[jordanb]

This was always the sour economics of satellite internet.

Satellite internet works for a low density of customers spread evenly across the globe. But customers are not spread evenly they mostly live in megalopolist regions that can be served more efficiently with land infrastructure.

Worse most of the people not in the megalopolists have less money to spend on internet services.

So your customer base are limited to people who aren't already served by better/cheaper terrestrial internet, but who can pay for better internet.

Those people exist but the history of satellite internet service hasn't been a massive money printer. Most providers have struggled to stay solvent let alone produce great returns for shareholders.

Paul Allen wanted to build a megaconstellation back in the 1990s but then Iridium went bankrupt twice.

Iridium ended up being rescued by the US military. I wonder if this is ultimately SpaceX's plan.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

Space Bears have been saying this forever.

[jordanb]

And the satellite internet business has been a dog since forever.

Even starlink only makes sense if you ignore the absolutely immense capital investment in it. And they're probably hiding losses in the launch division considering it's losing money despite 80% of its business being launching starlink satellites (they blame starship but that was supposed to be funded by NASA).

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > And the satellite internet business has been a dog since forever.

So is the nuclear reactor business but at least with that you gain independence from Iran whereas the satellite dog business gives you independence from the tyrant T-mobile or Verizon...

[inemesitaffia]

NASA isn't paying for Starship.

They are paying for HLS.

You can't (according to old space companies) build a lunar lander and its launch system for under $10B

The S1 says they SpaceX is providing launch to Starlink at cost. ~$20MM per Tim Farrar and Lionett Pierre. Two industry analysts.