4 ms·

As I understand it, Musk's stake in Tesla is roughly half his net worth. And while SpaceX currently has a monopoly on the affordable launch market, my understa

by rgmerk 2y ago

As I understand it, Musk's stake in Tesla is roughly half his net worth. And while SpaceX currently has a monopoly on the affordable launch market, my understanding is that's about to go away. I wouldn't like to be SpaceX seeking new government contracts under the next Democratic administration.

ben_w 2y ago
> I wouldn't like to be SpaceX seeking new government contracts under the next Democratic administration. I think the limits of government contracts are why they've diversified into Starlink. Even without political aspects (which Musk may not have planned correctly for), the global mobile broadband market is just bigger than the pot of money governments want to spend on spying and weather forecasts. What may well mess him up that side is that even if he gets a monopoly in the USA satellite broadband industry, China has no reason to sit back and just allow US dominance over their geopolitical zones of influence, and will fund their own. Even aside from Kessler cascade risks (I have absolutely no idea how far away that really is), the competition risk is real.
- notahacker 2y ago
  They launched Starlink because the opportunity was there and vertical integration gave them better cost structure and speed of execution than putative competitors. Commercial demand for payload space is substantial and growing and lacking in quality competition so they're probably less beholden to govt than many other space contractors But yeah, vibes are shifting from "well more realistic European launch options would be a nice thing to have but SpaceX's cost/kg and schedule is very good" to "actually it may be necessary for security for governments to back launch competitors and OneWeb"
  - rgmerk 2y ago
    Yep, and Japan, South Korea, Australia etc may take the same view. Heck, Canada might given they're getting treated like some kind of hostile state at the moment.

by rgmerk 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

> I wouldn't like to be SpaceX seeking new government contracts under the next Democratic administration. I think the limits of government contracts are why they've diversified into Starlink. Even without political aspects (which Musk may not have planned correctly for), the global mobile broadband market is just bigger than the pot of money governments want to spend on spying and weather forecasts. What may well mess him up that side is that even if he gets a monopoly in the USA satellite broadband industry, China has no reason to sit back and just allow US dominance over their geopolitical zones of influence, and will fund their own. Even aside from Kessler cascade risks (I have absolutely no idea how far away that really is), the competition risk is real.

notahacker 2y ago
They launched Starlink because the opportunity was there and vertical integration gave them better cost structure and speed of execution than putative competitors. Commercial demand for payload space is substantial and growing and lacking in quality competition so they're probably less beholden to govt than many other space contractors But yeah, vibes are shifting from "well more realistic European launch options would be a nice thing to have but SpaceX's cost/kg and schedule is very good" to "actually it may be necessary for security for governments to back launch competitors and OneWeb"
- rgmerk 2y ago
  Yep, and Japan, South Korea, Australia etc may take the same view. Heck, Canada might given they're getting treated like some kind of hostile state at the moment.