5 ms·

Wow, that sounds like a huge limitation, no? The number of people living in places that sparsely populated must be very limited, how does it make economical sen

Wow, that sounds like a huge limitation, no? The number of people living in places that sparsely populated must be very limited, how does it make economical sense to launch that huge number of satellites?

FeepingCreature 6y ago
Google says there's two million satellite internet users. At $50/mo, if SpaceX can grab all of them, which seems well possible, that's 1.2 billion income a year, even assuming that the improved service doesn't result in anybody else switching from bad rural internet to Starlink. A fifth of the US population lives outside of big cities. That's not a big fraction, but it's a small fraction of a very big number. Being able to capture that market even for a decade would basically bankroll SpaceX's Mars goal by itself. And that's not even looking at other countries.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  > A fifth of the US population lives outside of big cities And there are people living rurally outside of the USA, too. Starlink could bring rural Asia and Africa into the 21st century with one terminal per village.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > A fifth of the US population lives outside of big cities. That's not a big fraction, but it's a small fraction of a very big number. Being able to capture that market even for a decade would basically bankroll SpaceX's Mars goal by itself. That's about 25 million households, or about $150 billion gross revenue (not profit) over a decade at the price assumptions you give. If SpaceX’s public estimate of total Mars program cost of $10 billion was reasonable, that might plausibly fund the program. But it's highly dubious that that is even on the right order of magnitude.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    Eh, don't underestimate the savings from reuse that's actually practical and not cost-plus. I think SpaceX have demonstrated the economic case for their approach with the F9. And once SpaceX demonstrate they can put cargo on Mars, NASA'll have to get in. Plus people may actually pay to migrate. If you think those numbers are unrealistic, look at SpaceX's posted total costs for their rocket development programs. I think the message is more "every space agency has ridiculously overpaid for decades."
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Plus people may actually pay to migrate. Sure, but “rich people's vanity may help finance the program” (and NASA will help finance the program, etc.) doesn’t anything to support “satellite internet will finance the program by itself”.
      - FeepingCreature 6y ago
        No, I mean if cost is as stated. I'm saying cost as stated is plausible if you account that flights may be sold.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  > Google says there's two million satellite internet users. At $50/mo, if SpaceX can grab all of them, which seems well possible I doubt it. There are a surprising number of satellite internet customers in completely illogical places, like in the middle of major US cities. A lot of this probably has to do with the abysmal state of broadband options in the US -- many customers are served by a single wired broadband provider; when they lose faith in that provider (or are denied service), satellite may be their next best option.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

Google says there's two million satellite internet users. At $50/mo, if SpaceX can grab all of them, which seems well possible, that's 1.2 billion income a year, even assuming that the improved service doesn't result in anybody else switching from bad rural internet to Starlink. A fifth of the US population lives outside of big cities. That's not a big fraction, but it's a small fraction of a very big number. Being able to capture that market even for a decade would basically bankroll SpaceX's Mars goal by itself. And that's not even looking at other countries.

tuatoru 6y ago
> A fifth of the US population lives outside of big cities And there are people living rurally outside of the USA, too. Starlink could bring rural Asia and Africa into the 21st century with one terminal per village.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> A fifth of the US population lives outside of big cities. That's not a big fraction, but it's a small fraction of a very big number. Being able to capture that market even for a decade would basically bankroll SpaceX's Mars goal by itself. That's about 25 million households, or about $150 billion gross revenue (not profit) over a decade at the price assumptions you give. If SpaceX’s public estimate of total Mars program cost of $10 billion was reasonable, that might plausibly fund the program. But it's highly dubious that that is even on the right order of magnitude.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Eh, don't underestimate the savings from reuse that's actually practical and not cost-plus. I think SpaceX have demonstrated the economic case for their approach with the F9. And once SpaceX demonstrate they can put cargo on Mars, NASA'll have to get in. Plus people may actually pay to migrate. If you think those numbers are unrealistic, look at SpaceX's posted total costs for their rocket development programs. I think the message is more "every space agency has ridiculously overpaid for decades."
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Plus people may actually pay to migrate. Sure, but “rich people's vanity may help finance the program” (and NASA will help finance the program, etc.) doesn’t anything to support “satellite internet will finance the program by itself”.
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      No, I mean if cost is as stated. I'm saying cost as stated is plausible if you account that flights may be sold.
duskwuff 6y ago
> Google says there's two million satellite internet users. At $50/mo, if SpaceX can grab all of them, which seems well possible I doubt it. There are a surprising number of satellite internet customers in completely illogical places, like in the middle of major US cities. A lot of this probably has to do with the abysmal state of broadband options in the US -- many customers are served by a single wired broadband provider; when they lose faith in that provider (or are denied service), satellite may be their next best option.