Starlink may now have global revenue of $44M monthly
97 comments
For a submission like this, please submit the main URL (in this case I suppose that would be https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/25/spacexs-starlink-surpasses-4...) and then add your take via a comment in the thread. That way your take is on a level playing field with everyone else's.
This is in the FAQ (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
This is in the FAQ (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
To put some numbers on their costs, one Soyuz launch is about $40-50 million. A falcon 9 is probably a bit more expensive - Soyuz rockets are extremely cheap despite not being reusable. If the launches are dedicated solely to Starlink and not sharing significant payload space, that is about $200 million in expenses for the year.
Assuming a 5 year working life before the satellites de-orbit, the satellites launched this year have $40 million of depreciation. Other satellites have likely been launched as well and are depreciating in orbit.
That suggests that Starlink needs about 2-4x the paying customer base as today (depending on working life of satellites and launch costs, etc.) to break even.
That's a lot better than I was expecting.
Edit - someone pointed out that the $44M figure was monthly, not annual. In that case, it might be profitable. Also, I am aware of all of the "reusable" arguments, but a SpaceX launch still retails for $67M, while a Soyuz launch is still a lot cheaper at retail. This includes the cost factors of re-usability. Most of the cost of a rocket launch is fuel, not the metal tube.
Assuming a 5 year working life before the satellites de-orbit, the satellites launched this year have $40 million of depreciation. Other satellites have likely been launched as well and are depreciating in orbit.
That suggests that Starlink needs about 2-4x the paying customer base as today (depending on working life of satellites and launch costs, etc.) to break even.
That's a lot better than I was expecting.
Edit - someone pointed out that the $44M figure was monthly, not annual. In that case, it might be profitable. Also, I am aware of all of the "reusable" arguments, but a SpaceX launch still retails for $67M, while a Soyuz launch is still a lot cheaper at retail. This includes the cost factors of re-usability. Most of the cost of a rocket launch is fuel, not the metal tube.
Wait. If the satellites cost $200M to launch, and they make $44M per month - why do they need 4x more customers to break even?
Unless I'm missing something the 5-year unit economics look outstanding already.
Unless I'm missing something the 5-year unit economics look outstanding already.
their calculation may be based on the need to continually replace the satellites because their low orbits and relatively limited ion thruster fuel supply means each satellite has an expected 4-5 year service life.
$44M * 12 * 4 = $2112M (revenue).
The supposed cost to launch these was only $200M according to GP.
So I'm wondering - why do they need to make 4x as much money ($8B) to make a profit in a $200M investment?
Obviously R&D. But is it that much?!
The supposed cost to launch these was only $200M according to GP.
So I'm wondering - why do they need to make 4x as much money ($8B) to make a profit in a $200M investment?
Obviously R&D. But is it that much?!
I think $200M was just the launches this month, not all launches to date or all needed to compete the constellation.
If it really costs SpaceX $40-50M per launch, the 47 launches to date cost $1880-2350 billion. I don’t know how many now launches they need before they switch to just replacements.
If it really costs SpaceX $40-50M per launch, the 47 launches to date cost $1880-2350 billion. I don’t know how many now launches they need before they switch to just replacements.
$44M/mo revenue from his estimate is $528m/year; your estimates support, say, $150m depreciation per year. And there's significant operating costs.
IMO the biggest remaining factor is how long it takes to breakeven on the terminal hardware. While it's sold to end-users, it's a significant loss-leader (perhaps $2k of subsidy at this point).
IMO the biggest remaining factor is how long it takes to breakeven on the terminal hardware. While it's sold to end-users, it's a significant loss-leader (perhaps $2k of subsidy at this point).
Terminals cost SpaceX $1500, breakeven is under a year considering the upfront cost to the user. Profitability will be determined by how many turns a Falcon 9 can make during its service life and if Starship can replace it fast enough (further driving down cost per kg to orbit). Everything else is mostly a fixed cost (ops, perpetual depreciation to account for satellite replacement on a cadence, etc).
> Everything else is mostly a fixed cost
I disagree. They have all the normal variable ISP cost structures, too. They need to scale uplinks and the size of the constellation linearly with the number of subscribers they allow in an area, etc.
IMO, what it will really come down to is how big the market is. Terrestrial infrastructure, including fixed wireless, should win most places-- it's a question of where the mobility benefits and/or population density make it viable, and how distributed these places are over the globe.
I disagree. They have all the normal variable ISP cost structures, too. They need to scale uplinks and the size of the constellation linearly with the number of subscribers they allow in an area, etc.
IMO, what it will really come down to is how big the market is. Terrestrial infrastructure, including fixed wireless, should win most places-- it's a question of where the mobility benefits and/or population density make it viable, and how distributed these places are over the globe.
Uplinks and the huts for their gear, while a cost, are not exorbitantly expensive (and likely solved for long term with laser links between satellites for load balancing downlink across the constellation versus the current suboptimal bent pipe operating model).
SpaceX has both US military and commercial airliners testing their service; the TAM is enormous for high speed global internet connectivity. Terrestrial service is ancillary revenue in markets where there is lower utilization (the same way T-Mobile offers home internet with no cap at lowest prioritization on their network to monetize their over investment in 5G).
(disclosure: StarLink customer and SpaceX investor)
SpaceX has both US military and commercial airliners testing their service; the TAM is enormous for high speed global internet connectivity. Terrestrial service is ancillary revenue in markets where there is lower utilization (the same way T-Mobile offers home internet with no cap at lowest prioritization on their network to monetize their over investment in 5G).
(disclosure: StarLink customer and SpaceX investor)
> Uplinks and the huts for their gear, while a cost, are not exorbitantly expensive
The question isn't whether it's exorbitantly expensive, but whether it's more expensive infrastructure per data moved to subscriber compared to other technologies that could reach those subscribers.
That is, all providers need transit, backhaul, head-ends, etc. SpaceX will have all of these costs, too.
> SpaceX has both US military and commercial airliners testing their service
Yup, those are exciting markets, no doubt. They really depend upon inter-satellite links, as you mention. And, of course, they're not free of competitive pressures in these markets.
> Terrestrial service is ancillary revenue in markets where there is lower utilization
I haven't heard it positioned this way.
The question isn't whether it's exorbitantly expensive, but whether it's more expensive infrastructure per data moved to subscriber compared to other technologies that could reach those subscribers.
That is, all providers need transit, backhaul, head-ends, etc. SpaceX will have all of these costs, too.
> SpaceX has both US military and commercial airliners testing their service
Yup, those are exciting markets, no doubt. They really depend upon inter-satellite links, as you mention. And, of course, they're not free of competitive pressures in these markets.
> Terrestrial service is ancillary revenue in markets where there is lower utilization
I haven't heard it positioned this way.
One example of how large the addressable market is, is to look at the combined total revenue from all of the commercial geostationary satellite owning companies out there right now.
And then add a good portion of the revenue from o3b, and iridium.
And then add a good portion of the revenue from o3b, and iridium.
> One example of how large the addressable market is, is to look at the combined total revenue from all of the commercial geostationary satellite owning companies out there right now.
Unlikely. Starlink won't be able to segment the market perfectly. They're going to collapse the pricing for a lot of those uses. Not to mention that continued development of terrestrial networks is, IMO, going to further eat geostationary comms' lunch.
> And then add a good portion of the revenue from iridium.
Most of this Starlink can't capture, and it's not huge (~$500M/year).
Unlikely. Starlink won't be able to segment the market perfectly. They're going to collapse the pricing for a lot of those uses. Not to mention that continued development of terrestrial networks is, IMO, going to further eat geostationary comms' lunch.
> And then add a good portion of the revenue from iridium.
Most of this Starlink can't capture, and it's not huge (~$500M/year).
> Not to mention that continued development of terrestrial networks is, IMO, going to further eat geostationary comms' lunch.
I absolutely agree on this part, having been directly involved in geostationary in the past one of the fascinating things to watch was a good portion of Africa disappearing from the target market for two-way geostationary data services, because of all the submarine cables that were installed along the west and east coast of africa, hitting major cities with landing stations, from about 2009 to the present date. Even Mogadishu, Somalia got a cable.
There's a big old ugly defunct C band satellite Earth station on the hill above freetown, Sierra Leone that is a perfect example of this..
I absolutely agree on this part, having been directly involved in geostationary in the past one of the fascinating things to watch was a good portion of Africa disappearing from the target market for two-way geostationary data services, because of all the submarine cables that were installed along the west and east coast of africa, hitting major cities with landing stations, from about 2009 to the present date. Even Mogadishu, Somalia got a cable.
There's a big old ugly defunct C band satellite Earth station on the hill above freetown, Sierra Leone that is a perfect example of this..
The $200M/year figure for the launch is also wrong - that's the estimated cost from one month of launches, not one year. It's not fair to call it a monthly cost either, but it's definitely not a once per year event.
According to Wikipedia [0], they have had 53 successful non-test launches so far, starting in November of 2019. So 53 launches divided by 31 months = ~1.7 launches/month. At Soyuz costs, that's 1.7*$40M = $68M/month to launch the satellite fleet that they have today, which they would have to repeat every 5 years. Note that this is only an estimate of the launch cost, not the satellites, ground stations, or the cost of the individual devices. It also doesn't include bandwidth and other peering costs, personnel, sales and marketing, insurance etc.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_launches
According to Wikipedia [0], they have had 53 successful non-test launches so far, starting in November of 2019. So 53 launches divided by 31 months = ~1.7 launches/month. At Soyuz costs, that's 1.7*$40M = $68M/month to launch the satellite fleet that they have today, which they would have to repeat every 5 years. Note that this is only an estimate of the launch cost, not the satellites, ground stations, or the cost of the individual devices. It also doesn't include bandwidth and other peering costs, personnel, sales and marketing, insurance etc.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_launches
SpaceX's published list price for a Falcon 9 launch in 2022-2023 is $67 million, with "discounts available for contractually committed multi-launch purchases".
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
First off - I can’t find pricing on half the $1k enterprise software shit and spacex has rocket launcher prices on their website without a “email to ask” button?
Second, that’s the customer price - I suspect SpaceX has a lower cost especially if they’re reusing stages.
Second, that’s the customer price - I suspect SpaceX has a lower cost especially if they’re reusing stages.
Surely you don't think that a company that has a contract to service the ISS also would likely have a number of high-value government contracts around the globe, and certainly inclusive (or even exclusive to the DoD/USD...
Imagine all the surveillance the NSA can harvest simply from the use of all the starlinks given to Ukraine...
We talked about the likelihood of cyber-attacks rising with the Ukraine conflict, and a part of cyberwarfare is going to be a portion of surveillance...
Starlink creates a global network for providing service to anywhere on the planet.
So if you have a device that uses starlink, there is not a single place on the globe where you cannot be tracked actively via starlink.
I think its insane that we don't have open convos about this here on HN with a critical eye.
And this is why they didnt name it SkyNet :-)
Imagine all the surveillance the NSA can harvest simply from the use of all the starlinks given to Ukraine...
We talked about the likelihood of cyber-attacks rising with the Ukraine conflict, and a part of cyberwarfare is going to be a portion of surveillance...
Starlink creates a global network for providing service to anywhere on the planet.
So if you have a device that uses starlink, there is not a single place on the globe where you cannot be tracked actively via starlink.
I think its insane that we don't have open convos about this here on HN with a critical eye.
And this is why they didnt name it SkyNet :-)
I mean, it's an ISP. Any ISP you use can track you. Your cell provider can track you globally if you use international roaming. This is not novel.
> So if you have a device that uses starlink, there is not a single place on the globe where you cannot be tracked actively via starlink.
This makes it sound like Starlink is going to be built into your phone. Starlink is a satellite dish, it's the size of a medium pizza and consumes 60+ watts continuously in operation. It's not like you're going to accidentally leave it in your pocket or something.
> So if you have a device that uses starlink, there is not a single place on the globe where you cannot be tracked actively via starlink.
This makes it sound like Starlink is going to be built into your phone. Starlink is a satellite dish, it's the size of a medium pizza and consumes 60+ watts continuously in operation. It's not like you're going to accidentally leave it in your pocket or something.
Wait until this guy learns that all iridium handsets also report their position when used. For the last 22 years.
I know all this JEASUS.
Iridium was out of the price range of the averwage bear. With family in Alaska, we've them for a LONG time in my family.
My point is that as SkyNet eveolves - its going to provide defacto global coverage for even the poorest regions.
Even Musk himself said that large swaths of africa will see early value.
This IMPLIES that they are intending to poc-mark the globe with enough cells...
Moonshot idea.
Iridium was out of the price range of the averwage bear. With family in Alaska, we've them for a LONG time in my family.
My point is that as SkyNet eveolves - its going to provide defacto global coverage for even the poorest regions.
Even Musk himself said that large swaths of africa will see early value.
This IMPLIES that they are intending to poc-mark the globe with enough cells...
Moonshot idea.
They're not going to "pockmark" the globe. Starlink V2 will have inter-satellite laser links so local ground stations are no longer required. It's an impressive engineering achievement and a huge improvement to the system with great practical benefits. Providing internet service to as many people as possible and without geographic limitations is hardly a nefarious plot.
I agree and disagree.
The plot is not nefarious.
They way it will be abused by every government on the planet is.
The plot is not nefarious.
They way it will be abused by every government on the planet is.
If you use a wireline based
copper or fiber terrestrial ISP, your ISP knows your fixed service address and can do dpi and traffic monitoring if they're evil. Better hope your crypto is good.
If you use starlink, it has a built-in GPS receiver, and also can report its position to the ISP. If Starlink is evil, they could also do the same, with deep packet inspection, traffic monitoring, etc. Better hope that your crypto is good.
It's not much different.
If you use starlink, it has a built-in GPS receiver, and also can report its position to the ISP. If Starlink is evil, they could also do the same, with deep packet inspection, traffic monitoring, etc. Better hope that your crypto is good.
It's not much different.
Starlink launches are costing nowhere near that.
First, you're ignoring reuse. They may not discount external customers for this (or they might, I honestly don't know but $67m doesn't reflect that regardless) but they are of course getting that cost reduction themselves.
Second, SpaceX is creating demand for reusable first stages and proving their reliability through Starlink so it can afford to be a loss leader.
Third, a big cost in satellite launches in insurance costs. Launches can fail so insurance costs are really high. That's not really an issue for SpaceX because the Starlink satellites are cheap and replaceable. There's really no need to insure them at all. If a launch fails, that's fine. Just launch another one. it's cheaper than paying the insurance premiums.
First, you're ignoring reuse. They may not discount external customers for this (or they might, I honestly don't know but $67m doesn't reflect that regardless) but they are of course getting that cost reduction themselves.
Second, SpaceX is creating demand for reusable first stages and proving their reliability through Starlink so it can afford to be a loss leader.
Third, a big cost in satellite launches in insurance costs. Launches can fail so insurance costs are really high. That's not really an issue for SpaceX because the Starlink satellites are cheap and replaceable. There's really no need to insure them at all. If a launch fails, that's fine. Just launch another one. it's cheaper than paying the insurance premiums.
> Starlink launches are costing nowhere near that.
[citation needed]
> First, you're ignoring reuse.
SpaceX charges $67m for a Falcon 9 launch. They have some margin, of course.
> They may not discount external customers for this
They did reduce prices when reuse became viable.
> Third, a big cost in satellite launches in insurance costs. Launches can fail so insurance costs are really high.
Insurance isn't included in the $67M figure. SpaceX has self-insured, so, when the Feb 2022 batch failed, that was a launch and set of satlelites that was paid for that did not enlarge the constellation.
Finally, the satellites themselves surely cost something.
[citation needed]
> First, you're ignoring reuse.
SpaceX charges $67m for a Falcon 9 launch. They have some margin, of course.
> They may not discount external customers for this
They did reduce prices when reuse became viable.
> Third, a big cost in satellite launches in insurance costs. Launches can fail so insurance costs are really high.
Insurance isn't included in the $67M figure. SpaceX has self-insured, so, when the Feb 2022 batch failed, that was a launch and set of satlelites that was paid for that did not enlarge the constellation.
Finally, the satellites themselves surely cost something.
> SpaceX charges $67m for a Falcon 9 launch.
That's the price, not the cost. They only need to reduce price a bit below their competitors' in order to get the price-sensitive business. That price tells us only that their cost per launch is below $67M, not how far below that it is. We won't get a good idea of cost until someone else can do 10x reusable rockets of similar capacity
I don't think launch costs can be below $5M on a fully amortised Falcon 9. There're the expended upper stage and fairing, NASA/FAA admin and facility charges, and ground crew. And fuel, which is pretty much a small item in the "miscellanous" budget category.
The satellites have been guesstimated at $300K each. SpaceX is trying very hard to reduce their cost, whatever it is. Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction.
That's the price, not the cost. They only need to reduce price a bit below their competitors' in order to get the price-sensitive business. That price tells us only that their cost per launch is below $67M, not how far below that it is. We won't get a good idea of cost until someone else can do 10x reusable rockets of similar capacity
I don't think launch costs can be below $5M on a fully amortised Falcon 9. There're the expended upper stage and fairing, NASA/FAA admin and facility charges, and ground crew. And fuel, which is pretty much a small item in the "miscellanous" budget category.
The satellites have been guesstimated at $300K each. SpaceX is trying very hard to reduce their cost, whatever it is. Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction.
> That's the price, not the cost.
I think my next sentence makes it clear that I understand they have margin. Quoting one sentence of my post, and then "disagreeing" with it in a way that is covered by my next sentence.. is such an unfortunate discussion tactic.
I think my next sentence makes it clear that I understand they have margin. Quoting one sentence of my post, and then "disagreeing" with it in a way that is covered by my next sentence.. is such an unfortunate discussion tactic.
> We won't get a good idea of cost until someone else can do 10x reusable rockets of similar capacity
Given that the only advantage of re-usability is cost (at least at the moment) and Falcon 9 is still more expensive than Soyuz for a third party, I don't see why they would have a significant margin.
> Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction.
There's no getting away from the fact that electronics that need to work in space (and survive launch) are more complex and expensive than those on earth. The economies of scale may simply not be there.
Given that the only advantage of re-usability is cost (at least at the moment) and Falcon 9 is still more expensive than Soyuz for a third party, I don't see why they would have a significant margin.
> Remember that they want to make about 10,000 of them per year, so think in terms of car-making rather than legacy satellite construction.
There's no getting away from the fact that electronics that need to work in space (and survive launch) are more complex and expensive than those on earth. The economies of scale may simply not be there.
$200 million seems high. That is the price for a brand new ride, no? According to this [0] 3 of the last 4 launches were refurbished first stage cores so the actual price is much, much lower than the sticker price.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_launches
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_launches
Retail price of a Falcon 9 launch on a newly built booster is $67m. I doubt that it costs them $40m for one Starlink launch when they are now reusing those boosters 12 times each with 21 days turnaround. Also there are a lot of benefits to SpaceX of being their own customer. The increased launch cadence makes everything more routine and reliable, benefiting their other customers. But the most important thing is that they can try things that third party customers may not want to risk, like pushing reuse to the max, or being the first customer for Starship.
F9 numbers are moot, really, because the previous launches are a sunk cost and won't be an ongoing expense. The ongoing expense will shift to Starship launches to launch and maintain V2 of the constellation, and costs per pound will drop dramatically if things go as planned, though the constellation will also be a lot larger.
F9 numbers are moot, really, because the previous launches are a sunk cost and won't be an ongoing expense. The ongoing expense will shift to Starship launches to launch and maintain V2 of the constellation, and costs per pound will drop dramatically if things go as planned, though the constellation will also be a lot larger.
You’ve missed out a lot of numbers here. Soyuz is a bad example because it doesn’t matter how ‘cheap’ it is, it isn’t reusable.
If they can built a second stage for $13m, $2m for fuel and refurb (musk has previously said marginal cost for a relaunch is $15m) you’ve got marginal costs per terminal assuming 50 per launch of $300k, and terminals are somewhere between 250-500k (Shotwell said in 2019 they were below 500k ‘already’).
So I’m going to go with 600k cost to orbit for a single satellite.
There’s ~2,400 in orbit currently, so rough capital outlay so far is $1.44Bn
Income at 528M means they’re closing hard on some sort of model but yea that 2-4x figure looks good-ish
If they can built a second stage for $13m, $2m for fuel and refurb (musk has previously said marginal cost for a relaunch is $15m) you’ve got marginal costs per terminal assuming 50 per launch of $300k, and terminals are somewhere between 250-500k (Shotwell said in 2019 they were below 500k ‘already’).
So I’m going to go with 600k cost to orbit for a single satellite.
There’s ~2,400 in orbit currently, so rough capital outlay so far is $1.44Bn
Income at 528M means they’re closing hard on some sort of model but yea that 2-4x figure looks good-ish
Did we skip launches per month and launches per year here? The post says ”…four starlink launches all with successful first stage landing just in the month of May” then the parent goes to $50M/launch -> $200M/year.
I don’t think you can analyze the cost as a steady state since to constellation is growing rapidly. But to consider a snapshot of the current constellation… There are about 2200 Starlink satellites in orbit, generating $44M/month in revenue and lasting 5 years. That suggests the need to replace 440 satellites per year, or 8.3 launches of 53 satellites per year for $415M/year (at $50/launch) or $35M/month.
That’s just launch costs, so not a lot left over for everything else, so probably not profitable at this time. But it doesn’t need to be. It needs to get all the pieces in place so Starship launched next generation satellites have a big enough customer base to make that business work.
I don’t think you can analyze the cost as a steady state since to constellation is growing rapidly. But to consider a snapshot of the current constellation… There are about 2200 Starlink satellites in orbit, generating $44M/month in revenue and lasting 5 years. That suggests the need to replace 440 satellites per year, or 8.3 launches of 53 satellites per year for $415M/year (at $50/launch) or $35M/month.
That’s just launch costs, so not a lot left over for everything else, so probably not profitable at this time. But it doesn’t need to be. It needs to get all the pieces in place so Starship launched next generation satellites have a big enough customer base to make that business work.
I know this isn't the main point of your exercise but a reusable Falcon 9 puts double the payload mass to LEO over a Soyuz. So despite a greater retail cost to launch, its retail payload mass cost to orbit is definitely cheaper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_s...
Soyuz can put ~7000kg in low earth orbit. Falcon 9 can put ~22000kg into the same.
Falcon 9's $67m price per launch is just what SpaceX charges. They need to undercut the rest of the market but once they get below everyone else's cost per kg there is absolutely no reason for them to charge less until there is real competition someday.
What I'm saying is that for SpaceX themselves it costs much less than $67m per launch. And the comparison to soyuz is a joke. Even ignoring that you can't get a soyuz launch anymore since about 3 months ago. Western payloads in Baikonur were taken hostage / outright stolen, and new rockets are not being shipped to French Guiana.
Falcon 9's $67m price per launch is just what SpaceX charges. They need to undercut the rest of the market but once they get below everyone else's cost per kg there is absolutely no reason for them to charge less until there is real competition someday.
What I'm saying is that for SpaceX themselves it costs much less than $67m per launch. And the comparison to soyuz is a joke. Even ignoring that you can't get a soyuz launch anymore since about 3 months ago. Western payloads in Baikonur were taken hostage / outright stolen, and new rockets are not being shipped to French Guiana.
Starlink is such a brilliant move by SpaceX, both financially and how it has demonstrated excellence in areas that are nothing to do with rocket development. How many other similar companies could successfully spin up a direct to consumer side business? Granted, building the Starlink satellites themselves is well within their wheelhouse, but scaling production of the terminals is also impressive.
> How many other similar companies could successfully spin up a direct to consumer side business?
They have span up direct to consumer business. It’s waaaay to early to tell if it’s successful. It’s burning tons of money as of today, and without it their main business (falcon 9) launches would be in decline.
They have span up direct to consumer business. It’s waaaay to early to tell if it’s successful. It’s burning tons of money as of today, and without it their main business (falcon 9) launches would be in decline.
* "have spun" (past perfect/completed action). But kudos for not making "spin" a weak verb: "have spinned".
The only complaints I have heard about Starlink are "it's taking too long! I put money down months/years ago and I haven't got a terminal yet!" User reports are uniformly of good to excellent service -- especially compared to the alternatives available in its intended service areas.
My impressions are that if SpaceX were not supply constrained for its terminals, that $44M per month could be $220M per month at this point, and that there is room for another five-fold increase at least.
Starlink has no direct competitors and a high barrier to entry into its niche. Projected steady state revenue seems to be well above steady-state cost, so I don't see why SpaceX can't continue to obtain funds for Starlink if it needs them.
The only complaints I have heard about Starlink are "it's taking too long! I put money down months/years ago and I haven't got a terminal yet!" User reports are uniformly of good to excellent service -- especially compared to the alternatives available in its intended service areas.
My impressions are that if SpaceX were not supply constrained for its terminals, that $44M per month could be $220M per month at this point, and that there is room for another five-fold increase at least.
Starlink has no direct competitors and a high barrier to entry into its niche. Projected steady state revenue seems to be well above steady-state cost, so I don't see why SpaceX can't continue to obtain funds for Starlink if it needs them.
You should hang out on r/starlink. There’re very happy people, but also lots of upset people, with horrible quality of service, and non existent customer support. Same with my friends - I have few happy ones, and one person who’s screwed and can only scream into void. Comcast support is world class compared to starlink.
Let’s ignore that starlink has tons of competitors (hint, hint - other ISPs). There’re of course areas where they provide much better service than their local competitors, but it’s very questionable if remote areas have enough of wealthy people to pay for starlink, where no other competition will fight them.
But even ignoring all of that - none of what you said means they’re successful business. It means they’re business, and as of today, they’re like Uber rides for $5 across whole San Francisco in 2015. They’re selling 1 dollar for 90 cents.
Let’s ignore that starlink has tons of competitors (hint, hint - other ISPs). There’re of course areas where they provide much better service than their local competitors, but it’s very questionable if remote areas have enough of wealthy people to pay for starlink, where no other competition will fight them.
But even ignoring all of that - none of what you said means they’re successful business. It means they’re business, and as of today, they’re like Uber rides for $5 across whole San Francisco in 2015. They’re selling 1 dollar for 90 cents.
Don't worry, I'm sure the state will find some way to bail them out :)
IMO, I'm unsure starlink can stick the landing. I think they'll end up facing challenging oversubscription issues, which is why they're slowing the roll out. 5G could easily expand to fill in the service gaps and deliver better, more reliable service. I think the key differentiator that everyone assumed was going to be included ASAP was a global mesh network, with the ground based repeater setup it's not that novel of a solution.
Perhaps a dumb question but what does oversubscription entail here?
Too many people, not enough bandwidth.
Latency, timeouts, general slowness. There are a lot of layers that starlink needs to optimize/scale, they're effectively trying to operate as a global cell provider.
Starlink announces that they will make service available at a certain quality for $X/month, but more people want that than they can sell it to. Basic economic theory says they should raise the price to find equilibrium, but consumers hate that kind of thing, tying (in some cases) the company's hands.
I don't really think that Starlink's hands are tied with respect to price increases, though. I doubt over-subscription is all that possible, unless they overestimated their own capacity when signing existing contracts.
I don't really think that Starlink's hands are tied with respect to price increases, though. I doubt over-subscription is all that possible, unless they overestimated their own capacity when signing existing contracts.
Also, they can sell a set of one dish plus some wifi/wimax repeaters for the whole village or something. Could be really nice solution for both sides
Insufficient density or spectrum to serve all users in an area
oversubscription is a necessity in the economics of last-mile consumer grade ISP services no matter what the tech: ptmp wireless last mile, docsis3 cablemodem on coax, gpon/10Gpon fiber last mile, dsl, active ethernet fiber last mile, geostationary consumer grade ku and ka-band vsat, starlink, etc.
if you look at the traffic usage charts from 50 houses on residential last mile gigabit connections the average customer really doesn't move that much data. you'll get the occasional outlier such as a person who is really enthusiastic about torrenting 75GB 2160p movies but when averaged out over a group of dozens or more customers it's generally a non issue.
the danger is in oversubscribing your network to the point at an unreasonable ratio that the ordinary end user starts to see bad packet loss, jitter, latency, slow speeds, etc.
if you look at the traffic usage charts from 50 houses on residential last mile gigabit connections the average customer really doesn't move that much data. you'll get the occasional outlier such as a person who is really enthusiastic about torrenting 75GB 2160p movies but when averaged out over a group of dozens or more customers it's generally a non issue.
the danger is in oversubscribing your network to the point at an unreasonable ratio that the ordinary end user starts to see bad packet loss, jitter, latency, slow speeds, etc.
Don't assume that the US is representative here. Currently living in Germany, and in most neighbourhoods (even here in Berlin) fibre to the home is unavailable and the best connections available are DSL. Starlink would be an enormous upgrade, and there's a huge untapped market. And that's in the middle of the developed world. Presumably lots of other markets are in a similar position, and there are many increasingly populous places where weather, remoteness, elevation and other issues make other connections unavailable for the foreseeable future. Starlink should have no problem greatly increasing their customer base.
I don't doubt that starlink can find customers, I don't think they'll be able to keep them long enough to make a profit.
Starlink doesn’t work for anything else than very sparsely populated areas. Population density in most of Europe is beyond of what they can support.
Starlink works fine in densely populated areas, they just have a fixed number of users per square mile they can serve regardless of the density.
There also tends to be more competition in densely populated areas (but perhaps more people looking for backup internet)
There also tends to be more competition in densely populated areas (but perhaps more people looking for backup internet)
> "fibre to the home is unavailable and the best connections available are DSL. Starlink would be an enormous upgrade"
5G is also an enormous upgrade from DSL, and better suited for dense urban areas. Here in the UK it's at least 4X faster than Starlink and 1/4 the cost. I haven't had any fixed-line internet connection at all in the past 2 years since cheap 5G became available.
Starlink is great for rural areas, which often have poor DSL and neither fibre nor good mobile coverage.
5G is also an enormous upgrade from DSL, and better suited for dense urban areas. Here in the UK it's at least 4X faster than Starlink and 1/4 the cost. I haven't had any fixed-line internet connection at all in the past 2 years since cheap 5G became available.
Starlink is great for rural areas, which often have poor DSL and neither fibre nor good mobile coverage.
Fiber should be the solution there, then 5G, not Starlink.
The fact that much of Western Europe and the USA have severely outdated legacy networks is not reflective of the state of the Internet in urban areas. Here in the much poorer Bucharest, a good chuck of apartments already have fiber to the home, and those that don't still have fiber to the apartment building, and those that don't still have broadband. DSL speeds have not been a thing for essentially anyone in the whole city for >15 years. The situation is slightly but not that much worse for most other cities and towns.
This could easily and cheaply be done in any city in the developed world, and in most rural areas as well. That it isn't happening is one of the failures of the free market and government.
This could easily and cheaply be done in any city in the developed world, and in most rural areas as well. That it isn't happening is one of the failures of the free market and government.
Is there a long range and a short range version of 5G ? I was under the impression it was higher freq and less ranger, meant for dense cities.
I live about 10 minutes from a small city and still don't get 3G signal, hardly enough to hold a phone conversation. Is 5G really competing for rural users like me?
I live about 10 minutes from a small city and still don't get 3G signal, hardly enough to hold a phone conversation. Is 5G really competing for rural users like me?
5G can be deployed on the same spectrum as LTE, including the low frequency bands that support long range. For those deployments you do get faster speeds compared to LTE but not significantly (I've read it's about 25% faster for the same spectrum). All 3 major cellular providers in the US have 5G deployed on their low-band spectrum (T-Mobile on band 71 (600 MHz) and AT&T and Verizon on band 5 (800 MHz)).
> "(I've read it's about 25% faster for the same spectrum)"
I get 200-400 Mbps on 5G, on a UK network with 40 Mhz of TDD 3.6 Ghz 5G spectrum. On 4G LTE I rarely see more than 50 Mbps or so (Typically 20+20 Mhz FDD LTE at 2.1 or 2.6 Ghz).
I get 200-400 Mbps on 5G, on a UK network with 40 Mhz of TDD 3.6 Ghz 5G spectrum. On 4G LTE I rarely see more than 50 Mbps or so (Typically 20+20 Mhz FDD LTE at 2.1 or 2.6 Ghz).
nice, thanks for the info
[deleted]
they have already addressed throughput in v2 satellites. the only route to failure is if starship cant reach orbit and return.
think outside the big city box.
5G is only good for high population density.
5G is only good for high population density.
Just the launch costs, including refurbishing and a 2nd stage, are in the tens of millions. That's a lot cheaper than any other comparable launch vehicle, but when you consider how many launches and how many satellites it's taking to build their network, $44M a month doesn't sound like it's beginning to make them a profit yet.
Seems like there is a lot of higher margin opportunity than residential available in business/gov.
I see they have a business at 500/mo. Wonder what the breakdown is.
Judging from their land coverage they are still a bit off doing container/oil/bulk/cruise/yatchs. With better coverage it seems like yachts/boating could run pretty high margin given the current options.
It will be interesting to see the induced demand starlink has. With remote work it makes stuff like rural housing and long term cruising a viable living option for a lot more people.
The way pricing is going on solar/batteries off grid is becoming pretty reasonable if you are willing to not mcmansion.
I see they have a business at 500/mo. Wonder what the breakdown is.
Judging from their land coverage they are still a bit off doing container/oil/bulk/cruise/yatchs. With better coverage it seems like yachts/boating could run pretty high margin given the current options.
It will be interesting to see the induced demand starlink has. With remote work it makes stuff like rural housing and long term cruising a viable living option for a lot more people.
The way pricing is going on solar/batteries off grid is becoming pretty reasonable if you are willing to not mcmansion.
What about the long term cost of all the space trash from starlink satellites and the stuff they run into, and the telescope light imaging they pollute and interfere with? Are these externalities priced in?
Starlink is in a very low orbit. Any satellite that low deorbits quickly if not under active control. It's not a space junk concern. SpaceX would be the biggest loser if space junk ever became an issue.
Is the revenue $110/month internationally, or is that just the US rate?
the terminals in AU, NZ, CA are all billed in local currency at a higher price but the currency conversion works out to approx. $110 USD/mo same as the US domestic terminals.
Why wouldn't it? The cost to SpaceX shouldn't be significantly different per location. Maybe competition would drive different prices in different areas?
Some markets are more likely to pay a $110 rate than others (and most of the cost is up front, not per user)
I expect service to Africa will eventually be considerably cheaper than $110 per month. If the satellites are completely unused while flying over Africa, that's wasted potential.
But before they can offer better prices they need to get the cost of the terminals down below the price they're selling them at.
Alternatively they might offer kits to wire an entire village with a single terminal. That way the per terminal cost is still high but per user costs are low.
But before they can offer better prices they need to get the cost of the terminals down below the price they're selling them at.
Alternatively they might offer kits to wire an entire village with a single terminal. That way the per terminal cost is still high but per user costs are low.
I just recently saw the release of RV service and am interested but I don't want to play $1000 and be on a 12 month wait list. Anyone know what the current wait time is after ordering service?
Do you really take your RV to places without cell service enough to justify the cost? I see so many RV folks jumping on this but I don't see how you could justify it unless you spend the majority of the year in the middle of nowhere.
The cost is to never have to think about it again.
That can be worth more than the service itself.
That can be worth more than the service itself.
WElp, If anyone wants to join me, we could easily map out every single RV park in the US - and create an ISP where we install an uplink at every one and then feed all the RV locations in the US with wifi with starlink uplink accounts, and this list is just the camping/public ones...
Most residential RV parks are being bought up by hedge funds.
Go after a list of the hedgefunds and offer the service to them as an ammenity they can charge the park residents for...
[0] https://www.campgroundviews.com/map-based-search/
Most residential RV parks are being bought up by hedge funds.
Go after a list of the hedgefunds and offer the service to them as an ammenity they can charge the park residents for...
[0] https://www.campgroundviews.com/map-based-search/
I work remote and am planing to live full time in my van/rv for a year. I might have SOME 4g coverage in most places but it's definitely spotty and if I am remote desktop into a client's machine it need a stable connection.
The RV service ships immediately if you order it but is lower in traffic priority for speeds when you use it in a fully populated sold out cell.
Are there links to tell you the subscription capacity of the cell youre conected in?
If you go to the homepage, and put in the street address for a location you want to check, if it offers you the $150 pre-order deposit only, the capacity is full. If it offers to take you to the payment page for the full price $800 or whatever order, the capacity in that area is not yet full.
Do you get full speed in your "home" cell?
"Best Effort Service: Network resources are always de-prioritized for Starlink for RVs users compared to other Starlink services, resulting in degraded service and slower speeds in congested areas and during peak hours. Stated speeds and uninterrupted use of the service are not guaranteed. Service degradation will be most extreme in "Waitlist" areas on the Starlink Availability Map during peak hours. See Starlink Specification for expected performance here."
From: https://support.starlink.com/?topic=76371e8a-d994-e9d1-f96d-...
From: https://support.starlink.com/?topic=76371e8a-d994-e9d1-f96d-...
[deleted]
Skepticism of the bottom line will be short-lived. Consider the economics of starship + starlink 2.0:
No more second stage cost, cheap propellant, an order of magnitude more connectivity per satellite, way fewer ground links required.
When the laser line of sight distances surpass those of terrain-constrained cables, it might start making sense to host latency-dependent servers in orbit. At that point, starlink begins to resemble internet 2.0
No more second stage cost, cheap propellant, an order of magnitude more connectivity per satellite, way fewer ground links required.
When the laser line of sight distances surpass those of terrain-constrained cables, it might start making sense to host latency-dependent servers in orbit. At that point, starlink begins to resemble internet 2.0
Economic of starship are wishy washy aspirations of a guy who’s known to pull numbers out of his ass, without any research. Very successful in creating business, but never based on original numbers.
It sounds crazy, but I think edge computing in space is really going to be a killer advantage.
Edge computing at the cell tower is more of an advantage, at least until starlink or whoever figures out mesh networking in space.
You are right. That does sound crazy.
Heat dissipation is hard in space and probably makes this infeasible.
How exactly do you imagine running software somewhere heat can't be dissipated, expensive shielded electronics are required, and software needs to be redesigned so that it handles the constant random bit flips is a "killer advantage"?
How exactly do you imagine a server in space can be an economical option, even for a latency-sensitive application?
There are huge anti-economies of scale: the more clients it serves, the more heat it dissipates, which is extremely hard to do in space.
Furthermore, to get any advantage you would need to either run your server in its own constellation, or on a significant fraction of Starlink satellites - otherwise, you server will only have good latency a few dozen minutes a day for any particular point on Earth.
There are huge anti-economies of scale: the more clients it serves, the more heat it dissipates, which is extremely hard to do in space.
Furthermore, to get any advantage you would need to either run your server in its own constellation, or on a significant fraction of Starlink satellites - otherwise, you server will only have good latency a few dozen minutes a day for any particular point on Earth.
Are their any other large batch "donation" terminals besides those sent to Ukraine?
Just to be clear, a substantial amount of that "donation" was actually funded by the federal government's USAID. Full details of the agreement aren't public as of yet AFAIK but USAID covered shipping and paid Starlink millions for terminals and potentially service.
I think the number I saw was either 3000 purchased by USAID and 2000 donated, or vice versa.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/25/spacexs-starlink-surpasses-400000-subscribers-globally.html
Obviously they are not sharing what it costs them to build a batch of 53 satellites and a new second stage, and refurbish a falcon 9 first stage for each new launch.
There have been four starlink launches all with successful first stage landing just in the month of May.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_launches