Invites sent for Starlink beta

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/jiu1uq/looks_...

At the suggested $100/mo you'd get 120M * 0.2 * $100 = $2.4Bn/mo from rural areas plus 120M * 0.8 * 0.4 * $100 ≈ $3.8Bn/mo from urban areas.

So in the US a reasonable cap would be about $6.2Bn/mo or $74.4Bn/yr.

Operational costs are difficult to estimate, but using the current numbers, $50M/launch and $250k/sat seems reasonable. At 60 sats per launch and 12k sats fleet size, build-up cost would be $10Bn launch costs plus $3B for the sats, so about $13Bn total.

With an average lifespan of 5yr/sat, 40 launches per year are required to maintain the fleet. That's an additional $2.1Bn/yr for replenishing old sats.

Costs for ground operations come on top of that.

Considering all this, even without a major game changer in launch costs (i.e. Starhip), Starlink would be very profitable even if they "only" reach %25 of the rural population in NA.

[1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

[2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/continents-of-the-world-...

[3] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/area-comparison?version=jun20...

And AFAIK SpaceX's funding for Starlink is a combination of their own revenue from launch services, and private VC. So it's not correct to say that the military is "bankrolling" Starlink, except to the extent that they buy unrelated launch services from SpaceX.

Median incomes in counties that are mostly rural skew lower [1] than those in urban counties [2]. But the difference, about 4%, is less than I had thought [3].

Moreover, “median incomes in rural areas of the Northeast and Midwest ($62,291 and $55,704 respectively) were higher than in the regions’ urban areas ($60,655 and $51,266)... Median household income was higher for rural households [versus urban ones] in 32 states. In Rhode Island, for example, median rural household income was $85,278, about 57 percent higher than the median for urban households ($54,324)” [4].

And since these are largely Census data, they ignore vacation homes.

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/acs-...

[2] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/acs-...

[3] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/...

[4] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/11/income-povert...

Two things though.

Thing #1.

Definitions of 'poor' vary by countries, and my understanding of 'poor' in the US is:

* no safety net

* low, or no minimum wage often

* no/low quality health care

Meanwhile, in Canada (for example) with minimum wage, paid for health care, and a strong safety net, poor is a different thing.

I don't want to get into a big health care debate, but essentially taxes pay for health care here, and the less you make, the less tax you pay. And when you live in a rural area, you need significantly less pay to live to the same standard as a city dweller. Everything is more expensive in the city.

This means that a rural person pays less income tax, for the same standard of living. And therefore, essentially, less for health care.

When combined with housing costs which are immensely lower, the ability to reduce other costs (heating with wood, growing your own food, the ability and room to repair your own car, on and on...), there is more room for extras than one might expect.

An example; waiters/waitresses are paid, by law, minimum wage. And in rural areas, this is much more advantageous than in the city.

I guess what my point #1 is saying, is that rural poor are often better off than urban poor. And do have some discretionary spending, at least in some countries out there.

Point #2....

Definitions of rural.

There is a zone around smaller cities which is not 'suburbia', but is indeed rural. And these areas are often well within easy reach of cities. For example, the city I live close to has a tech businesses concentrated on its western side.

This means that when buying a rural home, one need to be concerned with reaching the entire city quickly. Only the western side. In as such, drive time from rural -> city, as the region is ~ 1.5M, is not that bad. Less than 30 minutes even.

In this rural zone, housing is far enough apart that on side/non-main roads, there is no high-speed internet access.

To speak to that, I live on the very last side-road, before high-speed internet access becomes non-existent. This is no mistake, when I looked to buy, I found the zone where high-speed ended, then searched in that area for housing.

To give you an idea? My house is worth ~ $200k. 10 minutes away? The same house? ~$400k, and I have a 1 acre lot, versus a 1/4 acre city lot.

Anyhow, the above is a bit of rambling, but the point is ; there is 'very close to the city rural, with no high speed' and 'farther out rural'.

Close-to rural enjoys city pay scales for higher end jobs, even without remote work.

And if starlink comes? People might move further out.

That being said, your question sparked my interest, so here is some back of the napkin math.

Currently spaceX launches 60 satellites per launch. Each satellite is estimated to be roughly $250k (Exact cost not known), An estimated rocket cost of $50m (for used) So roughly $65mil per 60 sats, or 1.08mil per sat cost. Each sat has an estimated lifespan of 5 years

So 65mil / 60 / 5 = ~$217,000/y per sat, not including personal costs for support, ground base stations, etc.

Currently there are 900 sats in orbit, I believe they are currently approved for 12,000 sats, but want to go up to 30,000 sats.

So for the current constellation they need $195mil/y or just under 165,000 customers at the $99/m (165,000 * 99 * 12)

For the 12,000 cluster, they would need to make 2.6bil per year, or 2.2mil customers at the $99/m (2,200,000 * 99 * 12)

For the 30,000 cluster, they would need to make 6.5bil per year, or 5.5mil customers at the $99/m (5,500,000 * 99 * 12)

For comparison, comcast has roughly ~28mil customers for internet. Rural america is ~60mil people in total (census.gov) (not counting vacation or secondary houses from non rural americans) so starlink's break even on rural subscribers only would be just under 10% of rural America. (lets call the cush government contracts a wash for operational costs for people and hardware on the ground?) Note that ONLY 5.5mil Americans ( <2% of Americans) would fund all of the hardware cost and launch costs. Every other person in every other country around the world would theoretically be profit?

Now there's expensive houses everywhere. A lot of the older, more humble houses are still there, but I get the impression they're gradually getting replaced and the whole area is gentrifying. I don't know why; we're far enough away from big cities to make commuting inconvenient, and there isn't any big industry, just farms and vineyards. Maybe those are more profitable than I thought. Or maybe people are just moving out of tech hubs and working remote.