5 ms·
We didn't hand them anything. SpaceX took the risk of being a first mover in a very difficult field and looks to have had their bet pay off. There's room for m
by mabbo 5y ago
We didn't hand them anything. SpaceX took the risk of being a first mover in a very difficult field and looks to have had their bet pay off.
There's room for more satellites. Space is pretty big, and with some careful automated coordination we can avoid collisions. But someone else needs to first figure out how to cheaply launch a competing fleet, and I doubt anyone will come close for years.
- arwineap 5y agoAmazon's Project Kuiper Behind, but it's there
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mabbo 5y agoLaunching on what, exactly? Right now they have 9 launches planned using Atlas 5. That's not going to get them a usable fleet of satellites. If they want to launch anything beyond that, Blue Origin must finish the BE-4: a rocket engine years behind schedule. (Either using them for Vulcan rockets or for the New Glenn). From Amazon's perspective, those 9 launches are money wasted if BO doesn't come through. I'd be ecstatic if they did, but my money is on yet another delay from them. If I had to guess, by the time Kuiper is launching enough satellites to matter, SpaceX will be doing the same thing using Starship at an order of magnitude lower cost. And I don't even think Starship will be doing real launches for years.
- aerospace_guy 5y agoAmazon can launch Kuiper satellites on any launch vehicle, not just New Glenn.
- mabbo 5y agoSure, but who has capacity to take on any serious number of launches? And who can do it at a competitive price to make Kuiper anything but a financial disaster? The answer is: nobody. What made Starlink financially possible was SpaceX's lower launch costs and high capacity.
- jayd16 5y agoI think its a fair question. Handing out unlimited well water rights in the 1860s was also probably seen as not giving away anything. There's plenty of water.
- liamkinne 5y agoThe difference is SpaceX don’t have these orbits forever. The satellites will fall back to earth and congress can enact regulations that limit the number of them launched in the future.
- Aretas77 5y agoI agree that space can accommodate these satellites, but what about the used up resources required to build the satellites? The shortage of natural resources, as of now, will only worsen and the losses are more costly than the price - its always possible to print more money but its not possible to print more resources.
- mabbo 5y ago2000 satellites, each a few hundred kg? What's the typical daily production of cars in the USA? And how much materials do they use?