Is there any company even remotely close to competing with Starlink in the "global satellite ISP" space?
I remember reading somewhere that literally most of the satellites orbiting earth are Starlink satellites. As in, more than half of all satellites are Starlink.
Obviously that statistic does not mean they have a successful business, that there's enough of a market, etc etc.
But one can imagine the types of services you can supply in just a few years to customers when you have by far the largest satellite constellation in the sky, with global coverage, and the ability to launch dozens of new satellites at low cost.
Other providers are in the works, but they don't work as fast as Starlink and don't have their own rockets to launch them in. Which is good. BlueWalker 3, a prototype for a new internet satellite provider, is brighter than 99.8% of all stars visible from Earth. They're planning on launching 70 more of them.
There are about 5,000 Starlink satellites and about 8,000 satellites total. For the past few years, the number of satellites has been increasing by 30% every year. Starlink can launch 50 satellites in each Falcon 9, which can fly every week. Eventually Starlink will have about 42,000 satellites in orbit. Other mega satellite networks are being planned which could raise the total to over 400,000 satellites.
They can have millions, they don't plan to have more than 12k up at the same time. 40k is the estimated cumulative number for the currently planned lifecycle
Not sure about overall prospects for successful business, but current revenue is a lot higher than I realized:
> The Wall Street Journal reports that Starlink's revenue for 2022 was $1.4 billion, up from $222 million in 2021. It is not known how much profit or loss the division made, but SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said in February that Starlink is expected to turn a profit this year.
Everyone in my neighborhood pays $120/month for it, myself included. It was an absolute game changer. Honestly I think most people in my neighborhood would pay even more for it. It's so much better than the options it replaced. I don't think many people understand how frustrating it is to live in a slightly rural area without good internet options, so many of these areas have been ignored by normal ISP's for forever.
The most likely competitor is Kuiper but they're way behind. There's also OneWeb but they've had a lot of business issues. They're not selling service direct to consumers AFAIK. China is planning a constellation but I don't know much about it and I would never use an ISP from China in any case.
SpaceX's reusable rockets give them kind of an insurmountable launch cost advantage for now, and also for the foreseeable future assuming Starship achieves second stage reusability.
Both comments that you've made in this story have been horribly off the mark. The reason for reusable rockets is: they're cheaper than non-reusable rockets. As a result, no one can compete with SpaceX's pricing. And that other comment where you implied that SpaceX doesn't have much of a target market only demonstrates that you have no idea what the quality of internet service is outside of metropolitan areas or how many people live in those areas.
Oh, I know quite well how bad internet and mobile coverage can be outside metropolitan areas. All those areas so, well the vast majority, can be supported by terrestrial internet using either 5G or fibre. SpaceX has thus to be cheaper than those terrestrial solutions in order to compete.
Markets where satelite based solution are the only option include maritime, desaster areas, aviation and remote areas without inhabitants. Everything else, Starlink competes with, e.g., 5G. Just how competitive Starlink is, nobody outside SpaceX knows for a lack financial data. And since the use of reusable rockets only got traction when SpaceX created in-house demand for them, well, I am sceptical regarding the economic viability of it.
As I said, it can be typical Musk goal post moving, a viable business idea or a combination of those two. And by the way, Uber was cheaper than Taxis for a long time by selling a dollar for cents, and the same as Uber SpaceX has access to capital other ISPs just don't have. Doesn't mean SpaceX ia serving a market, remote areas, existing ISP are neglecting for decades by now.
I've seen people claim SpaceX is charging too much. Now you're claiming they are subsidizing launch i.e dumping to keep other launch competitors out.
In parts of Asia and Africa where SpaceX operates, they match or beat prices of competitors today. And of course they beat other sat competitors on pricing.
In the US there's parts of cities and suburbs where wired service is available but unreliable or hard capped with overages.
Reusability helps with reliability. Also allegedly helps with cost and cadence.
Kind of yes, kind of no. As with everything, their prices are a mix calculation. Meaning they charge what they can, with mass LEO launches being cheaper than high orbit scientific and government stuff. What SpaceX does in my opinion is subsidizing LEO launches using reusable rockets with Starlink launches.
You seem to completely underestimate how expensive it is to install fiber across say, the entire midwest, and completely overestimate the quality of 5G coverage/investment in the same area.
The question is not if there are competitors in the "satelite ISP" space, but rather how Starlink compares to other ISPs. Reason being that the market where Starlink, or satelite communications in general, have a unique selling point is rather small, especially compared to the global communications market.
We'll see, so far I think Starlink is SpaceX's way to keep investor money flowing, valuations high and the point of general profitability (pinky promise) in the future without raising any eye brows.
Iridium and Globalstar are in this space. As I understand it, the cost is much higher, and the data rates are much lower.
Hughesnet, Viasat and others offer internet services via satellite from geostationary orbits, and may not offer global coverage; similarish costs, lower data caps (as I understand it), and much higher latency. Mostly targeted for fixed location broadband connectivity, where there's no terrestrial option (because almost all terrestrial options are better in all dimensions)
Clearly rural broadband has a reasonable market. Focusing specifically on cellular phones: my iPhone lets me send emergency SOS messages via satellite and doesn't use Starlink. This means that at least the "emergency calling when out of cellular range" piece of the market has competitors (and they're cheap enough that Apple can include two years of service in my phone's price.) I'm not sure how big the discretionary texting/calling/browsing-while-out-of-cellular service market is.
By Itanium effect if anything, because AST at least has actually demonstrated the technology. Musk is just setting up a website and he already hits HN frontpage...
Somewhat? The build quality of a Tesla, even a Model S, resembles that of a Corolla at best. The dash creaks, there's unexplained rattles, the wind howls if things aren't sealed properly, and if you try to address anything with a Service Center you often get told 1) they can't find it, or 2) they found it, but it's "within spec".
I'm more of referring to materials, although later generation (Y and 3) seem to be using softer plastics tho some rattles are still there. I haven't driven Corolla for a while, but compared to decade old Mazda - only real leather is what I miss, else it's like every car 3 decades before.
I remember reading somewhere that literally most of the satellites orbiting earth are Starlink satellites. As in, more than half of all satellites are Starlink.
Obviously that statistic does not mean they have a successful business, that there's enough of a market, etc etc.
But one can imagine the types of services you can supply in just a few years to customers when you have by far the largest satellite constellation in the sky, with global coverage, and the ability to launch dozens of new satellites at low cost.