[qayxc]

"The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong."

Seems to me as if Starlink without Starship isn't all that great.

Also, OneWeb - despite being smaller in scope - managed to do a similar thing without reusable rockets. Now that doesn't make F9 bad - it's still a great machine - it's just not the game changer many hoped it to be.

[tigershark]

No, OneWeb didn’t do anything remotely comparable. Starlink satellites are currently more than all the human satellites ever launched. Smaller in scope is a euphemism, you are comparing a mere 650 satellites with 42k, 2 orders of magnitude more.

[qayxc]

There aren't 42k Starlink satellites in orbit.

It's about 1,500 active satellites versus 600 + ~50 spares - quite comparable.

[tigershark]

The plan is for 42k satellites, currently there are still more Starlink satellites than all the other satellites ever launched.

[qayxc]

The "plan" also was to land a Dragon capsule on Mars by 2018 [0]. The "plan" also was to fly people around the Moon in 2018 [1].

It's pointless to base your assessment on plans if the past showed how quickly they evaporate in light of new developments.

[0] http://spaceref.com/mars/spacex-will-start-going-to-mars-in-...

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/spacex-mo...

[panick21_]

OneWeb is not even in the same category. Their technology is several generations behind in both their sat and ground terminal tech.

There is a reason they went bankrupt and were mostly solved by government bail-outs. Because its in fact not viable as a business if you have to launch on traditional rockets and have contractor produce your sats.