For Starlink and SpaceX, I can probably understand the business model, considering the race to getting more satellites to orbit be it for surveying or in case of Starlink stable Internet anywhere. But anything beyond that, like data centers in space I just ridiculous. No way that their valuation is anywhere near what it is realistically.
Starlink is basically a military tech that is too expensive even for the US military, so it was sold to gullible investors as a great deal… It won’t ever be profitable, at least not near the level that was promised. But it might turn out to be essential during a few wars.
GPS was planned out and deployed over 20 years (from proposal to operational).
It was also designed and worked for its intended purpose with only 24 satellites.
Block III gps satellites are designed to last 15 years and there are 10 of them.
Starlink is disposable chains of 1,000s of satellites that will be constantly burning up in the atmosphere and replaced at huge costs, including co2 from the launches.
I don’t think it’s the same, we already have the infrastructure for the network in most places with a dense population. Existing infrastructure is of the similar quality to Starlink, and the maintenance cost for the existing infrastructure is lower.
In case of GPS, the infrastructure existing before was much worse.
The only cases I can think of, where Starlink outperforms the existing infrastructure are:
Areas with low population density - the problem, in those areas, by definition, there aren’t many customers
Situation when someone is actively trying to sabotage the existing infrastructure, like those ships, that are breaking underwater internet cables, or the active jamming near the front lines - what happens in the Ukraine shows that Starlink is great for that case. It is enough to treat it as strategically important, but it doesn’t justify the starlink valuation. I really hope this market won’t grow much.
Countries that refuse to guarantee fiber to every home so you’re not getting it unless the gods (Telia in the case of Estonia) decide you should get it.
I don’t like the expression “guarantee fiber to every home”, I don’t think intervention like that is needed, It’s enough if the country guarantees fair competition. But I agree that Starlink lets you bypass local obstacles like local incompetence/corruption or censorship*
* unless it's the kind of censorship that Elon supports, then I am pretty sure Starlink will soon block it as well
I look at Starlink where currently about 6 spacecraft deorbit a week and need replacement as a huge operational cost. Many SpaceX launches are Starlink launches, it raises the question of whether this is a circular or self fulfilling industry.
An analysis from early 2025 showed that the median life expectancy of a 1st generation Starlink satellite was 5.3 years, though expected to improve in v2 and v3.
Beyond that, the solar lifecycle means that every 11 years the earth’s orbit expands increasing drag on low-orbit satellites (which brings them down) as well as bombarding them with more radiation (increasing the likelihood of failures).
Other sources I’ve found in searching for it give their median life-expectancy as being 5-7 years.
Land-based telecom operators don’t have to replace pretty much all of their transmission infrastructure - worse, in a costly to access location - more than once a decade.
Space-based tele-communications is more than proven as a viable business model, what’s nowhere near proven (or anywhere close to being mathematically demonstrable) is one single operator of those being worth more than many major land-based telecom operators each with many times the number of customers of that space-based telecoms business and providing much faster network access (somebody else gave Deutsche Telecomm as an example) put together.
(How exactly in terms of actual PHYSICS will Starlink deliver via radio waves to for example all 245 million European households - necessary to justify such valuations - a reliable 1Gbps connection for €10/month needed to to beat the land operators?)
SpaceX’s IPO valuation which itself is mostly anchored on Starlink, is totally unjustified and unjustifiable by fundamentals.
Unless you want to separate starlink from spacex it’s kinda the other way around.
I think spacex was adding starlink deployment to all their rockets and their “plan” was to launch other satellites and nasa projects, then get the starlink stuff up there for less.
Its actually a great business model as they need to do actual test flights to build better rockets and instead of that being pure R&D expenses, its supplemented by launching Starlink satellites which generate their own revenue for the company.
Great theory, but the Falcon 9 is already a proven design and most of SpaceX’s R&D is going to the starship, which uses completely different engines and which has blown up or disintegrated just as much as its successfully gotten above the atmosphere. It’s also never actually completed an orbit or delivered a gram of anything to orbit.
Starlink is a useful tool to boost launch numbers precisely so investors think things are better than they actually are. Originally SpaceX burned through government and private investor money. Now that they’ve blown through the entire Artemis budget the interim director of nasa gave them through blatant corruption, and launched even more billion dollar fireworks using private investor money, they are desperately trying to convince the public for more fireworks funds.
For Starlink and SpaceX, I can probably understand the business model, considering the race to getting more satellites to orbit be it for surveying or in case of Starlink stable Internet anywhere. But anything beyond that, like data centers in space I just ridiculous. No way that their valuation is anywhere near what it is realistically.
Starlink is basically a military tech that is too expensive even for the US military, so it was sold to gullible investors as a great deal… It won’t ever be profitable, at least not near the level that was promised. But it might turn out to be essential during a few wars.
Starlink is the only thing making SpaceX profitable right now though
While you’re probably right, I wonder if we would’ve said the same thing about GPS
GPS was planned out and deployed over 20 years (from proposal to operational).
It was also designed and worked for its intended purpose with only 24 satellites.
Block III gps satellites are designed to last 15 years and there are 10 of them.
Starlink is disposable chains of 1,000s of satellites that will be constantly burning up in the atmosphere and replaced at huge costs, including co2 from the launches.
I don’t think it’s the same, we already have the infrastructure for the network in most places with a dense population. Existing infrastructure is of the similar quality to Starlink, and the maintenance cost for the existing infrastructure is lower.
In case of GPS, the infrastructure existing before was much worse.
The only cases I can think of, where Starlink outperforms the existing infrastructure are:
Areas with low population density - the problem, in those areas, by definition, there aren’t many customers
Situation when someone is actively trying to sabotage the existing infrastructure, like those ships, that are breaking underwater internet cables, or the active jamming near the front lines - what happens in the Ukraine shows that Starlink is great for that case. It is enough to treat it as strategically important, but it doesn’t justify the starlink valuation. I really hope this market won’t grow much.
I don’t like the expression “guarantee fiber to every home”, I don’t think intervention like that is needed, It’s enough if the country guarantees fair competition. But I agree that Starlink lets you bypass local obstacles like local incompetence/corruption or censorship*
* unless it's the kind of censorship that Elon supports, then I am pretty sure Starlink will soon block it as wellI look at Starlink where currently about 6 spacecraft deorbit a week and need replacement as a huge operational cost. Many SpaceX launches are Starlink launches, it raises the question of whether this is a circular or self fulfilling industry.
An analysis from early 2025 showed that the median life expectancy of a 1st generation Starlink satellite was 5.3 years, though expected to improve in v2 and v3.
Beyond that, the solar lifecycle means that every 11 years the earth’s orbit expands increasing drag on low-orbit satellites (which brings them down) as well as bombarding them with more radiation (increasing the likelihood of failures).
Other sources I’ve found in searching for it give their median life-expectancy as being 5-7 years.
Land-based telecom operators don’t have to replace pretty much all of their transmission infrastructure - worse, in a costly to access location - more than once a decade.
Space-based tele-communications is more than proven as a viable business model, what’s nowhere near proven (or anywhere close to being mathematically demonstrable) is one single operator of those being worth more than many major land-based telecom operators each with many times the number of customers of that space-based telecoms business and providing much faster network access (somebody else gave Deutsche Telecomm as an example) put together.
(How exactly in terms of actual PHYSICS will Starlink deliver via radio waves to for example all 245 million European households - necessary to justify such valuations - a reliable 1Gbps connection for €10/month needed to to beat the land operators?)
SpaceX’s IPO valuation which itself is mostly anchored on Starlink, is totally unjustified and unjustifiable by fundamentals.
As far as I understood, I always thought that they just used other people’s rockets to piggyback their own satellites to space basically for free
That “for free” part is probably paid for by someone (invertors, rocket company, …)
Unless you want to separate starlink from spacex it’s kinda the other way around.
I think spacex was adding starlink deployment to all their rockets and their “plan” was to launch other satellites and nasa projects, then get the starlink stuff up there for less.
Haven’t heard that though you need a lot of other launches with space available….
Its actually a great business model as they need to do actual test flights to build better rockets and instead of that being pure R&D expenses, its supplemented by launching Starlink satellites which generate their own revenue for the company.
Great theory, but the Falcon 9 is already a proven design and most of SpaceX’s R&D is going to the starship, which uses completely different engines and which has blown up or disintegrated just as much as its successfully gotten above the atmosphere. It’s also never actually completed an orbit or delivered a gram of anything to orbit.
Starlink is a useful tool to boost launch numbers precisely so investors think things are better than they actually are. Originally SpaceX burned through government and private investor money. Now that they’ve blown through the entire Artemis budget the interim director of nasa gave them through blatant corruption, and launched even more billion dollar fireworks using private investor money, they are desperately trying to convince the public for more fireworks funds.
I suppose that it is that dependence upon Starlink to boost launch numbers makes me suspicious of the books. The whole thing just feels ponzie scheme.