4 ms·

Definitely subsidizing the losses in the consumer business. Without Starship Starlink is on a path to bankruptcy like the companies that came before.

• elif 4y ago
  Please share your math. At $15M to launch 50 v1 satellites costing $250k each to build, they are looking at $320k per satellite At $110/mo with 500k customers, they can afford to launch roughly 170 satellites per month. That is about break-even for their average launch cadence over the last 3 months.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    They announced they are not launching any more v1s, and they cannot launch v2s on current hardware. That is not to say that, even when they can launch new birds, they will be able to make a profit on regular peon service. They probably will depend utterly on top-dollar accounts. Don't be surprised if your peon bandwidth gets disappointingly slow as they add more customers, and more who are more important than you.
    • legolas2412 4y ago
      They also said that v2 has 5x more weight, and 10x more "capacity". Not sure what capacity is, and why falcon 9 isn't enough for something that's giving them 2x more "capacity" per unit mass.
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        Capacity is supposed to mean something like bits per second, although of course there are lots of other numbers that are important. One wonders who they have farmed out the packet handling to. Shoveling a commercial router on there would probably be a mistake, because of the "harsh" orbital environment, the restricted power budget, and the extremely variable routing environment.
  • shaklee3 4y ago
    I think you conveniently forgot to include NRE and OPEX