totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[AckSed]

Case in point: here's an article from Anchorage Daily News:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2024/08/18/satellite-internet-has-disrupted-the-market-in-alaska-and-transformed-everyday-life-for-many/

[darthgently]

48 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The question for me was whether the economics will pan out in the long run. 

For me, no tea leaves are required.  The data is already in and there is no need to wait for things to pan out.  Building and maintaining cable/fiber and  cell towers on the north slope of AK or the jungles of Africa or the Amazon is vastly more expensive.   See the AK article Acksed posted above for just some of hundreds of examples.  Rural Africa and the Americas from the pole down to Tierra del Fuego are standout use cases and many are benefiting with only the nations allowing Starlink access being the prime impediment.  It is what it is

[Pthigrivi]

26 minutes ago, darthgently said:

For me, no tea leaves are required.  The data is already in and there is no need to wait for things to pan out.  Building and maintaining cable/fiber and  cell towers on the north slope of AK or the jungles of Africa or the Amazon is vastly more expensive.   See the AK article Acksed posted above for just some of hundreds of examples.  Rural Africa and the Americas from the pole down to Tierra del Fuego are standout use cases and many are benefiting with only the nations allowing Starlink access being the prime impediment.  It is what it is

Yes, I agree, thats all nice. The question is whether starlink can increase marketshare at the rate they need to and whether those remote communities are capable of sustaining starlink profitability over the long run. Maybe they can, maybe they can't.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-10/is-elon-musk-s-starlink-profitable-spacex-satellites-are-money-losers

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

nations allowing Starlink access

I'm looking forward to the day when nations don't really get a say in whether the internet is on or off and anyone with a phone can tap into the web 

[Nuke]

2 hours ago, AckSed said:

Case in point: here's an article from Anchorage Daily News:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2024/08/18/satellite-internet-has-disrupted-the-market-in-alaska-and-transformed-everyday-life-for-many/

im seeing starlinks pop up like daisies here. granted there is difficulty running fiber through glaciers and tundra (we cant even build 50 miles of road to connect our capital to the alcan) and the distances make that very unprofitable. ground based infrastructure is going to be astronomically expensive and destructive to the environment. people of an urban mindset dont really understand the impact starlink has when you can just get good internet from the wall/wifi/cell for a small fee. now imagine having to pay 10x as much, and being really slow and flakey on top of that. this is exactly the market star link was going for.

Edited November 21 by Nuke

[Ultimate Steve]

In a recent talk Gwynne said that this is projected to be Starlink's first profitable year, so there's that.

[StrandedonEarth]

28 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

In a recent talk Gwynne said that this is projected to be Starlink's first profitable year, so there's that.

Is that profitable as in operations, or it has turned a net profit over the  initial investment into the system?

[Nuke]

rockets are cheaper than thousands of miles of fiber.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm looking forward to the day when nations don't really get a say in whether the internet is on or off and anyone with a phone can tap into the web 

Me too

[darthgently]

23 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yes, I agree, thats all nice. The question is whether starlink can increase marketshare at the rate they need to and whether those remote communities are capable of sustaining starlink profitability over the long run. Maybe they can, maybe they can't.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-10/is-elon-musk-s-starlink-profitable-spacex-satellites-are-money-losers

Bloomberg has never been bullish on anything Musk has been involved with since certain behinds stopped getting kissed.  Whatever.  [snip]

 What would be persuasive is if you posted receipts of you shorting Starlink on Polymarket with a $1000 bet.  Or even a $100 bet.  Without that it is just FUD with zero skin

[Pthigrivi]

Look, here's what Im saying: Starship is one of the coolest things thats happened to spaceflight in generations. It's absolutely wild. Thats why I come here and like talking about it. I say that with you all knowing my feelings about Elon as a person. For me it's about all those young engineers pouring their souls into this. I also personally think Gwynne Shotwell is pretty brilliant, so its complicated. All that said SpaceX is not a charitable organization. It's a private company that relies almost entirely on private equity investors. Those investors don't need to care if SpaceX turns out to be revolutionary to the human race or a white-elephant hype bomb that collapses in 10 years. They just want to know that their PE shares will be worth more next year than they are this year. Thats it. If next year they pull out everything stops. To prove to those people that SpaceX is a good investment they need to sustain the story that Starship has real profitability. There are basically 3 ways starship makes money: government contracts to the moon and defense payloads, revenue from an expanded starlink constellation, and private launch contracts. Out of those potential profit centers I think the former is probably the firmest, starlink second, and private launches third. I think it's entirely possible that there just isn't enough private demand to launch dozens of ISS's worth of cargo per year, that they built this whole rocket factory and there just aren't enough customers lined up to fill it. Artemis and other government contracts are the most solid but just don't account for dozens of starship launches per year. So a LOT is riding on starlink not just showing a profit by itself but potentially underwriting most of what SpaceX does. And maybe it can! Or maybe the customer base just isn't there. Maybe it can't compete with 5G over the next few years. Maybe they just lose confidence because of weather attenuation or bad customer service and can't grow fast enough to sustain the burn rate of relaunching 10's of thousands of satellites every 5 years. Maybe Elon himself just becomes such a toxic commodity that people stay away out of general principle. If any of those or a million other things happen then Starship could start to look all dressed up with nowhere to go. Those PE investors don't care at all about a colony on Mars. If the revenue dries up and the numbers stop making sense they're gone. 

I say all that and I sincerely do still hope starship succeeds because it means I may get to see a live moon mission and maybe the first humans set foot on Mars. That would be awesome. I have no love for the Chinese government but it would be cool to see them land on the moon and Mars too, to give credit to the thousands of passionate workers and engineers while rolling our eyes at the few at the top who take credit. It's possible to feel both things. I think its important to be sober and have the personal depth and moral backbone not to delude oneself about what is actually behind all of these huge and complicated projects--passion, greed, pride, exploitation, wonder, all of it. 

Edited November 22 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

19 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Look, here's what Im saying: Starship is one of the coolest things thats happened to spaceflight in generations. It's absolutely wild. Thats why I come here and like talking about it. I say that with you all knowing my feelings about Elon as a person. For me it's about all those young engineers pouring their souls into this. I also personally think Gwynne Shotwell is pretty brilliant, so its complicated. All that said SpaceX is not a charitable organization. It's a private company that relies almost entirely on private equity investors. Those investors don't need to care if SpaceX turns out to be revolutionary to the human race or a white-elephant hype bomb that collapses in 10 years. They just want to know that their PE shares will be worth more next year than they are this year. Thats it. If next year they pull out everything stops. To prove to those people that SpaceX is a good investment they need to sustain the story that Starship has real profitability. There are basically 3 ways starship makes money: government contracts to the moon and defense payloads, revenue from an expanded starlink constellation, and private launch contracts. Out of those potential profit centers I think the former is probably the firmest, starlink second, and private launches third. I think it's entirely possible that there just isn't enough private demand to launch dozens of ISS's worth of cargo per year, that they built this whole rocket factory and there just aren't enough customers lined up to fill it. Artemis and other government contracts are the most solid but just don't account for dozens of starship launches per year. So a LOT is riding on starlink not just showing a profit by itself but potentially underwriting most of what SpaceX does. And maybe it can! Or maybe the customer base just isn't there. Maybe it can't compete with 5G over the next few years. Maybe they just lose confidence because of weather attenuation or bad customer service and can't grow fast enough to sustain the burn rate of relaunching 10's of thousands of satellites every 5 years. Maybe Elon himself just becomes such a toxic commodity that people stay away out of general principle. If any of those or a million other things happen then Starship could start to look all dressed up with nowhere to go. Those PE investors don't care at all about a colony on Mars. If the revenue dries up and the numbers stop making sense they're gone. 

I say all that and I sincerely do still hope starship succeeds because it means I may get to see a live moon mission and maybe the first humans set foot on Mars. That would be awesome. I have no love for the Chinese government but it would be cool to see them land on the moon and Mars too, to give credit to the thousands of passionate workers and engineers while rolling our eyes at the few at the top who take credit. It's possible to feel both things. I think its important to be sober and have the personal depth and moral backbone not to delude oneself about what is actually behind all of these huge and complicated projects--passion, greed, pride, exploitation, wonder, all of it. 

[snip]

 There are many hypotheticals that are actually interesting, but to pose every hypothetical around a man who has defied multiple, and loudly repeated, predictions of infamous failure to date from every quadrant simply isn’t interesting.  

Hypotheticals around technical obstacles are interesting, however, and much more apropos to this forum, in my opinion.  But obsessive, anxious, and perhaps a bit gleeful, handwringing about the ways things might fail is typically not interesting to most

Edited Friday at 08:03 PM by Vanamonde

[Pthigrivi]

18 hours ago, darthgently said:

 There are many hypotheticals that are actually interesting, but to pose every hypothetical around a man who has defied multiple, and loudly repeated, predictions of infamous failure to date from every quadrant simply isn’t interesting.  

Hypotheticals around technical obstacles are interesting, however, and much more apropos to this forum, in my opinion.  But obsessive, anxious, and perhaps a bit gleeful, handwringing about the ways things might fail is typically not interesting to most

Edit: Im retracting my previous response here. Disagree as we may I dont have to be a condescending jerk about it.

 

Edited Friday at 09:11 PM by Pthigrivi

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, AckSed said:

Case in point: here's an article from Anchorage Daily News:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2024/08/18/satellite-internet-has-disrupted-the-market-in-alaska-and-transformed-everyday-life-for-many/

This and starlink is not fighting cell phone internet. 5G is the opposite of starlink as it give higher bandwidth in places with high population density like city centers. 
More fun in that one important starlink marked is up-link for cell there its no ground link. Usually an cell provider has to give coverage in areas like highways who is not economical for them. 
Now if you can put down a tower, power as in solar and an backup generator and starlink for access issue is solved. 

[Vanamonde]

Okay, we've removed some comments. Please keep it polite and on-topic, and avoid getting personal. 

[darthgently]

18 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Ive been as open, honest, and generous as I can be with you. I don’t think you’re a stupid person. I think you know at some level that Im right that in the end profitability is the rule of our day. Maybe it’s easier for you to dismiss me as some caricature rather than engage with my actual points. Maybe Ku/Ka rain interference and fundamental heatshield maintenance and physics isn’t something you’re willing to contemplate. Maybe you’re one of those okie-doke dudes who would rather not think about hyperloop or completely obvious scams like Dogecoin because it would upset your worldview. Maybe the notion of evil governments taking away the right to access to information from millions of people to suit their own ends sounds somehow different to you than an eccentric billionaire doing exactly the same thing. [snip]

 

Well, so much for Vanamonde not wanting it personal.  The motte and bailey routine.  WOW.    I’d like to think someday you might see things with less bias as is displayed above, and I mean that constructively.

Here is the key to every company Musk has focused on intensely:  it tackles problems that need to be solved to thrive off-world.  Hyperloop will work fine on an airless or mostly airless body like the moon or Mars.  It would work here, but wouldn’t be worth the cost so is not feasible here.   It is much more complex here given pressure differentials and terrorists.  Musk always tries to get things to pay for themselves.  He gave hyperloop a shot.  But wrong planet to self fund a vacuum oriented transportation system.  Sure it would have been great to get it working here, as with Teslas and Optimus and Neuralink and Starlink and SpaceX and Boring Co, but things don’t always pan out.

I don’t get the sense you are interested in changing your views over time, but I’ve been wrong about many things, even if you never have, so who knows?

Edited Friday at 10:05 PM by Vanamonde

[Nuke]

i attribute it to youth really. when you are young they constantly try to sell you on the utopian concepts and as you age you realize that its all just a pipe dream. i once thought that computers in everyone's home would solve all the problems, but it made more problems, and those problems got worse when the computers started fitting in your pocket and everything is always connected. im using technology as an example rather than something politically charged, so use your imagination. every solution to every problem is a can of worms and will bring new problems. eventually you realize that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs and you turn your attention away from end all solutions and start looking at how to get the most bang for your buck.

[Ultimate Steve]

Ah, let's go read the SpaceX thread for today, looks like a rousing discussion on the economics of Starlink and - Oh.

And that's after moderator editing.

[Codraroll]

On 11/21/2024 at 7:14 AM, DAL59 said:

Starship landing trajectory

Doesn't this mean that the FAA is like 1% of SpaceX's regulatory worries for this flight? Flying a rocket stage the size and weight of a locomotive at double-digit mach numbers across all the country sounds like the kind of activity the Mexican government would want to examine very closely before approving.

[Minmus Taster]

And on that lovely note:

 

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Well, so much for Vanamonde not wanting it personal.  The motte and bailey routine.  WOW.    I’d like to think someday you might see things with less bias as is displayed above, and I mean that constructively.

Here is the key to every company Musk has focused on intensely:  it tackles problems that need to be solved to thrive off-world.  Hyperloop will work fine on an airless or mostly airless body like the moon or Mars.  It would work here, but wouldn’t be worth the cost so is not feasible here.   It is much more complex here given pressure differentials and terrorists.  Musk always tries to get things to pay for themselves.  He gave hyperloop a shot.  But wrong planet to self fund a vacuum oriented transportation system.  Sure it would have been great to get it working here, as with Teslas and Optimus and Neuralink and Starlink and SpaceX and Boring Co, but things don’t always pan out.

I don’t get the sense you are interested in changing your views over time, but I’ve been wrong about many things, even if you never have, so who knows?

Hey, Darth i think it got lost in the mix but I did retract my last comment. Lost my patience and was being a jerk. Apologies. 

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Doesn't this mean that the FAA is like 1% of SpaceX's regulatory worries for this flight? Flying a rocket stage the size and weight of a locomotive at double-digit mach numbers across all the country sounds like the kind of activity the Mexican government would want to examine very closely before approving.

I’m guessing a special ad hoc negotiated “fee” will magically make the overflight a non issue for Mexico.  Sadly.  Maybe proof of insurance too

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Hey, Darth i think it got lost in the mix but I did retract my last comment. Lost my patience and was being a jerk. Apologies. 

No worries.  Strange times

Edited Saturday at 02:19 AM by darthgently

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Doesn't this mean that the FAA is like 1% of SpaceX's regulatory worries for this flight? Flying a rocket stage the size and weight of a locomotive at double-digit mach numbers across all the country sounds like the kind of activity the Mexican government would want to examine very closely before approving.

I agree and I assumed this was an major problem. 
I assume they have lots of money and the Mexican government is a bit corrupt, and even if not SpaceX could done an deal they would be stupid not to accept because of lots of money. 

[DAL59]

https://i.imgur.com/Q76EmF2.mp4

[Ultimate Steve]