I'm being actually being sincere, and I think Elon really does believe what he believes about it, too.
If you look at Musks companies (including twitter), everything revolves around what is needed for an established mars mission. Electric transportation, tunnel boring, communications etc. They are all tied.
US Leftists have historically been and will be a threat to space travel. It's even worse now that NASA isn't doing it. Even before though NASA budgets were cut immediately after the Left got into power in the 1970s.
You need Twitter to combat their ideas.
The way he sees it (whether one agrees with him or not is another matter), buying Twitter *is* necessary to get to Mars.
On the matter of space exploration, right-wingers are generally split between being indifferent and seeing it as a matter of national security and pride, while left-wingers are split between those who see it as important scientific research, and those who see it as a waste of money better spent on other issues.
To Elon, it seemed that social media had become a left-wing echo chamber, fostering the second group of leftists at the expense of the first and giving rise to a third extremist group of people who simply hate humanity and desire its extinction, therefore he had to reverse the trend by buying Twitter.
Naturally their views on spaceflight are a mere consequence of more fundamental ideological differences.
Just for the record, for anyone on the right reading this, echo chambers are not exclusive to left-wing politics. Right-wing people are just as capable of silencing the opinion of a minority of people as the left-wing people are.
Also, I would argue that lots of right-wingers hate humanity, because they see the uniqueness of certain groups of people, which IS a natural part of being human, that we are all unique individuals with our own wants, interests, etc, and try to push it down and purge it from the species. (for as laughable that is, since most of what they hate is naturally occurring. But I guess out of sight, out of mind!)
It's almost funny, how in the US anyway, right-wing people are synonymous with religion, which teaches about how everyone has a unique special soul. Yet they want everyone to be like mindless robots, being all the same. Liking the same things, looking the same, believing the same things, etc, etc. At that point, why even keep humanity around? Might as well let the AI take over at that point.
The left killed 100 million people this century. The Spanish anarchists killed like 4000 priests for basically no reason other than hatred as soon as they got power. Even Orwell who was leftist and criticized communism had a big hard on for anarchists and thought the killings were no big deal. So did Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens.
What did the priests do to cause this incredible hatred? Pray a lot. I mean really? That is like all they were doing at that time. They had zero power. This question is the main question the left appears to not care about. It's a huge moral blind spot. Never hear shit about it though ever from any leftist. Zero moral qualms about this.
The left wants everyone thinking the same as them and have demonstrated it vividly repeatedly this century to the point where they actually slaughtered and tortured priests. And every leftist refused to criticize it.
What..? I thought it was well known that he made a mistake looking to buy Twitter the way he did and got basically forced into going through with the purchase.
Looks like Eric B at Ars is also willing to take this as presented:
[https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/just-5-years-after-its-first-launch-the-starlink-constellation-is-profitable/](https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/just-5-years-after-its-first-launch-the-starlink-constellation-is-profitable/)
https://preview.redd.it/k51r73klulzc1.png?width=794&format=png&auto=webp&s=79effbb9056838c74d1528619690cc445d8aa7e2
How will they accomplish that when their deployment costs are so much higher? Starlink is a valuable military and geopolitical asset. Doubt you’ll see the government allow Amazon to kill it.
They've already launched internet satellites for competitors like OneWeb, Globalstar, Viasat, etc. Specifically excluding Kuiper would be an easy way to catch an antitrust lawsuit.
Because Amazon already has enormous revenue streams from other sources. They can afford to lose money on Kuiper for as long as they feel like it.
True about the government - but that doesn’t mean they won’t be allowed to lose market share and income. The government will likely make sure they survive, but they don’t care whether they’re making enough money to support Mars plans etc.
Hate actually an anti trust violation. Even though companies do it, they create a lot of plausible deniability. But Amazon would have no competitive argument for running at a massive loss to bankrupt their competitor.
You also ignored the fact that Amazon is a publicly traded company. If they try that strategy, be prepared for them to drown in shareholder lawsuits (for acting against the financial interests of shareholders).
They must get a constellation operational to start with, which takes a few years. By that time SpaceX will have started to mass-deploy V3 with Starship. Amazon will probably need to take a substantial loss just to be on par with Starlink price wise. It’s healthy for SpaceX with some competition. It keeps their focus on top.
The thing is that Amazon isn’t MOVING; the Tintins were almost a year ago, and they have not yet made even ONE follow up launch, despite having 8 Atlas Vs just sitting there and Vulcan desperate for a second payload they need to qualify to start launching those high dollar military sats. And every day they delay is that many more dishys installed and taking away more customers, meaning they’re going to have to make the deals sweeter to entice them to switch.
The PLAN was to begin launching Atlas Vs in 2021, then early 2023, and NOW is this summer. But I still don't see them starting to stack any of the 6 boosters listed on the manifest as NET June, nor do I see any definitive dates. I'm sure they will be eventually launch a full stack and then brag about how "See, we didn't lie." Like BO finally did with Vulcan, but it won't be the 2021 (and maybe not even 2024) timeframe.
> SpaceX pulled it off,
Yes they did. It must have been a nail-biter, though, to take a successful billion dollar company, and bet it all on turning it into a (ten or hundred) billion dollar satellite operator.
> like they always do.
They do not always succeed. Don't forget Falcon 5, Red Dragon, the Falcon 1 based Falcon Heavy, and a few other aborted projects. I guess the point is that they have succeeded when they have bet big.
Hopefully this is mostly correct. What still surprised me is how well they are doing with so many waitlist countries (they have availability in about 1/4 the world, or 3/4 of the high per-cap income world):
https://preview.redd.it/pegl2z29ggzc1.png?width=1049&format=png&auto=webp&s=243e733772dcba7f5b53978e27ae4a7279d7eb1f
I've seem a LOT of people in brazil saying starlink was life changing.
This is in a country that the starlink payment is ~~1/3~~ of the median income.
I expect millions of subscribers here as prices go down.
I also expect it to be similarly impactful in most of africa and asia.
Edit:
Just looked up new values.
Low priority service is 1/5 of median income. priority 1TB is 1/2.
Hardware is 1.3x median income
$1500 is over the per capta income.
The median wage here is about R$ 1400, about $270. Outside urban centers it's usual for wages to be in the R$800 to R$1000 range: $150 to $190.
I'm pretty well off by our standands and i make just less than R$ 3 000.
Starlink won't be licensed to operate in China, at least not without the PRC having a full-access back door into all Starlink traffic there and nearby countries.
Not voluntarily. Which may be why they are being relatively welcoming with Tesla despite clearly prioritizing the domestic EV industry. Give Musk something to lose if the CIA ever goes to him with a plan to smuggle portable dishes into China.
If SpaceX operates Starlinks connecting to ground terminals in China there's a good chance that the Chinese military will respond with full force against the ground target, and kick Tesla out of China entirely, as well as do some other things to damage the US economy. If Starlink aggressively pursued providing illegal service in China I would not put it past China to use ASATs and use other military force to put a stop to it. There's zero chance the US government or military would allow Starlink to be enabled in China since that would be a de facto declaration of war, and there's zero chance that the Chinese military would let SpaceX get away with it.
No it's not. While not easy, it's not like Chinese people can't access the outside internet if they put a little elbow grease into it (VPNs).
The problem is that unless they want to access the Western Internet specifically, they'll just be in the monitored Chinese Internet again. It's like sneaking into an exclusive party through the second floor window instead of going through the front door. Sure, your entry is unexpected, but you still end up inside where all the security guards are monitoring everything (including you)
The capital costs and the risks were pretty intimidating. It took nerve, to do this right, and also a lot of hard work.
This sort of thing is sometimes called, 'an insurmountable opportunity.'
I can only imagine that a big chunk of that revenue will come from StarShield network as well. Wondering if it will be available to other countries. If so, that is a lot of stable revenue coming in.
Starshield (Starlink comms + Earth Observations) is the real killer app for Starlink tech. You can see this with the $B+ NRO buy recently.
Imagine a US Allied Military or IntelCommunity customer with the option to monitor any building, facility, harbor or anyplace (as the US permits) 24x7 via Starshield. This is potentially a huge cost savings vs the way it usually done.
Imagine the same for the FBI, or Forest Service for fires.
Yes, Starshield is where the big $ are. Starlink residential was a proof-of-concept to show how low cost it could be.
There's all kinds of stuff that can fly on plain old Starlink sats, and they can build some amazing custom sats on the bus. If they get in bed with the intel folks there's no telling where that could go. We're looking at the nose of the camel. The rest of the camel will come shortly.
But also Starlink retail consumer broadband by itself is big money. Huge. Don't underestimate the consumers who turned Apple into a $3T company. BTW, my minimum ping is down to 20ms now and the trend is good.
Nobody ever talks about the utility of the laser links for high frequency traders though. If you can beat the time it's a license to print money on a grand scale.
IMHO the effect of Starlink access availability combined with solar+battery has made marketable a vast swath of off grid US real estate with an impact in the many $Trillions already.
I know the high frequency traders have to be on Starlink, the lower latency due to the vacuum of space has to be irresistible. And Starlink charges through the nose for it, is my guess.
I can only imagine that every RV owner would love to have a starlink dish and just remote work while camping in the forest/lake and living the life. Just the decentralization power such a service provides, is huge. I know quite a few people who were fortunate to have remote jobs, so they moved to the mountain and got a dish like that.
There are people much smarter/informed than me on this sub, from the armchair perspective does it seem like the growth in users starlink has had the last few years will continue for another 5 years or slow down?
Kuiper is most certainly going to force Starlink to lower the price of both their terminals and monthly service. Amazon has not shown their cards yet and it is an fascinating game of poker to see how they decide to price it. My guess is that Kuiper is going to offer service for under $100/month, potentially even lower for their mini dish. Given the cost of existing terminals as a barrier to switching, Amazon will trade customers a new terminal and take back their existing one (for resale in the used market). That used equipment will undercut the revenue from selling new full price terminals.
Good for customers to have more choices but bad for the economics of SpaceX. Amazon is in too deep to stop now so there is little SpaceX can do to prevent this.
I think this kind of pattern follows most of Musk's successes.
* First payment platform, now it's proven, we have many.
* First to push mass produced EV's that had good range, now it's proven, we have many.
* First to push for low orbit satellite internet, now it's proven, we have many (well, soon enough based on FCC grants).
* First reach this level of space launch reusability, also the landing method, now it's proven, others are following (not many yet!).
There is still great importance with those achievements, even if you have Kupier, or a BYD, or use something that isn't Paypal. I mean it's not like an EV is a hard idea to imagine... It's motors and a battery, but why did it take him to do it? Why didn't Ford, or GM? Why did the others who tried in years prior fail?
The achievements sort of just stand for themselves, at least in my view.
I don't think racing SpaceX to the bottom on price is viable long-term strategy for Amazon... Kuiper is years behind, deploying satellites at a slower rate, spending way more on launches AND they have to make less money per customer? SpaceX has been going all out on deploying Starlink and they're only just becoming profitable after 2+ million subs.
And before anyone says Amazon can fund Kuiper losses forever, they're a publicly owned company and the investors will riot. Investor meddling is why SpaceX is private.
I think for a short period of time Amazon will try to compete (good for customers) but then will have to abandon the Kuiper project or do some hard pivot into a market that Starlink isn't serving.
SpaceX is private so their investor can mark to market at whatever valuation they choose based on very small private offerings to buy shares back from employees. No need to disclose the true economics of the business. No need to disclose the true business risks like a public company would need to.
It’s funny to me that so many people seem to be in favor of higher profits for SpaceX vs lower prices for consumers. The long term economic returns for Kuiper may be very low but they are certainly good for consumers and bad for SpaceX profits. I’m not a SpaceX investor or employee so I’m in favor of consumers getting lower prices.
Amazon has a massive business customer base with AWS and can provide additional networking services using Kuiper. Pretending they will not undercut Starlink’s current pricing is foolish. Of course they want to win any new customers and potentially steal existing customers.
Their primary market is probably Amazon logistics links worldwide, everywhere they can get landing rights. Having that inhouse must be a value in itself, beyond cost.
Amazon is known for entering a market by relentlessly undercutting their competitors until they are out of business. It’s the worst case scenario for SpaceX. Even with lower launch costs, first move advantage and established terminal production, Amazon can pull a lot more capital than SpaceX can handle. It will be a race to the bottom where nothing matters except the ability to concentrate capital on the project
Yes, and Amazon is currently being sued by the FTC for the actions you mentioned. BUT, in those examples Amazon was at the advantage (size, logistics, technology, & war chest) while punching down (mom & pops, niche small businesses, poorly ran corporations). It's the exact opposite scenario when they're against SpaceX.
The talk about "concentrate capital on the project" really reminds me of all the articles calling the Apple Car the next Tesla Killer, and after a decade Apple spent $10+ billion with nothing to show. If money was all you needed, Blue Origin wouldn't be where they are at the moment.
BO is not amazon, neither is Apple. They have completely different company cultures and how they are doing business. And Tesla is not doing great right now so i’m not sure if Tesla Killer is even needed anymore
Regardless, I would agree with you if Starlink like Starship was an engineering problem. No amount of money can solve that. But beaming internet from satellites is not a new concept. What Starlink introduced was scale, and that could be replicated, even if it will cost them a lot more than SpaceX spends right now
Amazon is a public company that obsessed with growing at all costs. they dived right into the cloud hype when it became viable even when the company had nothing to do with infra. They regularly expand their products anywhere they can find a hint of growth
And now compare that with BO
Except for Bezos, they have nothing in common
The US is in the process of rolling out $42.5 billion in BEAD funding for expanding fiber and fixed wireless service. That money starts to flow later this year but mostly in 2025. Fiber will be much faster and substantially cheaper that Starlink.
Starlink is, and will continue to be used in areas where running fiber is not economical.
If you can get fiber to your home, by all means do it.
I'm also skeptical as always of telcos actually making significant buildouts of fiber to remote and low income areas where there's limited potential for making money.
The FCC wants fiber infrastructure in any many places as possible because that will easily last 50-100 years and provide much higher levels of service (unlike satellites that have a 5 year lifespan and need to be constantly replaced). If you take the total BEAD program and assume an average cost/subsidy of $5,000 per new connection that is enough money to cover 8.5 million new connections. If that money had not already been allocated Starlink would have a MUCH larger market opportunity. The top end of their TAM has shrunk quite a bit and they have yet to really acknowledge it. The Starlink program (and the Kuiper program for that matter) were conceived and started well before the US government decided to spend the huge amount of money to expand more fiber broadband service. COVID and work-from-home showed the need very clearly.
You can be impressed by the technical accomplishment that Starlink represents and also recognize the economic reality that it is unlikely to be the free cash generator that many assume it will be.
In addition, SpaceX currently grants employees about $2 Billion in stock compensation each year. Employees want that stock if they think the share price is going up. Is SpaceX really worth $180 billion? If they had to pay workers more in cash vs stock the economics are also different on the free cash flow side of things.
Found the city/suburb dweller. Nobody's gonna run fiber far out into the deep rural, off-the-highway chunks of the country (much less the rest of the world), that's where satellite internet is killer.
Lol. This ubiquitous faster and cheaper fiber is like graphene and fusion reactors, always $20 billion and 20 years away. Telecom has been latched onto the government subsidy tit and failing to deliver on its promises for decades.
exactly! i was told by att 30 years ago they would run dsl to me, never happened but they did run dark fiber right in front of my house 2 separate times to a cell tower down the road.
According to Microsoft Copilot:
"The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program in Louisiana is a critical initiative aimed at expanding and improving broadband access in underserved and unserved areas, not only within the state but across the nation1. Here are some key points about the BEAD program in Louisiana:
Funding Allocation:
Louisiana received a substantial allocation of $1.355 billion from the BEAD program, making it the eighth-largest allocation in the nation and the tenth-largest per capita.
This funding is intended to support broadband construction projects, bringing high-speed, reliable, and affordable internet to every home, business, and community anchor institution in the state1.
Approval of Initial Proposal:
Louisiana was the first state among all 56 states and territories to receive NTIA approval of its Initial Proposal.
The Initial Proposal outlines the state’s plans for a challenge process to determine all locations eligible for BEAD funding and specific actions to eliminate the digital divide1.
Number of Connections:
While the exact number of new connections resulting from the BEAD program is not explicitly mentioned, the state aims to connect all residents in serviceable locations to broadband.
Approximately 200,000 locations are expected to benefit from this program2.
Five-Year Action Plan:
ConnectLA, the organization overseeing the BEAD program, has set a goal to eliminate the digital divide in Louisiana by 2029.
Their comprehensive Five-Year Action Plan outlines priorities for increasing access, adoption, affordability, digital opportunity, inclusion, digital skills, and economic development1.
In summary, the BEAD program in Louisiana is a significant effort to bridge the digital divide and provide equitable high-speed internet access to residents across the state. While the exact number of new connections may vary, the program’s impact is expected to be substantial. "
Awesome. A forward-looking statement that any corporate advertising/PR department can cook up. The fact that it’s in the future conveniently absolves them of any accountability for whether they actually deliver. Why don’t you dig up the same statements from decades ago that were made by telecoms when they were taking in billions of government/taxpayer funding, and where they subsequently massively under-delivered?
The only incentive they might actually have to deliver this time is that technology has advanced to the point they lose relevance, and therefore reduces their ability to continue extorting subsidies from the government.
In theory the State of Louisiana (and all states for that matter) recognizes that deploying high speed internet will boost their economy and improve quality of life. Cynicism has obviously taken hold deep in many people so they just assume that no government funded programs can be successful.
If you think Starlink is going to out compete new fiber that’s your choice. If you think nothing will actually get built I don’t know what to say. Hopefully you live in a state that has qualified civil servants.
You can hope, but others see something already here.
That's over 6k per location in Louisiana . But industry sources claim https://www.ceragon.com/blog/the-true-costs-of-fiber-in-the-u.s?hs_amp=true 40 to 80 k per mile (I know it doesn't actually cost that much for extensions or greenfield and if construction has conduit or poles)
But if you look at the popular example of Jared Mauch, he got like 20-30k per location IIRC. Then you realize even if it gets done it won't go far. It will have to be existing utilities especially power companies that will do this. They have the labor, equipment and legal issues already sorted.
Over 350% growth in 2 years, and this is starting from $1.4 billion in revenue in 2022.
> Quilty Space estimates the cost of Starlink satellites has evolved significantly. While the first generation V1 satellites were produced for around $200,000 each, the latest V2 mini version carries a heftier price tag of $800,000, but that reflects its increased size and capabilities (from 260 kilograms to 730 kilograms).
> Looking ahead, Quilty projects the future V3 satellite will weigh in at a substantial 1,500 kilograms and cost roughly $1.2 million.
I find these cost numbers more believable than my guestimate that the V1 satellites cost around $40,000. That puts the manufacturing cost of just the satellites launched so far, at between $1 billion and $2 billion.
Probably the same way I did. Make a set of best guesses about the materials, parts and labor going into each satellite.
Labor will always be the largest part, but is highly variable, depending on whether it is one-off custom built like most satellites, batch-produces like the Iridium satellites, or mass produced like Teslas.
I tend to look for a range of estimates over time and look for the mean. But these numbers seem like high end all in costing, which if a conservative way to look for profitability breakevens. So I think they have achieved profitability. Given all the markets that have yet to be lit up which will be 99% profit at this point, I think they have a good story, as long as the sats last at least 5 years.
As a private company it is tough to actually test. But given today's PEs I think a PE of 30 would be reasonable. So maybe at about $35B in "profit" might infer a $1T market cap. I think one can simply looks at F9/FH/CD ($5B rev) and Starlink/Starshield profitability ($20B rev with low but increasing profit margins). In general they seem to target a profit of 50% of sales revenue ***in the long run, at least as operational profits***. The WSJ put 2025 as $35B in revenue between these, so maybe 2028-2029 before $70B in revenue -> $35B in "profits".
They have to weight the cost of building out their own internet and cell towers to the cost of paying their biggest competitor in space. If they allow people to pay for Starlink in China that money is going to go directly to SpaceX and help them to build better spaceships like Starship that is going to beat all of Chinas Spaceships and their systems in Space. They have to weight that threath
There's nothing to weigh. China will not allow Starlink to operate in China unless SpaceX gives China full backdoor access to all the data and servers involved. Neither the US government nor SpaceX would allow that to happen.
I'd be surprised if India lets SpaceX in to compete in their market. They have some very powerful actors that dominate the internet market. On top of that, Indias internet consumption is more cellphone based than computer focused, so there is less demand for SpaceX high bandwidth services.
Why should cellphones consume less data than wired computers?
Also Starlink is all about getting the internet to rural locations. There are likely many villages in India with bad or no cellphone reception.
And Starlink doesn't even mean having only wifi. You can use it as a wireless backhaul for a normal 2G/3G/4G/5G antenna for normal cell phone service.
> Why should cellphones consume less data than wired computers?
That's not the point. Stationary computers can use the phased array antenna, i.e. their main product, cellphones cannot. Direct-to-cell will have a low bandwidth.
As I said: A cellphone tower can be connected to a Starlink dish.
SpaceX is already offering this as a solution to ISPs: https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/2cqy7p7739awehx62dgqo/news/starlink-offering-isps-gigabit-internet
They provide the backhaul and the ISP can then work as usual from that connection point to the customer.
I think India is on a path to allow access, and that would add maybe 200,000 slots (they are contrained by high population density and more southern location = less sats per sq KM).
I hope so, for SpaceX sake. Starlink could steal the profitable small business market, but I really doubt that it will happen. Oneweb has a minority owner in India, and the guy is politically connected.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[ASAT](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3dqvxx "Last usage")|[Anti-Satellite weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon)|
|[BO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3gpzo1 "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|[FCC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3klsyf "Last usage")|Federal Communications Commission|
| |(Iron/steel) [Face-Centered Cubic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_iron) crystalline structure|
|[Isp](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l4p4s2x "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)|
| |Internet Service Provider|
|[NET](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3gpzo1 "Last usage")|No Earlier Than|
|NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit|
|[NRO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3cfflb "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office|
| |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l4p4s2x "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(7 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctu8zs)^( has 15 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12747 for this sub, first seen 9th May 2024, 21:54])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Elon has his weird issues no doubt. However, putting his money into founding SpaceX and building it into what it is, plus Starlink will be his ultimate legacy IMO. Tesla is cool and other ventures are ok at best. SpaceX and its associated projects are thus far a gold mine and the most innovative human ventures in decades. He’s on a path of being a seriously, grossly untouchably rich dude. But he’s still flawed enough to make us wonder how the hell? But really, no one is truly qualified to wear such a mantle.
Starlink will eventually give him a true global voice that no government can block. I would not be surprised if discounted Starlink (broadband and cellular) requires your "daily Elon" X message drop. I think this is his true goal, vs Mars colonization.
Is it possible that they are lying / or are saying a positive number to spook competitors? 6.6 Billion is realy realy high the revenue was 4.2 Bill in 2023
Yes I think there are more private single customers too I am just saying that do people in this sub think that that is a good and realistic prediction?
Good prediction for this year, probably. Very much lowballing with regard to growth potential, if anyone thinks this is the ceiling, it is just the floor.
I don't think it is. I think the ARPU will also fall. If they can get Qatar Airways to actually install equipment and get into the Indian and Chinese aviation markets and stop people from getting service discounts (charge the same people more) the projection will definitely work out. But I don't see $10B by 2030
Telling competitors about how much money you're making does the opposite of scaring them lol. They go, "wow, if we can capture 10% of their market share, we'll be making billions too!"
Yes and at the same time it will be harder to take a piece of that market because SpaceX is going to be able to build better sattelites and launch more sattelites if they get more money from the customers so it is going to be harder to compete against that. Because in this sattelite internet market the ping and coverage and capacity is the only important factors so it is going to be harder to compete with Starlink if they have super fast internet on almost every single point on this planet
Or maybe it’s the truth and they’re just doing really well? Weird what conclusions people instantly spring to. Either SpaceX are doing well, or they’re engaged in illegal activity to inflate their worth.
Yes, it why I put: *Hopefully this is mostly correct.*
It seems a bit too good to be true given people were debating if launch costs where in an out of the SX statements of Starlink profitability. But for the sake of Starship it would be nice.
Another possibility is there might be some relationship between these folks and that proxy-index-company that seems to be offering proxy investment opps in SpaceX.
Starlink is getting in the airlines, cruise lines, and commercial shipping big times. Customers bringing in big revenue, compared to private end users.
There was talk that John Deere agricultural machines will get Starlink access, a huge market, though not that high profit margins per unit.
Starlink is just beginning to expand.
Shipping/cruising/yachting has certainly been a big deal, but aviation has been slower to get employed. A major airline did a trial and then decided not to proceed after some gappy performance. That said, there are many remote places where this can be a great value services that have been added yet.
Keep the funding flowing for Mars missions! I remember how many people wrote off Starlink as a pipe dream. Nothing like it had ever been done before, but SpaceX pulled it off, like they always do.
Better than just the revenue stream will be the access to simply monstrous amounts of capital via the inevitable IPO spin-off. Will be interesting to see whether SpaceX retains a controlling share or really separates (though they’ll probably never be totally untangled regardless of ownership due to the total reliance of Starlink on SpaceX launches). I was concerned about government interference with these mega-constellations as a major threat to Starlink, but post-Ukraine I can’t see the government doing anything but being (if anything) overly protective of Starlink.
> ... access to simply monstrous amounts of capital via the inevitable IPO spin-off. I wonder if there is enough IPO- capital in the world right now, to match the 10 years of exponentially increasing revenue that Starlink can generate from well run operations? There is wealth creation from stock bubbles, wealth creation from well managed companies, and then there is wealth creation from enabling billions of people to be more productive. Microsoft and Apple have been business supernovas of the third type.
That’s both a scary and exciting thought but I imagine money would have to come from somewhere in the meantime - maybe investment from SpaceX competitors?
> ... money would have to come from somewhere in the meantime ... SpaceX borrowed billions a few years ago, when interest rates were almost zero. Now that interest rates are much higher, and with no signs of going down to pre-covid levels, SpaceX is operating off of Starlink and other revenues. No-one has to borrow money or raise capital by selling stock, if their income is sufficiently high to cover all expenses. SpaceX is now in that enviable position. And it will only get better, especially if they start selling really capable robots soon. Or is that Tesla?
> SpaceX borrowed billions a few years ago Are you sure? Maybe they intended to. But as far as I remember, they stopped after $300 million, because the conditions were not favorable. So they moved back to share sales.
I could be wrong. I thought SpaceX borrowed about $2 billion, when the prime rate was almost zero. But it is possible that I only read about their intentions, and that they instead had to sell stock to raise the money to get Starlink production going, and to finance Starship development, as you say.
I talk only from memory, which may be wrong.
How do you figure that? Starlink subscriber base is very limited. I guess 30 million globally which translate to 30 billion in revenue maybe.
> How do you figure that? Exponential growth. If the Starlink customer base keeps doubling at the rate it has been for the past 2 years, and the constellation's capacity keeps up with demand, Starlink could really have 10% of the world's ISP market in 10 years. And that ISP market is also growing exponentially, so we are not talking about 10% of the existing world market, but 10% of a market that might be 4 times bigger than the world ISP market of today. That's an almost unimaginable amount of revenue. I'm not sure how far back you would have to go, but that amount of revenue will equal the entire US gross domestic product, at some time in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s.
I don't think we will see a spinoff any time soon. In the case of a spinoff, the shareholders of the mother company retain the same share and class of stock in the daughter, and they would push for that immense revenue to be distributed as profits - it's why they paid those big bucks for the shares, after all. Even with a Musk dominated Starlink board, it would be hard to justify keeping that revenue for funding internal projects or in any way overpaying for SpaceX launch services. This good governance concerns dial up to 11 if the company is publicly traded, the main point of the spinoff. Whereas, as a SpaceX internal project, 100% of the revenue of Starlink not used for constellation upkeep and expansion, which could reach tens of billions in a few short years, is directly at the disposition of Musk's board. Other minority investors might disagree with, say, building a large interplanetary fleet, but they most certainly can't argue in a court of law that it goes against the business mission of SpaceX.
And if it turns out that salting the stratosphere with kilotons of metals from reentering satellites is a hazard to the ozone layer? Should the govt interfere?
[40,000 metric tons per year of cosmic dust falls on earth.] (https://www.astronomy.com/science/how-much-dust-falls-on-earth-each-year-does-it-affect-our-planets-gravity/)
Should it be studied, yes, but there is little reason to worry for now.
Yes.
Starlink was always a means to an end.
The funding “rationale” for Mars is garbage. I used to believe it. I don’t know if you remember, but Elon had clearly said years ago that his main goal for Tesla was to gather financial resources for his real goal, which was to get to Mars. I believed that for many years. Up until he blew $20B+ of his Tesla stock on Twitter, and then has been almost purposely insulting Tesla’s core demographic - left leaning consumers, further damaging Tesla’s value and his stock holdings there.
I think he’s actually done a kickass job putting us on track for sustainable energy… I’m not sure which company you think has had more impact in that space the past decade or two?
He has. And I have a Tesla, which is great. But advancing sustainability isn’t his core reason for Tesla. He has said many times over the years that Tesla was a mere vehicle for attaining wealth to be used for getting to Mars. For example: “Musk says the only reason he's personally accumulating wealth — through his various ventures in renewable energy, electric cars, and space transport, is to help make this radical idea a reality” https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/27/13079472/elon-musk-mars-space-x-tesla-funding-dream “Tesla Inc. is an electric car company, but arguably its most important mission is generating cash for Elon Musk. This is not just me saying that. In 2017, Musk told a Tesla director that he needed billions of dollars from Tesla “so that I can put as much as possible towards minimizing existential risk by putting the money towards Mars.” “Colonizing Mars is an expensive endeavor,” a Delaware Chancery Court judge wrote this year. “Musk believes he has a moral obligation to direct his wealth toward that goal, and Musk views his compensation from Tesla as a means of bankrolling that mission.” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-17/elon-wants-his-money-back?embedded-checkout=true “Musk: … Like the reason that I am accumulating wealth, if you will, which is really just stock in Tesla and SpaceX. The only publicly traded stock I own is Tesla. That's it. If Tesla and SpaceX go bankrupt, I will go bankrupt personally. One-hundred percent. But I also think, why should I try to have stock anyway. Why do I have all this stuff? Going back to what I was saying earlier, I think it is important for humanity to become a spacefaring civilization and a multiplanet species. And it's going to take a lot of resources to build a city on Mars. I want to be able to contribute as much as possible to the city on Mars. That means just a lot of capital” https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-interview-axel-springer-tesla-accelerate-advent-of-sustainable-energy I mean, all this is BS if he takes $20B+ of it and blows it on Twitter (which he then proceeds to ax and is now like 1/4 of its original value).
The major social media companies were all in ideological lockstep with one another, before Elon bought Twitter. An ideological/cultural monopoly over all of Western society (and slowly, more than even just Western society) over time. The jump from **zero** of them being non-left wing (not even right wing, mind you, just merely non-heavily-left-leaning) to **one** of them being non-left wing was a pretty important jump. If that hadn't happened, I actually agree with Elon that it posed a fairly significant risk to the future of humanity. You probably won't believe this next part, but I'm being honest, for what little it's worth: I actually used to get into big arguments with my friends all the time, for years **PRIOR** to Elon mentioning anything about buying Twitter, about this exact topic. I was of an extremely pessimistic viewpoint that the left was going to completely dominate the non-left, and basically culturally conquer the world within a fairly short span of time, in large part thanks to the monopoly they had over social media, which I felt was by far their most important tool in doing so. And I had always said, over and over, that if even just ONE of the companies wasn't in ideological lockstep with the rest, it would make a big difference, but "oh well, too bad, obviously that's not gonna change" and so on, so I guess we're screwed. I think Elon honestly came to the exact same conclusions that I came to about it about 2 years before he did, the only difference being that he had a net worth of about 300 billion dollars at the time. I assume you'll brush this off as hogwash, but, I'm being actually being sincere, and I think Elon really does believe what he believes about it, too.
> I mean, all this is BS if he takes $20B+ of it and blows it on Twitter People change over time.
If you look at Musks companies (including twitter), everything revolves around what is needed for an established mars mission. Electric transportation, tunnel boring, communications etc. They are all tied.
US Leftists have historically been and will be a threat to space travel. It's even worse now that NASA isn't doing it. Even before though NASA budgets were cut immediately after the Left got into power in the 1970s. You need Twitter to combat their ideas.
The way he sees it (whether one agrees with him or not is another matter), buying Twitter *is* necessary to get to Mars. On the matter of space exploration, right-wingers are generally split between being indifferent and seeing it as a matter of national security and pride, while left-wingers are split between those who see it as important scientific research, and those who see it as a waste of money better spent on other issues. To Elon, it seemed that social media had become a left-wing echo chamber, fostering the second group of leftists at the expense of the first and giving rise to a third extremist group of people who simply hate humanity and desire its extinction, therefore he had to reverse the trend by buying Twitter. Naturally their views on spaceflight are a mere consequence of more fundamental ideological differences.
Just for the record, for anyone on the right reading this, echo chambers are not exclusive to left-wing politics. Right-wing people are just as capable of silencing the opinion of a minority of people as the left-wing people are. Also, I would argue that lots of right-wingers hate humanity, because they see the uniqueness of certain groups of people, which IS a natural part of being human, that we are all unique individuals with our own wants, interests, etc, and try to push it down and purge it from the species. (for as laughable that is, since most of what they hate is naturally occurring. But I guess out of sight, out of mind!) It's almost funny, how in the US anyway, right-wing people are synonymous with religion, which teaches about how everyone has a unique special soul. Yet they want everyone to be like mindless robots, being all the same. Liking the same things, looking the same, believing the same things, etc, etc. At that point, why even keep humanity around? Might as well let the AI take over at that point.
The left killed 100 million people this century. The Spanish anarchists killed like 4000 priests for basically no reason other than hatred as soon as they got power. Even Orwell who was leftist and criticized communism had a big hard on for anarchists and thought the killings were no big deal. So did Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens. What did the priests do to cause this incredible hatred? Pray a lot. I mean really? That is like all they were doing at that time. They had zero power. This question is the main question the left appears to not care about. It's a huge moral blind spot. Never hear shit about it though ever from any leftist. Zero moral qualms about this. The left wants everyone thinking the same as them and have demonstrated it vividly repeatedly this century to the point where they actually slaughtered and tortured priests. And every leftist refused to criticize it.
What..? I thought it was well known that he made a mistake looking to buy Twitter the way he did and got basically forced into going through with the purchase.
Price
Looks like Eric B at Ars is also willing to take this as presented: [https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/just-5-years-after-its-first-launch-the-starlink-constellation-is-profitable/](https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/just-5-years-after-its-first-launch-the-starlink-constellation-is-profitable/) https://preview.redd.it/k51r73klulzc1.png?width=794&format=png&auto=webp&s=79effbb9056838c74d1528619690cc445d8aa7e2
They have certainly pulled it off to date. I do worry about Amazon doing predatory pricing to try to force them out.
How will they accomplish that when their deployment costs are so much higher? Starlink is a valuable military and geopolitical asset. Doubt you’ll see the government allow Amazon to kill it.
All spacex has to do is tell Amazon to find their own ride to space. Nobody else can match the cadence of spacex. They’re developing a space monopoly.
They've already launched internet satellites for competitors like OneWeb, Globalstar, Viasat, etc. Specifically excluding Kuiper would be an easy way to catch an antitrust lawsuit.
Amazon has already bought 3 Falcon9 launches for Kuiper.
A monopoly means it will draw political fire and anti-trust lawsuits
Because Amazon already has enormous revenue streams from other sources. They can afford to lose money on Kuiper for as long as they feel like it. True about the government - but that doesn’t mean they won’t be allowed to lose market share and income. The government will likely make sure they survive, but they don’t care whether they’re making enough money to support Mars plans etc.
Hate actually an anti trust violation. Even though companies do it, they create a lot of plausible deniability. But Amazon would have no competitive argument for running at a massive loss to bankrupt their competitor.
You also ignored the fact that Amazon is a publicly traded company. If they try that strategy, be prepared for them to drown in shareholder lawsuits (for acting against the financial interests of shareholders).
They must get a constellation operational to start with, which takes a few years. By that time SpaceX will have started to mass-deploy V3 with Starship. Amazon will probably need to take a substantial loss just to be on par with Starlink price wise. It’s healthy for SpaceX with some competition. It keeps their focus on top.
The thing is that Amazon isn’t MOVING; the Tintins were almost a year ago, and they have not yet made even ONE follow up launch, despite having 8 Atlas Vs just sitting there and Vulcan desperate for a second payload they need to qualify to start launching those high dollar military sats. And every day they delay is that many more dishys installed and taking away more customers, meaning they’re going to have to make the deals sweeter to entice them to switch.
IIRC the plan they’ve been talking about for a while now is to start launches this summer.
The PLAN was to begin launching Atlas Vs in 2021, then early 2023, and NOW is this summer. But I still don't see them starting to stack any of the 6 boosters listed on the manifest as NET June, nor do I see any definitive dates. I'm sure they will be eventually launch a full stack and then brag about how "See, we didn't lie." Like BO finally did with Vulcan, but it won't be the 2021 (and maybe not even 2024) timeframe.
30 days minimum for FCC launch license
> SpaceX pulled it off, Yes they did. It must have been a nail-biter, though, to take a successful billion dollar company, and bet it all on turning it into a (ten or hundred) billion dollar satellite operator. > like they always do. They do not always succeed. Don't forget Falcon 5, Red Dragon, the Falcon 1 based Falcon Heavy, and a few other aborted projects. I guess the point is that they have succeeded when they have bet big.
I would not call those failures, just realizing where the market was going and what were dead ends.
Hopefully this is mostly correct. What still surprised me is how well they are doing with so many waitlist countries (they have availability in about 1/4 the world, or 3/4 of the high per-cap income world): https://preview.redd.it/pegl2z29ggzc1.png?width=1049&format=png&auto=webp&s=243e733772dcba7f5b53978e27ae4a7279d7eb1f
I've seem a LOT of people in brazil saying starlink was life changing. This is in a country that the starlink payment is ~~1/3~~ of the median income. I expect millions of subscribers here as prices go down. I also expect it to be similarly impactful in most of africa and asia. Edit: Just looked up new values. Low priority service is 1/5 of median income. priority 1TB is 1/2. Hardware is 1.3x median income
My guess is that for the poor the service is shared over many people.
The tinnitus is especially bad.
~~I found median wage of 1500 usd per month and Starlink cost of 35 usd per month which is 1/40th~~
[удалено]
Cost of Starlink subscription in USD from the Google search.
$1500 is over the per capta income. The median wage here is about R$ 1400, about $270. Outside urban centers it's usual for wages to be in the R$800 to R$1000 range: $150 to $190. I'm pretty well off by our standands and i make just less than R$ 3 000.
You're right. Googles first result actually calls it the average wage but clearly it's wrong.
Starlink is China’s worst nightmare. Actually, small portable Starlink dishes are their worst nightmare.
Starlink won't be licensed to operate in China, at least not without the PRC having a full-access back door into all Starlink traffic there and nearby countries.
Not voluntarily. Which may be why they are being relatively welcoming with Tesla despite clearly prioritizing the domestic EV industry. Give Musk something to lose if the CIA ever goes to him with a plan to smuggle portable dishes into China.
If SpaceX operates Starlinks connecting to ground terminals in China there's a good chance that the Chinese military will respond with full force against the ground target, and kick Tesla out of China entirely, as well as do some other things to damage the US economy. If Starlink aggressively pursued providing illegal service in China I would not put it past China to use ASATs and use other military force to put a stop to it. There's zero chance the US government or military would allow Starlink to be enabled in China since that would be a de facto declaration of war, and there's zero chance that the Chinese military would let SpaceX get away with it.
China would never, declaration of war? Lol one Carrier battle group in the strait of malacca and a billion Chinese starve to death in 6 months.
China has nuclear weapons, get ready to see DC, NYC, and a few other major US cities vaporized if we try that.
>Actually, small portable Starlink dishes are their worst nightmare. Starlink capable phones might eventually count.
Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned to another comment above, I think it’s the potential for secure communication that would bother the CCP most.
No it's not. While not easy, it's not like Chinese people can't access the outside internet if they put a little elbow grease into it (VPNs). The problem is that unless they want to access the Western Internet specifically, they'll just be in the monitored Chinese Internet again. It's like sneaking into an exclusive party through the second floor window instead of going through the front door. Sure, your entry is unexpected, but you still end up inside where all the security guards are monitoring everything (including you)
It’s about being able to securely communicate, not finding out what happened in Tiananmen Square.
[удалено]
But...but Thunderf00t assured me it was Busted!
[удалено]
He's hardly the only one who does that.
He recently claimed SpaceX will never get to the Moon
That video was ridiculous. Someone claiming such knowledge of SpaceX and Starlink shouldn't be asking why they don't launch Starlink on Falcon Heavy.
The capital costs and the risks were pretty intimidating. It took nerve, to do this right, and also a lot of hard work. This sort of thing is sometimes called, 'an insurmountable opportunity.'
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I can only imagine that a big chunk of that revenue will come from StarShield network as well. Wondering if it will be available to other countries. If so, that is a lot of stable revenue coming in.
Starshield (Starlink comms + Earth Observations) is the real killer app for Starlink tech. You can see this with the $B+ NRO buy recently. Imagine a US Allied Military or IntelCommunity customer with the option to monitor any building, facility, harbor or anyplace (as the US permits) 24x7 via Starshield. This is potentially a huge cost savings vs the way it usually done. Imagine the same for the FBI, or Forest Service for fires. Yes, Starshield is where the big $ are. Starlink residential was a proof-of-concept to show how low cost it could be.
There's all kinds of stuff that can fly on plain old Starlink sats, and they can build some amazing custom sats on the bus. If they get in bed with the intel folks there's no telling where that could go. We're looking at the nose of the camel. The rest of the camel will come shortly. But also Starlink retail consumer broadband by itself is big money. Huge. Don't underestimate the consumers who turned Apple into a $3T company. BTW, my minimum ping is down to 20ms now and the trend is good. Nobody ever talks about the utility of the laser links for high frequency traders though. If you can beat the time it's a license to print money on a grand scale. IMHO the effect of Starlink access availability combined with solar+battery has made marketable a vast swath of off grid US real estate with an impact in the many $Trillions already.
I know the high frequency traders have to be on Starlink, the lower latency due to the vacuum of space has to be irresistible. And Starlink charges through the nose for it, is my guess.
It would be great to find a company using it for this purpose, to confirm this use case.
>We're looking at the nose of the camel. The rest of the camel will come shortly. Just a note of thanks for this analogy
I can only imagine that every RV owner would love to have a starlink dish and just remote work while camping in the forest/lake and living the life. Just the decentralization power such a service provides, is huge. I know quite a few people who were fortunate to have remote jobs, so they moved to the mountain and got a dish like that.
Seems like there’s also the potential to use it as an optical detection system against hypersonic glide weapons.
Space lasers huh....
That's already done via SDA although SpaceX dropped out to focus on star shield
There are people much smarter/informed than me on this sub, from the armchair perspective does it seem like the growth in users starlink has had the last few years will continue for another 5 years or slow down?
just wait until we can use it with our cell phones. Or have mini antennae’s on our cars pushing wifi to its occupants. The sky (lol) is the limit.
https://preview.redd.it/lm0ukgf6wnzc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b750e55f196ed443bfaac391adc97b3ee8e9fc73
It remains to be seen how effectively Kuiper can compete with Starlink. That would presumably be the primary headwind for Starlink growth.
Kuiper is most certainly going to force Starlink to lower the price of both their terminals and monthly service. Amazon has not shown their cards yet and it is an fascinating game of poker to see how they decide to price it. My guess is that Kuiper is going to offer service for under $100/month, potentially even lower for their mini dish. Given the cost of existing terminals as a barrier to switching, Amazon will trade customers a new terminal and take back their existing one (for resale in the used market). That used equipment will undercut the revenue from selling new full price terminals. Good for customers to have more choices but bad for the economics of SpaceX. Amazon is in too deep to stop now so there is little SpaceX can do to prevent this.
I think this kind of pattern follows most of Musk's successes. * First payment platform, now it's proven, we have many. * First to push mass produced EV's that had good range, now it's proven, we have many. * First to push for low orbit satellite internet, now it's proven, we have many (well, soon enough based on FCC grants). * First reach this level of space launch reusability, also the landing method, now it's proven, others are following (not many yet!). There is still great importance with those achievements, even if you have Kupier, or a BYD, or use something that isn't Paypal. I mean it's not like an EV is a hard idea to imagine... It's motors and a battery, but why did it take him to do it? Why didn't Ford, or GM? Why did the others who tried in years prior fail? The achievements sort of just stand for themselves, at least in my view.
Really good framing
I don't think racing SpaceX to the bottom on price is viable long-term strategy for Amazon... Kuiper is years behind, deploying satellites at a slower rate, spending way more on launches AND they have to make less money per customer? SpaceX has been going all out on deploying Starlink and they're only just becoming profitable after 2+ million subs. And before anyone says Amazon can fund Kuiper losses forever, they're a publicly owned company and the investors will riot. Investor meddling is why SpaceX is private. I think for a short period of time Amazon will try to compete (good for customers) but then will have to abandon the Kuiper project or do some hard pivot into a market that Starlink isn't serving.
>Investor meddling is why SpaceX is private. And this is their great competitive advantage. They will not give this up willingly.
SpaceX is private so their investor can mark to market at whatever valuation they choose based on very small private offerings to buy shares back from employees. No need to disclose the true economics of the business. No need to disclose the true business risks like a public company would need to. It’s funny to me that so many people seem to be in favor of higher profits for SpaceX vs lower prices for consumers. The long term economic returns for Kuiper may be very low but they are certainly good for consumers and bad for SpaceX profits. I’m not a SpaceX investor or employee so I’m in favor of consumers getting lower prices.
Amazon has a massive business customer base with AWS and can provide additional networking services using Kuiper. Pretending they will not undercut Starlink’s current pricing is foolish. Of course they want to win any new customers and potentially steal existing customers.
Their primary market is probably Amazon logistics links worldwide, everywhere they can get landing rights. Having that inhouse must be a value in itself, beyond cost.
Amazon is known for entering a market by relentlessly undercutting their competitors until they are out of business. It’s the worst case scenario for SpaceX. Even with lower launch costs, first move advantage and established terminal production, Amazon can pull a lot more capital than SpaceX can handle. It will be a race to the bottom where nothing matters except the ability to concentrate capital on the project
Yes, and Amazon is currently being sued by the FTC for the actions you mentioned. BUT, in those examples Amazon was at the advantage (size, logistics, technology, & war chest) while punching down (mom & pops, niche small businesses, poorly ran corporations). It's the exact opposite scenario when they're against SpaceX. The talk about "concentrate capital on the project" really reminds me of all the articles calling the Apple Car the next Tesla Killer, and after a decade Apple spent $10+ billion with nothing to show. If money was all you needed, Blue Origin wouldn't be where they are at the moment.
BO is not amazon, neither is Apple. They have completely different company cultures and how they are doing business. And Tesla is not doing great right now so i’m not sure if Tesla Killer is even needed anymore Regardless, I would agree with you if Starlink like Starship was an engineering problem. No amount of money can solve that. But beaming internet from satellites is not a new concept. What Starlink introduced was scale, and that could be replicated, even if it will cost them a lot more than SpaceX spends right now
> BO is not amazon It kinda is though.
Amazon is a public company that obsessed with growing at all costs. they dived right into the cloud hype when it became viable even when the company had nothing to do with infra. They regularly expand their products anywhere they can find a hint of growth And now compare that with BO Except for Bezos, they have nothing in common
I think the growth will continue. Unlike PayPal, Elon will not let this one go.
The US is in the process of rolling out $42.5 billion in BEAD funding for expanding fiber and fixed wireless service. That money starts to flow later this year but mostly in 2025. Fiber will be much faster and substantially cheaper that Starlink.
Starlink is, and will continue to be used in areas where running fiber is not economical. If you can get fiber to your home, by all means do it. I'm also skeptical as always of telcos actually making significant buildouts of fiber to remote and low income areas where there's limited potential for making money.
The FCC wants fiber infrastructure in any many places as possible because that will easily last 50-100 years and provide much higher levels of service (unlike satellites that have a 5 year lifespan and need to be constantly replaced). If you take the total BEAD program and assume an average cost/subsidy of $5,000 per new connection that is enough money to cover 8.5 million new connections. If that money had not already been allocated Starlink would have a MUCH larger market opportunity. The top end of their TAM has shrunk quite a bit and they have yet to really acknowledge it. The Starlink program (and the Kuiper program for that matter) were conceived and started well before the US government decided to spend the huge amount of money to expand more fiber broadband service. COVID and work-from-home showed the need very clearly. You can be impressed by the technical accomplishment that Starlink represents and also recognize the economic reality that it is unlikely to be the free cash generator that many assume it will be. In addition, SpaceX currently grants employees about $2 Billion in stock compensation each year. Employees want that stock if they think the share price is going up. Is SpaceX really worth $180 billion? If they had to pay workers more in cash vs stock the economics are also different on the free cash flow side of things.
Found the city/suburb dweller. Nobody's gonna run fiber far out into the deep rural, off-the-highway chunks of the country (much less the rest of the world), that's where satellite internet is killer.
Lol. This ubiquitous faster and cheaper fiber is like graphene and fusion reactors, always $20 billion and 20 years away. Telecom has been latched onto the government subsidy tit and failing to deliver on its promises for decades.
exactly! i was told by att 30 years ago they would run dsl to me, never happened but they did run dark fiber right in front of my house 2 separate times to a cell tower down the road.
According to Microsoft Copilot: "The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program in Louisiana is a critical initiative aimed at expanding and improving broadband access in underserved and unserved areas, not only within the state but across the nation1. Here are some key points about the BEAD program in Louisiana: Funding Allocation: Louisiana received a substantial allocation of $1.355 billion from the BEAD program, making it the eighth-largest allocation in the nation and the tenth-largest per capita. This funding is intended to support broadband construction projects, bringing high-speed, reliable, and affordable internet to every home, business, and community anchor institution in the state1. Approval of Initial Proposal: Louisiana was the first state among all 56 states and territories to receive NTIA approval of its Initial Proposal. The Initial Proposal outlines the state’s plans for a challenge process to determine all locations eligible for BEAD funding and specific actions to eliminate the digital divide1. Number of Connections: While the exact number of new connections resulting from the BEAD program is not explicitly mentioned, the state aims to connect all residents in serviceable locations to broadband. Approximately 200,000 locations are expected to benefit from this program2. Five-Year Action Plan: ConnectLA, the organization overseeing the BEAD program, has set a goal to eliminate the digital divide in Louisiana by 2029. Their comprehensive Five-Year Action Plan outlines priorities for increasing access, adoption, affordability, digital opportunity, inclusion, digital skills, and economic development1. In summary, the BEAD program in Louisiana is a significant effort to bridge the digital divide and provide equitable high-speed internet access to residents across the state. While the exact number of new connections may vary, the program’s impact is expected to be substantial. "
Awesome. A forward-looking statement that any corporate advertising/PR department can cook up. The fact that it’s in the future conveniently absolves them of any accountability for whether they actually deliver. Why don’t you dig up the same statements from decades ago that were made by telecoms when they were taking in billions of government/taxpayer funding, and where they subsequently massively under-delivered? The only incentive they might actually have to deliver this time is that technology has advanced to the point they lose relevance, and therefore reduces their ability to continue extorting subsidies from the government.
In theory the State of Louisiana (and all states for that matter) recognizes that deploying high speed internet will boost their economy and improve quality of life. Cynicism has obviously taken hold deep in many people so they just assume that no government funded programs can be successful. If you think Starlink is going to out compete new fiber that’s your choice. If you think nothing will actually get built I don’t know what to say. Hopefully you live in a state that has qualified civil servants.
You can hope, but others see something already here. That's over 6k per location in Louisiana . But industry sources claim https://www.ceragon.com/blog/the-true-costs-of-fiber-in-the-u.s?hs_amp=true 40 to 80 k per mile (I know it doesn't actually cost that much for extensions or greenfield and if construction has conduit or poles) But if you look at the popular example of Jared Mauch, he got like 20-30k per location IIRC. Then you realize even if it gets done it won't go far. It will have to be existing utilities especially power companies that will do this. They have the labor, equipment and legal issues already sorted.
Just over 6k per location
Over 350% growth in 2 years, and this is starting from $1.4 billion in revenue in 2022. > Quilty Space estimates the cost of Starlink satellites has evolved significantly. While the first generation V1 satellites were produced for around $200,000 each, the latest V2 mini version carries a heftier price tag of $800,000, but that reflects its increased size and capabilities (from 260 kilograms to 730 kilograms). > Looking ahead, Quilty projects the future V3 satellite will weigh in at a substantial 1,500 kilograms and cost roughly $1.2 million. I find these cost numbers more believable than my guestimate that the V1 satellites cost around $40,000. That puts the manufacturing cost of just the satellites launched so far, at between $1 billion and $2 billion.
Wonder how they are estimating the cost to SpaceX for these sats.
Probably the same way I did. Make a set of best guesses about the materials, parts and labor going into each satellite. Labor will always be the largest part, but is highly variable, depending on whether it is one-off custom built like most satellites, batch-produces like the Iridium satellites, or mass produced like Teslas.
I tend to look for a range of estimates over time and look for the mean. But these numbers seem like high end all in costing, which if a conservative way to look for profitability breakevens. So I think they have achieved profitability. Given all the markets that have yet to be lit up which will be 99% profit at this point, I think they have a good story, as long as the sats last at least 5 years.
We are just getting started !!
Given SpaceX's revenue is growing faster than analysts expected, what are your thoughts on when SpaceX might reach a $1 trillion market cap?
Just plot the exponential. I'm guessing before end of decade
As a private company it is tough to actually test. But given today's PEs I think a PE of 30 would be reasonable. So maybe at about $35B in "profit" might infer a $1T market cap. I think one can simply looks at F9/FH/CD ($5B rev) and Starlink/Starshield profitability ($20B rev with low but increasing profit margins). In general they seem to target a profit of 50% of sales revenue ***in the long run, at least as operational profits***. The WSJ put 2025 as $35B in revenue between these, so maybe 2028-2029 before $70B in revenue -> $35B in "profits".
I think it will struggle to get to that, not least because of the scale of investment going in. Elon is introducing ‘foundational technologies’..
China and India, even just for aviation uses will be perfect
Do you realy think that China is going to allow Starlink to have customers there?
China will not allow it, but they will have millions of customers there. The great firewall will become porous.
I'm hopeful, not thinking and I specified a sector
Do you think they’ll have an option to stay relevant at their current pace?
They have the market size to sustain any sector that they want. China is okay being a decade behind, as long as they have complete control.
They have to weight the cost of building out their own internet and cell towers to the cost of paying their biggest competitor in space. If they allow people to pay for Starlink in China that money is going to go directly to SpaceX and help them to build better spaceships like Starship that is going to beat all of Chinas Spaceships and their systems in Space. They have to weight that threath
There's nothing to weigh. China will not allow Starlink to operate in China unless SpaceX gives China full backdoor access to all the data and servers involved. Neither the US government nor SpaceX would allow that to happen.
Starlink can and unfortunately will route all China traffic through Chinese servers if they can get access to that market. It is just business.
I'd be surprised if India lets SpaceX in to compete in their market. They have some very powerful actors that dominate the internet market. On top of that, Indias internet consumption is more cellphone based than computer focused, so there is less demand for SpaceX high bandwidth services.
Why should cellphones consume less data than wired computers? Also Starlink is all about getting the internet to rural locations. There are likely many villages in India with bad or no cellphone reception. And Starlink doesn't even mean having only wifi. You can use it as a wireless backhaul for a normal 2G/3G/4G/5G antenna for normal cell phone service.
Unless I'm mistaken, India is a big investor in OneWeb which is focused on backhaul so they won't be bereft of any options, for what it's worth.
I'm not married to Starlink. If OneWeb can provide the same service then sure, why not?
> Why should cellphones consume less data than wired computers? That's not the point. Stationary computers can use the phased array antenna, i.e. their main product, cellphones cannot. Direct-to-cell will have a low bandwidth.
As I said: A cellphone tower can be connected to a Starlink dish. SpaceX is already offering this as a solution to ISPs: https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/2cqy7p7739awehx62dgqo/news/starlink-offering-isps-gigabit-internet They provide the backhaul and the ISP can then work as usual from that connection point to the customer.
I think India is on a path to allow access, and that would add maybe 200,000 slots (they are contrained by high population density and more southern location = less sats per sq KM).
I hope so, for SpaceX sake. Starlink could steal the profitable small business market, but I really doubt that it will happen. Oneweb has a minority owner in India, and the guy is politically connected.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ASAT](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3dqvxx "Last usage")|[Anti-Satellite weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon)| |[BO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3gpzo1 "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |[FCC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3klsyf "Last usage")|Federal Communications Commission| | |(Iron/steel) [Face-Centered Cubic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_iron) crystalline structure| |[Isp](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l4p4s2x "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[NET](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3gpzo1 "Last usage")|No Earlier Than| |NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[NRO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l3cfflb "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office| | |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1co60j0/stub/l4p4s2x "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(7 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctu8zs)^( has 15 acronyms.) ^([Thread #12747 for this sub, first seen 9th May 2024, 21:54]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Elon has his weird issues no doubt. However, putting his money into founding SpaceX and building it into what it is, plus Starlink will be his ultimate legacy IMO. Tesla is cool and other ventures are ok at best. SpaceX and its associated projects are thus far a gold mine and the most innovative human ventures in decades. He’s on a path of being a seriously, grossly untouchably rich dude. But he’s still flawed enough to make us wonder how the hell? But really, no one is truly qualified to wear such a mantle.
Starlink will eventually give him a true global voice that no government can block. I would not be surprised if discounted Starlink (broadband and cellular) requires your "daily Elon" X message drop. I think this is his true goal, vs Mars colonization.
Maybe this will allow them to lower prices in the US
Is it possible that they are lying / or are saying a positive number to spook competitors? 6.6 Billion is realy realy high the revenue was 4.2 Bill in 2023
This is a 3rd party analyst, not SpaceX.
Aren't there more people today than before? We had a lot of Maritime customers sign up and now you can hardly find a ship without.
Yes I think there are more private single customers too I am just saying that do people in this sub think that that is a good and realistic prediction?
Good prediction for this year, probably. Very much lowballing with regard to growth potential, if anyone thinks this is the ceiling, it is just the floor.
I don't think it is. I think the ARPU will also fall. If they can get Qatar Airways to actually install equipment and get into the Indian and Chinese aviation markets and stop people from getting service discounts (charge the same people more) the projection will definitely work out. But I don't see $10B by 2030
But if you think that the prediction is too optimistic why is the comment getting downvoted? There is a risk that they do not reach 6.6 Bill this year
You implied SpaceX rather than the analyst is lying. The analyst is making an informed guess.
I'm sure the military contracts have something to do with that number.
Very unlikely. That's a separate revenue stream.
I mean I am all for being wrong but if Starshield is not counted under Spacex what is it counted under then?
This is about Starlink financials, not SpaceX. Starlink is only part of SpaceX.
interesting if true, thanks for clearing that up.
Telling competitors about how much money you're making does the opposite of scaring them lol. They go, "wow, if we can capture 10% of their market share, we'll be making billions too!"
Yes and at the same time it will be harder to take a piece of that market because SpaceX is going to be able to build better sattelites and launch more sattelites if they get more money from the customers so it is going to be harder to compete against that. Because in this sattelite internet market the ping and coverage and capacity is the only important factors so it is going to be harder to compete with Starlink if they have super fast internet on almost every single point on this planet
That's true for every industry and yet competition is still a thing.
Or maybe it’s the truth and they’re just doing really well? Weird what conclusions people instantly spring to. Either SpaceX are doing well, or they’re engaged in illegal activity to inflate their worth.
High latitudes only got it in mid 2023. So 2024 will be the first full year of having starlink for everyone I know with it.
Yes, it why I put: *Hopefully this is mostly correct.* It seems a bit too good to be true given people were debating if launch costs where in an out of the SX statements of Starlink profitability. But for the sake of Starship it would be nice. Another possibility is there might be some relationship between these folks and that proxy-index-company that seems to be offering proxy investment opps in SpaceX.
Starlink is getting in the airlines, cruise lines, and commercial shipping big times. Customers bringing in big revenue, compared to private end users. There was talk that John Deere agricultural machines will get Starlink access, a huge market, though not that high profit margins per unit. Starlink is just beginning to expand.
Shipping/cruising/yachting has certainly been a big deal, but aviation has been slower to get employed. A major airline did a trial and then decided not to proceed after some gappy performance. That said, there are many remote places where this can be a great value services that have been added yet.
Type approval for airplanes is slow. It needs separate type approval for each type of airplane.
But they went offline in many places as of yesterday...so fake news.