5 ms·

Satellites cost a lot to operate and UA is using significant bandwidth for these satellites. SpaceX is not a charity.

thot_experiment 4y ago
What is the operational cost of a satellite? It's all upfront cost, there is no operational cost other than running uplink stations/bandwidth on the ground. Is there really significant opportunity cost for Spacex here? I fucking doubt it, the starlink satellites serve relatively small geographic areas. I very much doubt that satellites over the Donbass are in a position where they are not making money because all the traffic that would otherwise be paid for by a bunch of people is being clobbered by priority UA mil packets. I also can't imagine that the entire UA military is particularly significant on the backbone end of things when you have large metros etc mixed in, it just doesn't line up for me.
- celestialcheese 4y ago
  LEO sats have a lifespan (5 years IIRC), so you have to constantly refresh your constellation with new launches and sats. These launch and replacement costs will drop over time, but they aren't trivial. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible business, but there are real operating costs to keeping the network alive.
  - thot_experiment 4y ago
    As mentioned in the other comment and the parent, Ukrainian wartime demand is not relevant to that side of the business, there aren't satellites that are deployed specifically to serve Ukraine and I am informed guessing that there is no aspect of the network that is actually degraded in a customer-losing sense, and while there may be greater bandwidth costs I am unconvinced that the total cost to Spacex is particularly high. (fwiw it would be chill of the US government to pitch them some money for the actual cost imo, but i think the actual cost to spacex (real and opportunity) is likely much smaller than the numbers being bandied about here)
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  “It's all upfront cost, there is no operational cost other than running uplink stations/bandwidth on the ground.” Heh. The thought that there is no overhead to such a complex system that is designed to continually fall out of they sky and self destruct every couple years.
  - thot_experiment 4y ago
    They don't deploy satellites to serve Ukraine, they need those satellites anyway to run the constellation. Ukraine wartime use has no impact on this side of the equation.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      It does when a nation state is trying to disrupt operations.
      - smegsicle 4y ago
        not really on topic but i don't think russia is a nation state
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    It could rephrased as there is no marginal cost per bit assuming the bandwidth isn't saturated and no additional coverage area over other business operations is being offered.
olyjohn 4y ago
The same satellites rotate around the earth and serve other part of the world... and were otherwise unused when they were flying over Ukraine.

What is the operational cost of a satellite? It's all upfront cost, there is no operational cost other than running uplink stations/bandwidth on the ground. Is there really significant opportunity cost for Spacex here? I fucking doubt it, the starlink satellites serve relatively small geographic areas. I very much doubt that satellites over the Donbass are in a position where they are not making money because all the traffic that would otherwise be paid for by a bunch of people is being clobbered by priority UA mil packets. I also can't imagine that the entire UA military is particularly significant on the backbone end of things when you have large metros etc mixed in, it just doesn't line up for me.

celestialcheese 4y ago
LEO sats have a lifespan (5 years IIRC), so you have to constantly refresh your constellation with new launches and sats. These launch and replacement costs will drop over time, but they aren't trivial. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible business, but there are real operating costs to keeping the network alive.
- thot_experiment 4y ago
  As mentioned in the other comment and the parent, Ukrainian wartime demand is not relevant to that side of the business, there aren't satellites that are deployed specifically to serve Ukraine and I am informed guessing that there is no aspect of the network that is actually degraded in a customer-losing sense, and while there may be greater bandwidth costs I am unconvinced that the total cost to Spacex is particularly high. (fwiw it would be chill of the US government to pitch them some money for the actual cost imo, but i think the actual cost to spacex (real and opportunity) is likely much smaller than the numbers being bandied about here)
mensetmanusman 4y ago
“It's all upfront cost, there is no operational cost other than running uplink stations/bandwidth on the ground.” Heh. The thought that there is no overhead to such a complex system that is designed to continually fall out of they sky and self destruct every couple years.
- thot_experiment 4y ago
  They don't deploy satellites to serve Ukraine, they need those satellites anyway to run the constellation. Ukraine wartime use has no impact on this side of the equation.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    It does when a nation state is trying to disrupt operations.
    - smegsicle 4y ago
      not really on topic but i don't think russia is a nation state
- smileysteve 4y ago
  It could rephrased as there is no marginal cost per bit assuming the bandwidth isn't saturated and no additional coverage area over other business operations is being offered.

olyjohn 4y ago

The same satellites rotate around the earth and serve other part of the world... and were otherwise unused when they were flying over Ukraine.