3 ms·
What do you mean, not in terms of lost revenue? That's the cost a business and its shareholders care about. If you wanted to care only about operational costs,
by Huh1337 4y ago
What do you mean, not in terms of lost revenue? That's the cost a business and its shareholders care about. If you wanted to care only about operational costs, you should've put up your own constellation (e.g. government-tax funded).
Don't become Russia while fighting it.
- rbanffy 4y agoIs it reasonable to be able to extract any revenue from Ukraine during a war? If not, then there is no loss of revenue. There is also no increased operational costs - the constellation is up there already, and replacements need to be sent up from time to time, regardless of whether they fly over Ukraine or not and regardless of whether they keep their radios on while doing so. The operating cost of a satellite constellation cannot be split by country served and stopping service to one country does not change the overall cost. They may stop sending dishes though, but, apart from that, not much would change.
- Huh1337 4y agoIt is not reasonable to be able to extract services and hardware for any/no cost from a private business just because they built something that could be used. AFAIK that'd only be possible in a limited way if the US itself was at war. Why should SpaceX have to provide services and hardware for operational costs only, while Lockheed Martin, BAE, Raytheon, etc can keep their profits?
- rbanffy 4y agoIf there was no expectation of profit, why did they send it in the first place?
- Huh1337 4y agoThat's what a donation is. Corporations usually do it for indirect "profit" - PR mostly. But that doesn't mean they have to donate forever and in unlimited quantity now, does it? I also donated money to Ukraine, do I have to keep sending more money because of it? No, I don't, that's entirely up to me, and my operational costs are nobody's business.