4 ms·

Until the launching stops and the constellation crumbles.

inglor_cz 5y ago
That likely won't happen unless the service becomes unprofitable. Which, given the demand for fast internet around the world and the drop in launch prices, can only happen through competition.
- iptrans 5y ago
  The key question is, how much does it cost to run Starlink? This will determine how many customers they need to stay afloat. The second key question is, are there enough customers that can pay $100 per month for service? If not, Starlink will crumble. You have to be fairly affluent to be able to afford $1200 per year for Internet service. If you can afford it, a lot of people would like to sell you terrestrial service for less.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Remembering the advent of the Internet in the Czech Republic of the late 1990s, people will share connections. Regardless of EULAs. Hell, people even shared dial-ups. Like, 56 kbps for three neighboring units on a single floor. It sucked, but it was much better than nothing. That is what I expect in poorer countries to happen. Starlink may claim that one terminal is meant for one household only, but they will silently tolerate connection sharing as long as it gives them penetration. And third world metropolises aren't exactly penetrated by optic networks. So the alternative is probably an overloaded 4G network.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    Unfortunately, that is not the case. Fast network connections in Germany are really difficult to get in some regions. Recently the government even issued free vouchers for the Starlink setup fee to people who couldn't get a fast wired connection. This is of course a failure to regulate the telecommunication giants, which get fat and rich in the big cities, but are not good at connecting remote locations (this doesn't earn them money). On the other side, Starlink was very helpful in setting up emergency WLAN hotspots in the disaster area of the recent floodings.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      "Starlink was very helpful in setting up emergency WLAN hotspots in the disaster area of the recent floodings." I really liked that, it was a good illustration of how global orbital coverage can improve lives even in rich countries.
  - piva00 5y ago
    The market I can see for Starlink has probably increased after 2020: affluent people living outside of major cities where internet service is spotty or slow. If there is some real movement of people in office jobs now working 100% remotely moving to the countryside I can see how Starlink would be a good proposal. It's a small increase in internet costs with a much lower cost of living than in a city.
- joakleaf 5y ago
  It is actually not clear to me if the service will become profitable: Elon Musk recently said SpaceX needs $30 billion for Starlink to survive[1] (meaning it isn't profitable now). He also said that they are aiming for 42000 satellites. And he said, that they are losing money on the Starlink terminals ($500 / unit). Starlink is $99/month. If a Falcon 9 carries about 60 SL satellites, and they are aiming for 40000 satellites in orbit, that means they need to do 666 Falcon 9 launches every 5 years. That's 11/month, btw. Even, if reused Falcon 9 launches are as cheap $10 million/launch (I don't think anyone outside SpaceX knows the actual price). That's $6.7 billion in launch costs alone every 5 years. $6.7B/(60 months * $99/(month*customer)) = 1,127,947 customers So they need at least 1,127,947 paying customers to cover launch costs alone just to renew the sky-side of the network. That doesn't include the cost of producing the satellites, ground infrastructure (including terminals), bandwidth cost when connecting to the rest of the internet, staff, marketing, etc. Now, of course, Starship may make the launches cheaper, and 1.1 million customers is not completely unlikely. However, if he already foresee the need of $30 billion now, their costs are probably significantly higher than my estimated launch costs above. So let's hope we will not be left with an abandoned constellation of satellites that ends up causing the Kessler Syndrome, because SpaceX abandons the endeavour or goes bankrupt 5 years from now. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-starlink-spacex-bankruptcy-funding-30-billion-2021-6?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-starlink-spacex-ba...
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    You won't get Kessler syndrome that low. Orbital decay is significant at Starlink altitudes. Kessler syndrome is a worry higher up, but not here. Even if the entire fleet was abandoned and satellites started crashing into one another, the debris would have been gone in 5 years at most, probably three. For future profitability of the scheme, I consider the terminal price to be pretty important. They cannot really afford to lose money on it long term. Fortunately, manufacturability tends to improve over time.
  - Bombthecat 5y ago
    I don't see any issue with getting 2 million customers on a global scale...
JshWright 5y ago
How long do you think a terrestrial internet connection would last if the ISP that owned it stopped maintaining it?
- mempko 5y ago
  It's a lot easier to maintain a terrestrial internet connection since you don't have to know how to build rockets.
- iptrans 5y ago
  A really, really long time, as long as there is power. Modern fiber optic networks are really robust and will keep on chugging with minimal to no upkeep. Problems mainly arise when lightning fries equipment or backhoes run amok. It’s a whole different ballgame, both in terms of bandwidth and upkeep, compared to needing to continuously launch new satellites.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    I recall a second hand story where AT&T technicians visited LA? after the quake and the phone switches were free floating in the air hanging from their cabling.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    If you live in a geologically stable place, yes. Quite a large share of world population does not. Including rich places like Japan, which is part of the Pacific ring of fire. Even in a former mining city where I was born, the soil shifts quite a bit, as the abandoned mine shafts underneath are filled with water and collapse. It sometimes has an effect on networks that are dug in.
sebzim4500 5y ago
Ok but if the company shuts down they would also shut down the base stations so the satellites would be useless anyway.
- the-dude 5y ago
  The company needs not to be shut down, but could, for example, be acquired by Bain Capital.
GuB-42 5y ago
If only they had cheap, reusable rockets... Seriously, I really think that Starlink main purpose is to justify SpaceX rockets. It is nice having reusable rockets, but if you don't have anything to launch, that's useless. Currently, the market for satellites is limited, so SpaceX created its own market. Sounds like a smart move, but we'll see.

That likely won't happen unless the service becomes unprofitable. Which, given the demand for fast internet around the world and the drop in launch prices, can only happen through competition.

iptrans 5y ago
The key question is, how much does it cost to run Starlink? This will determine how many customers they need to stay afloat. The second key question is, are there enough customers that can pay $100 per month for service? If not, Starlink will crumble. You have to be fairly affluent to be able to afford $1200 per year for Internet service. If you can afford it, a lot of people would like to sell you terrestrial service for less.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Remembering the advent of the Internet in the Czech Republic of the late 1990s, people will share connections. Regardless of EULAs. Hell, people even shared dial-ups. Like, 56 kbps for three neighboring units on a single floor. It sucked, but it was much better than nothing. That is what I expect in poorer countries to happen. Starlink may claim that one terminal is meant for one household only, but they will silently tolerate connection sharing as long as it gives them penetration. And third world metropolises aren't exactly penetrated by optic networks. So the alternative is probably an overloaded 4G network.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Unfortunately, that is not the case. Fast network connections in Germany are really difficult to get in some regions. Recently the government even issued free vouchers for the Starlink setup fee to people who couldn't get a fast wired connection. This is of course a failure to regulate the telecommunication giants, which get fat and rich in the big cities, but are not good at connecting remote locations (this doesn't earn them money). On the other side, Starlink was very helpful in setting up emergency WLAN hotspots in the disaster area of the recent floodings.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    "Starlink was very helpful in setting up emergency WLAN hotspots in the disaster area of the recent floodings." I really liked that, it was a good illustration of how global orbital coverage can improve lives even in rich countries.
- piva00 5y ago
  The market I can see for Starlink has probably increased after 2020: affluent people living outside of major cities where internet service is spotty or slow. If there is some real movement of people in office jobs now working 100% remotely moving to the countryside I can see how Starlink would be a good proposal. It's a small increase in internet costs with a much lower cost of living than in a city.
joakleaf 5y ago
It is actually not clear to me if the service will become profitable: Elon Musk recently said SpaceX needs $30 billion for Starlink to survive[1] (meaning it isn't profitable now). He also said that they are aiming for 42000 satellites. And he said, that they are losing money on the Starlink terminals ($500 / unit). Starlink is $99/month. If a Falcon 9 carries about 60 SL satellites, and they are aiming for 40000 satellites in orbit, that means they need to do 666 Falcon 9 launches every 5 years. That's 11/month, btw. Even, if reused Falcon 9 launches are as cheap $10 million/launch (I don't think anyone outside SpaceX knows the actual price). That's $6.7 billion in launch costs alone every 5 years. $6.7B/(60 months * $99/(month*customer)) = 1,127,947 customers So they need at least 1,127,947 paying customers to cover launch costs alone just to renew the sky-side of the network. That doesn't include the cost of producing the satellites, ground infrastructure (including terminals), bandwidth cost when connecting to the rest of the internet, staff, marketing, etc. Now, of course, Starship may make the launches cheaper, and 1.1 million customers is not completely unlikely. However, if he already foresee the need of $30 billion now, their costs are probably significantly higher than my estimated launch costs above. So let's hope we will not be left with an abandoned constellation of satellites that ends up causing the Kessler Syndrome, because SpaceX abandons the endeavour or goes bankrupt 5 years from now. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-starlink-spacex-bankruptcy-funding-30-billion-2021-6?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-starlink-spacex-ba...
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  You won't get Kessler syndrome that low. Orbital decay is significant at Starlink altitudes. Kessler syndrome is a worry higher up, but not here. Even if the entire fleet was abandoned and satellites started crashing into one another, the debris would have been gone in 5 years at most, probably three. For future profitability of the scheme, I consider the terminal price to be pretty important. They cannot really afford to lose money on it long term. Fortunately, manufacturability tends to improve over time.
- Bombthecat 5y ago
  I don't see any issue with getting 2 million customers on a global scale...

JshWright 5y ago

How long do you think a terrestrial internet connection would last if the ISP that owned it stopped maintaining it?

mempko 5y ago
It's a lot easier to maintain a terrestrial internet connection since you don't have to know how to build rockets.
iptrans 5y ago
A really, really long time, as long as there is power. Modern fiber optic networks are really robust and will keep on chugging with minimal to no upkeep. Problems mainly arise when lightning fries equipment or backhoes run amok. It’s a whole different ballgame, both in terms of bandwidth and upkeep, compared to needing to continuously launch new satellites.
- the-dude 5y ago
  I recall a second hand story where AT&T technicians visited LA? after the quake and the phone switches were free floating in the air hanging from their cabling.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  If you live in a geologically stable place, yes. Quite a large share of world population does not. Including rich places like Japan, which is part of the Pacific ring of fire. Even in a former mining city where I was born, the soil shifts quite a bit, as the abandoned mine shafts underneath are filled with water and collapse. It sometimes has an effect on networks that are dug in.

sebzim4500 5y ago

Ok but if the company shuts down they would also shut down the base stations so the satellites would be useless anyway.

the-dude 5y ago
The company needs not to be shut down, but could, for example, be acquired by Bain Capital.

GuB-42 5y ago

If only they had cheap, reusable rockets... Seriously, I really think that Starlink main purpose is to justify SpaceX rockets. It is nice having reusable rockets, but if you don't have anything to launch, that's useless. Currently, the market for satellites is limited, so SpaceX created its own market. Sounds like a smart move, but we'll see.