4 ms·
3 launches in mid-2025 isn't really all that promising an indicator for a constellation that needs to launch thousands of satellites. They'd need signs of an ex
by dotnet00 2y ago
3 launches in mid-2025 isn't really all that promising an indicator for a constellation that needs to launch thousands of satellites. They'd need signs of an extreme ramp up in launches coming, particularly since so many of these earlier launches will have to be on external providers like ULA and ArianeSpace, who are already running delays, need to build entire rockets each time and have little experience with high launch cadences. At least whenever Blue Origin finally gets to flying New Glenn, they'll be able to avoid having to build a brand new booster each time.
The most reliable and flight proven launcher, F9, usually gets in a launch every 3 days and it's still going to have to keep that pace up until Starship is ready to dump hundreds of starlinks into orbit in one launch.
- cubefox 2y agoThey indicated previously they changed their mind about using Falcon 9 and Starship.
- adolph 2y ago> a constellation that needs to launch thousands of satellites. If I were the folks at Kuiper or any other would-be LEO RF communication constellation: * Starlink is proving the value prop to investors and consumers * This is an early stage this sector--there will be tech improvements * Improvements in satellites mean competitors can enter at vN+1 * SpaceX/Starlink has some anti-trust risk--they might throw a bone to a weak "competitor" a la Apple/Microsoft 1997 [0] 0. https://youtu.be/WxOp5mBY9IY?t=44 https://youtu.be/WxOp5mBY9IY?t=44
- yencabulator 2y agoSpaceX satellites have a designed lifespan of approximately 5 years. They'll sustain their launch pace just to keep up the constellation. There's no real vN+1 advantage for competition.
- adolph 2y ago> SpaceX satellites have a designed lifespan of approximately 5 years. I wasn't aware of that lifespan but I knew it was finite. Let's say 6k sats at 20/launch is 300 launches to refresh the fleet over 5*12 months makes for 5 launches a month [0]. If the first v1's were launched November of 2019 then they will drop out of orbit later this year. SpaceX started launching the v2 minis about 9 months ago. Wikipedia claims 300/Starship. Let's round down to 200 to account for Elon-time and maybe launching a mix of Starship and F9. That would bring the needed operational cadence down to .5/month [1]. Could a well capitalized competitor start at vN+1 or vN+2, build out while Starlink air-ground combination is stalled at vN due to encumbancy, and make progress in high margin geographies proven out by Starlink already? I think it could look like the cell market with a few major players that either get squeezed out or created during any technology refresh. Would it be more difficult because whatever that gets created is not a mutually supportive vertically integrated enterprise but fragmented? Sure. 0. 6000/20/5/12=5 1. 6000/200/5/12=.5
- dotnet00 2y agoRegarding the anti-trust risk, SpaceX has been very clear that they'll launch competitor's satellites just as fairly as they do any other payload. They only serve to benefit from it, as the profit from every commercial launch helps offset their costs on building out Starlink and on Starship R&D (which is also why Amazon didn't buy F9 for building Kuiper until New Glenn is ready). IIRC there's even an ongoing lawsuit from some shareholders against Amazon for not acting in shareholder interest by paying for other much more expensive and less proven launch services rather than flying F9.