4 ms·

Even if this was true, so what?

by Afforess 3y ago

GravityLab 3y ago
Indeed. Some friendly competition makes the products better for everyone.
booleandilemma 3y ago
Parent is most likely an eldest sibling ;)
oh_sigh 3y ago
Depends - what is better for the rest of us? A competitor to starlink, or Bezos using his absurd wealth to do something completely different and possibly world shaping.
perihelions 3y ago
Well, from the fine article, for example: - "It has booked 77 launches – deals that include options for more launches when needed – from that trio of companies to deploy the satellites fast enough to meet regulatory requirements. That massive purchase has come under scrutiny from an Amazon shareholder lawsuit, which alleges the company snubbed SpaceX for valuable satellite launch contracts because of Jeff Bezos' personal rivalry with Elon Musk." Far from irrelevant celebrity gossip, that personal relationship between America's two top oligarchs is a powerful factor shaping America's space industry. Apparently some Amazon investors believe Kuiper would be, and should be, a SpaceX client, if not for Bezos' and Musk's personal rivalry. (I'd go a step further and posit both Kuiper and Blue Origin wouldn't even exist without that factor. Mine's not a fringe view. Kuiper particularly looks like a long shot, because it's directly fighting against SpaceX's biggest strength: large-number launch economics. Of all the ways to try to get a foothold in the new space industry, the Kuiper approach is one of the least logical).
- abecedarius 3y ago
  If I were starting up a Starlink competitor, even if Musk meant nothing to me personally I'd have quite a bad feeling about strategically relying on SpaceX. It seems like ordinary basic supplier management to use SpaceX competitors instead if you can.
- kiratp 3y ago
  > Kuiper particularly looks like a long shot, because it's directly fighting against SpaceX's biggest strength: large-number launch economics. Of all the ways to try to get a foothold in the new space industry, the Kuiper approach is one of the least logical). This misses Amazon’s strength - AWS. Launches are a fraction, granted a non-trivial fraction, but still a fraction, of actually running a space-to-ground network. Who’s going to have the best latency to your enterprise infra in AWS DCs? Offer you “free egress to satellite links”? The US military will want multiple providers. List goes on.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  Frankly, the rivalry (if there is one) probably plays less a role than you think. Amazon is the one launching these and Bezos no longer runs Amazon. Other posters have already pointed out why Amazon would want this. Since they have the money to spare why not roll their own instead of being at the mercy of another company for what could be crucial infrastructure. As for using SpaceX, the person who owns it operates a rival internet satellite network, it’s a conflict of interest. If Amazon doesn’t support an alternate launch provider, SpaceX will have a monopoly and then they are in trouble.

Even if this was true, so what?

GravityLab 3y ago

Indeed. Some friendly competition makes the products better for everyone.

booleandilemma 3y ago

Parent is most likely an eldest sibling ;)

oh_sigh 3y ago

Depends - what is better for the rest of us? A competitor to starlink, or Bezos using his absurd wealth to do something completely different and possibly world shaping.

perihelions 3y ago

Well, from the fine article, for example: - "It has booked 77 launches – deals that include options for more launches when needed – from that trio of companies to deploy the satellites fast enough to meet regulatory requirements. That massive purchase has come under scrutiny from an Amazon shareholder lawsuit, which alleges the company snubbed SpaceX for valuable satellite launch contracts because of Jeff Bezos' personal rivalry with Elon Musk." Far from irrelevant celebrity gossip, that personal relationship between America's two top oligarchs is a powerful factor shaping America's space industry. Apparently some Amazon investors believe Kuiper would be, and should be, a SpaceX client, if not for Bezos' and Musk's personal rivalry. (I'd go a step further and posit both Kuiper and Blue Origin wouldn't even exist without that factor. Mine's not a fringe view. Kuiper particularly looks like a long shot, because it's directly fighting against SpaceX's biggest strength: large-number launch economics. Of all the ways to try to get a foothold in the new space industry, the Kuiper approach is one of the least logical).

abecedarius 3y ago
If I were starting up a Starlink competitor, even if Musk meant nothing to me personally I'd have quite a bad feeling about strategically relying on SpaceX. It seems like ordinary basic supplier management to use SpaceX competitors instead if you can.
kiratp 3y ago
> Kuiper particularly looks like a long shot, because it's directly fighting against SpaceX's biggest strength: large-number launch economics. Of all the ways to try to get a foothold in the new space industry, the Kuiper approach is one of the least logical). This misses Amazon’s strength - AWS. Launches are a fraction, granted a non-trivial fraction, but still a fraction, of actually running a space-to-ground network. Who’s going to have the best latency to your enterprise infra in AWS DCs? Offer you “free egress to satellite links”? The US military will want multiple providers. List goes on.
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
Frankly, the rivalry (if there is one) probably plays less a role than you think. Amazon is the one launching these and Bezos no longer runs Amazon. Other posters have already pointed out why Amazon would want this. Since they have the money to spare why not roll their own instead of being at the mercy of another company for what could be crucial infrastructure. As for using SpaceX, the person who owns it operates a rival internet satellite network, it’s a conflict of interest. If Amazon doesn’t support an alternate launch provider, SpaceX will have a monopoly and then they are in trouble.