748
Let them eat starlink! (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/enoughmuskspam@lemmy.world
263 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

stolen from https://old.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/1kmadyp/musk_is_hiking_starlink_costs/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.

Exactly. The business isn't remotely sustainable. All that money being invested into new satellites will, by next year, need to be invested constantly to keep the network at the same size.

Starlink needs run as fast as it can, just to stay in the same place, and the investment money is finite when people see it's not going to grow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What was the life expectancy of each satellite? I think I read something like 5 to 7 years. If we were talking about dozens of satellites I would say no problem, but thousands?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    On https://satellitemap.space/ you can see the numbers pretty accurately under "status over time". The current launch cadence is steady since mid 2022, and the burn rate is climbing to match. It seems to have a 5 year delay, but it's possible the new satellites will last a little longer.

    Which means that by mid 2027 earliest and mid 2029, the current "investment" in "growth" will have become the regular maintenance spending. And up to that point, maintenance costs will continue to climb to consume the entire investment budget.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Starlink is already making more money than it costs to expand and operate, you are wrong. This is sustainable (financially) and counter to your beliefs over the next 10 years I'd wager the starlink network will balloon to many times its current size, 20,000 plus satellites in orbit.

    SpaceX is the most successful company/entity in history that does space launch, it doesn't cost them a whole lot of money to launch new batches of Satellites and that cost will continue to decrease as the Falcon 9 program continues to improve and as starship becomes operational over the next few years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Starlink is already making more money than it costs to expand and operate, you are wrong.

    Honestly, there are no realistic, reliable figures either way. There are plenty of guesstimates, and they show a profit now, but that with a very significant investment in growth. And that investment comes in large part from external sources, which means that when the happy time ends and the satellites fail at the same rate as they're currently launches, they need to either make WAY more money, or rely on external funding.

    and counter to your beliefs over the next 10 years I'd wager the starlink network will balloon to many times its current size, 20,000 plus satellites

    Definitely, they're on track to stabilize at around 36.000 with the current launch cadence. That's where every new satellite is a replacement. But that doesn't count money, which is the problem, and will be more of a problem when expenses replace growth.

    and that cost will continue to decrease as the Falcon 9 program continues to improve and as starship becomes operational over the next few years.

    Eh, I wouldn't be too sure of that. Falcon 9 costs haven't gone down in years. Falcon Heavy is supposed to be cheaper per ton, yet somehow is almost never used for Starlink or anything else. Starship isn't even projected to be cheaper than Falcon 9 (I except in what are basically ads).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I won't debate more on the finances because, like you said, they're a private company and we can't know for sure. However, reliable public estimates show starlink is profitable already or will be very soon.

    Falcon Heavy is supposed to be cheaper per ton, yet somehow is almost never used for Starlink or anything else

    Starlink already about maxes out the fairing capacity of the Falcon Rockets, so allowing more weight doesn't do much besides increase cost. Same with other companies buying launch services from SpaceX. Usually they don't need the extra capacity or margins heavy offers, although I wish me got more launches, they are always a treat to watch.

    Starship isn't even projected to be cheaper than Falcon 9

    Maybe not, but that wasn't my main point. They are already spending money on Starship and that isn't going to change. It's just soon they will actually be able to use that money they're spending to make more money by launching more starlinks. With the significantly larger payload capacity, they will also be able to launch way sats per launch and also more capable sats with higher bandwidth or more onboard propellants for a longer operational life

    I expect Starship will be used to launch many batches of Starlink while the vehicle is still in testing and expected to fail on occasion, If you think about it in that capacity, the launches are free since they are already going to be doing test launches.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •