[rose-knuckle17]

Is the starlink constellation profitable on its on without any cross subsidization from any other Musk endeavor?

From the SpaceX S-1: "For launches of our Starlink satellites, the Company does not recognize any inter-segment revenue, rather those launch costs are capitalized in satellites in Property, plant, and equipment, net." In plain terms: SpaceX's rocket division charges outside customers roughly $102 million per Falcon 9 launch — but it charges Starlink $0.

SpaceX appears to be heavily subsidizing Starlink in the launch cost sense.

There is a mix of clever and sketchy accounting going on in Muskworld making it hard to see which elements profitable/sustainable and what isn't.

[boxed]

> Is the starlink constellation profitable on its on without any cross subsidization from any other Musk endeavor?

This is always a funny "gotcha" people bring up. Except the gotcha is always different somehow. Sometimes it's "the US subsidizes it" because NASA gets amazing deals on launches it would otherwise pay 10x or more for. Sometimes it's Starlink that subsidizes the launches. Sometimes it's the launches that subsidizes Starlink.

Maybe the answer is just what is obvious: vertical integration and economies of scale makes starlink/falcon 9 profitable. The combination is the thing.

[Mountain_Skies]

It would be interesting to see how much of Starlink's business is due to global conflicts, especially the one in Ukraine. If peace should break out, how does that impact Starlink's bottom line? I have strong doubts that rural villagers in the Amazon are a high profit customer base. In my area everyone was clamoring for Starlink to rescue us from DSL. Then fiber came and everyone lost interest in Starlink.