Starlink achieves cash-flow breakeven, says SpaceX CEO Musk
reuters.com
reuters.com
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellatio...
Starlink offers highspeed (actually, not marketing gibberish), low latency internet around the world at a price people can actually afford and without unreasonable datacaps. This is possible because they are mass producing phased array antennas, something that was out of reach of common affordability before Starlink.
Starlink is comparable to Iridium like dial-up internet is comparable to fiber. Just go to Iridium's website and try to figure out what they actually sell to anyone who doesn't have elite pockets.
True, but Starlink isn't what made phased array antennas affordable. The affordability of phased array antennas is what made Starlink financially feasible.
When the Iridium constellations were launched in the 1990s, the commercial phased array antennas in use today had not yet been invented. When the second-generation satellites were designed in the 2010s, phase array antennas were not yet commercially available, and did not become commercially available until around the same time that the 2nd-gen satellites were launched.
SpaceX was willing to sink over 3 billion into phased array r&d to make it happen.
Also tech from Broadcom and ST Micro
Wait what? Where's your source for that? Because phased array antennas were used on lots of 4G networks and are one of the cornerstones of 5G.
There where some PAA in deployment when I was in college almost two decades ago.
You should check out the proposed pricing for Starlink's maritime and aviation offerings...
Marine is a $10K one-time fee plus $5K/month.
Aviation, $150K plus $25K/month.
I'm sure you can get starlink at sea for around $1k per month
You align the element order to what is actually being compared. Just pointing that out for any other non-native English speakers.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/23/11/05/0330226/spacecra...
I can't see any upsides to this venture.
Sorry, but this is a very first world, urban perspective. Please have a little empathy. I live in the US and have only one choice for internet from home and it is lousy. Starlink has been a dramatic change for us. This is the situation for many, many people in the US and around the world.
Starlink is absolutely offering something that is NOT available terrestrially.
> Aside from some people who might live in rural areas in large countries that are hard to cover georgraphically
> There is no need for StarLink generally.
You point out that there is a market for StarLink and then you say it isn't needed. I'm confused. At any rate, no point in arguing about it. If there is no need they will lose a lot of money. If there is a need, they will make a lot of money. Time will tell.
There's people importing dishes to use in cities in non covered countries today because of the condition of local networks in cities and the per bit costs
Check the steam download stats for top ISP's. It might surprise you the performance Delta with alternatives.
Telcos are complaining about roll out and spectrum costs. Some of them couldn't survive the 4G transition
The market can prove me wrong! :)
The simple fact it, it is superior in many ways for a huge number of application and just denying the is never work.
As for the 'visual pollution' its mostly just not true. For the waste majority of humans its invisible basically always outside of a few situations.
For most terrestrial telescopes it doesn't really matter much. Broad visual surveying telescopes take a slight hit but its not like they will be no longer working. Many of the issues SpaceX has addressed and made the problem way less impactful.
Some very sensitive radio telescopes are also slightly effect and having some regulation like we do on earth for electronic devices would make sense.
The idea that its some horrible thing just doesn't hold up. The benefits outweigh the cost by a gigantic amount. Starlink is used to give good internet to native Americans who life away from infrastructure. The worth of these things are far, far, far higher then the few 10s of millions we lose in observatory performance.
How is providing access to the internet not an awesome thing for society?
There are millions of people in my same situation for which this system is doing good.
Also airplanes and light from cities pollute the sky infinitely more than these satellites do.
Also, without starlink Ukraine has said they would have been defeated quite quickly. (Ie fighting without a gun).
There are many upsides.
I'm sorry-- what? Surely a totally global satellite network available in remote regions such as mountains and jungles would just be a force multiplier for these kinds of activities.
> Also, without starlink Ukraine has said they would have been defeated quite quickly. (Ie fighting without a gun).
What? :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/07/ukraine...
> There are many upsides
Please let us know when you've found some.
JP Aerospace was doing some cool things with Airships to Orbit.(I know that sounds impossible. Check their out-of-date web site for details.) https://www.jpaerospace.com/
Some of my students flew sub-orbital space probes with them.
In the case of Starlink, on what grounds does it "breakeven"? It is a department of a private company, there is no way to know. In particular, Starlink is entirely dependent on SpaceX launches. How much does Starlink pays SpaceX for its launches? It is a completely arbitrary value. In reality, the money doesn't leave the company.
For what I know, it may just be a pumping scheme for a future IPO, with the goal of eventually funneling investor money from a public Starlink to a private SpaceX. Or maybe not, Elon Musk is way smarter than me when it comes to business, that's why he is a billionaire and I am not, I can't predict his moves, but I know enough not to trust him.
Well, this is solved by him using cash flow instead of profitability, although I agree everything that elong says should be served with a massive grain of salt
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ca-state-wire-technology-lawsuits...
[2] https://mansionengineer.com/2018/08/10/elon-musk-tesla-and-t...
Basically Starlink revenue is projected to exceed launch revenue next year to become SpaceX’s largest revenue source
As long as authoritarian governments predictably shut off all internet to their extremely ironic ghettos
Never mind the hundreds of data points to the contrary, the media now hates Elon, and it's surprising just how effective they've been at turning many people against him.
Does anyone care beyond internet drama points?
The man's efforts to engineer societal-level technological change toward sustainability seem to matter more in my estimation.
To me it reeks of a certain lack of self awareness, respect for others and questionable decision making. You can be interesting and edgy without being a total asshole.
I also question his actual interest in sustainability. How exactly does paying $40 billion for Twitter fit into that grand strategy? What about driving a wedge between large groups of people by promoting hate speech helps any positive societal level change? Even if he did, do I want to put that power in one rich man?
People are allowed to express themselves?
Unfortunately I don't have $40b to throw around to amplify my speech, but that's what you get by being one of the richest people on the planet.
Musk was just as effective on twitter before he owned it. Owning it didn't have much to do with his own communication.
Unfortunately?
You bring up an interesting point: why can't you be just as effective - if not more so - by just doing the things rather than doing the things and shitposting non-sequiturs? By sucking all the oxygen out of the room, you're right, the general discourse is focused on distractions and not the real issues. If, for example, he agrees with you that the real issue is oil companies and climate change, why doesn't he focus his public energies pointing that out???
Medice, cura te ipsum
Twitter prior to Musk was full of hate speech too. You just had to be in the target group to understand that.
It shouldn't be too much of a shock, alas, except they don't teach the realities of collective meta-cannibalism much in schools these days.
He's done plenty of it himself, retweeting nazi shit and great replacement shit and all types of horrible shit he supports on twitter. It takes a real boot licker to not recognize his overt evil he believes politically, and believe it's some media conspiracy. The fact he takes government money isn't a question, whether giving elon that money is a net benefit or detriment is a different question entirely. The boot is so far down your throat you're being as myopic as those you accuse of being myopic.
I'll explain this real slow. The problem with people like elon isn't that they get tax payer money, it's that they act afterwords like they bootstrapped themselves alone in to success and then dodge billions in taxes. Simple enough for you elon simp??
> The problem with people like elon isn't that they get tax payer money, it's that they act afterwords like they bootstrapped themselves alone in to success and then dodge billions in taxes.
Precisely. Elon has stood up and acted like multiple ventures of his either haven't received tax payer funding, or grants, or loans, or subsidies. He and his companies are perfectly entitled to do so. And we are perfectly entitled to call out bullshit when he goes on an interview/Twitter to talk about "without government assistance".
What "nazi shit" has he posted? When has he posted anything about a global conspiracy to replace white people? What "horrible shit" does he support on twitter? Do you have a handy example of this "overt evil"?
> It takes a real boot licker to... believe it's some media conspiracy.
There is no conspiracy required to generate hatred of someone who has become inconvenient--just a large number of journalists acting on their own desire to take him down a notch. How else do you explain the prevalence of hysterical knuckleheads accusing Elon of insane nonsense (like being "overt[ly] evil)?
I don't care enough to dig deeper but you have to be blind or not on twitter to see the ripple of his dog shit ideology.
No one sensible gives a fuck about anything but the dodged taxes and pro terrorist shit from jan six to libs of tik tok. He deserves to be hated.
Nothing in Elons' response implies that he sympathizes with the Confederate-loving moron he's replying to. He's merely making the point that 'they' (whoever 'they' are) want to see an end to the kind of people who worship slave owners.
This doublethink is astonishing. Please, seriously reconsider your own prejudice when making such preposterous leaps.
If I only followed the people I trust, and ignored the people I dis-trust, I'd never know what the people I dis-trust are up to, and be able to respond in kind.
However, you've made your conclusion, its clear that your prejudice and hatred are all you need.
No one said you have to only follow people you like. But following that guy probably says somethin about your character. What? You clearly think nothing so keep sucking him off, good for you lol. I am just not as blind as you.
Yeah, it means you want to keep an eye on someone who you may not think is necessarily a positive influence in the world. So?
> I am just not as blind as you.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Hate blinds harder than honesty.
I hate things he does, not him. I don't know him. I like other things. But on the whole I think it's pretty evident simply by his twitter what a piece of shit he is. That's not even touching the wealth hoarding or business practices. Simply his politics. I pay for star link, I have commended plenty he's done literally in public on a radio show I run. You're the worshipper who believes one can't point out all flaws in the man without being a "blind hater"
You've merely brought your hate-train to a station you don't intend to leave.
Following an edgelord makes you a nazi?
If you think following a guy who tweets shit like that says nothin about you good for you, keep sucking elon off, have fun. But not all of us are so blinded by worship.
> If you think following a guy who tweets shit like that says nothin about you good for you.
I go outside, so I’m perfectly aware that it means nothing at all.
>keep sucking elon off, have fun. But not all of us are so blinded by worship.
It’s past your bedtime. Go back to reddit already.
In my original comment I asserted he does plenty to inspire dislike without some media conspiracy to foment that disdain. And that I think he's evil/a white supremacist/nazi sympathizer based on his politics. Those are two separate statements you pea brained musk cultist.
Don't be a boot lick. Elon is evil.
Tweeting is terrorism? Congratulating someone (tongue-in-cheek) for being featured in a hysterical front-page hit piece is evil? You people crack me up.
Which is exactly what evil cunts like libs of tik tok does. Demonizing lgbt people and inspiring violence and bomb threats.
You crack me up you boot licking piece of shit, elon isn't going to pay you for simping for him you know?
1. if this was reversed, wouldn't we expect to see headlines along the lines of "Musk spent millions on lobbying for spending bill that will bring in billions for his companies"? Seems like he's going to get flak either way
2. I don't see the contradiction between advocating against a given policy, but still taking full advantage of it when it passes. Suppose you're against a tax cut bill, but it passes anyways. Are you going to forgo the tax cut and give the extra money to the government?
Maybe Tesla had to use the tax money for competitive reasons and under investor pressure, and Musk personally disagrees with the general system of government handouts. Ok I’ll buy that but I haven’t heard such a nuanced take from him.
An NBA coach may not like changes in rules around “traveling” in the past 20 years, but either they embrace the new rules and have their players take the extra step or they just lose to teams that do.
Advocate for the rules you want, but play the game with the rules it actually has.
But I get what you’re ultimately saying, which is what I said — it would be a competitive disadvantage to Tesla if it turned down this money and its competitors did not. So it may accept it reluctantly while disagreeing with the overall handout. Again I have not heard that take from Musk. He just rails against the government.
Complaints of the following form are generally not reasonable:
“You advocated for A, but the actual rules are still B. How dare you play as if the rules are B and not A!!?”
And here we are probably bitching about getting government contracts for space launches when SpaceX is the one that's dropping the fundamental economics of orbital lifting possibly by one to two decimal points.
The United launch alliance gains far more benefits from aggressive government contracts and sponsorship than SpaceX does.
Ask for the other common source about this complaint, the fact that Tesla gets some large amounts of sponsorship money from cafe gas efficiency credits it gets paid for by other companies, well that is regulation that is functioning as designed.
I get that musk is stupid and says mean things, is arrogant, sexual harasses women, and still I would likely put 100 CEOs above him for bad people, and maybe 1000. It's just that you're typical. Horrible CEO has learned to STFU.
Meanwhile Xfinity took government money and did fuck all with it. Added some more fees, poisoned DNS, laughed all the way to the bank.
Not every government vendor is fleecing them, and your outrage is better projected at consultants, weapons manufacturers and intelligence contractors all of whom scam the government out of trillions.
BO has been given billions and hasn’t launched a rat fart.