https://www.seradata.com/arianespace-lowers-ariane-5-launch-...
You forgot Ariane Space. And the 100 million ballpark numbet is for Ariane 5, a rocket initially developed for a European shuttle program and not commercial, cheap satelite launches.
Edit: Starlonk is cheaper than alternative satelite provoders. Whether or not this is selling dollars for cents is the question, one that cannot be answered by Starlonk's existence itself.
SLS is a new rocket and you are comparing its development cost to the launch cost of a SpaceX rocket without its R&D cost.
Ariane V, delta, and soyuz launches are all cheaper per kilogram than SpaceX.
> SLS is a new rocket and you are comparing its development cost to the launch cost of a SpaceX rocket without its R&D cost.
Look on Wikipedia, the sideboard quotes cost per launch as:
> Over US$2 billion excluding development (estimate)
I'm not aware of the pricing of Soyuz and Ariane V, though.
The direct competitor to SpaceX is the Space Launch System [0], with a cost of over two billion per launch. SpaceX charges below 100M$ [1] (and has cheaper options available [2]) and you can actually buy it right now (EDIT: although it's true that Ariane is in the same ballpark).
> If Starlink is actually sustainable and profitable has to be seen, it could as well just be a way to push SpaceX profitabiliy further down the road through a Starlink IPO. Now way to tell either way.
Whether a business can survive in the long term is never 100%. Still, you, as an average consumer, can order a satellite dish and get fast and mostly reliable internet for a reasonable-ish price right now. I'd say that checks as delivered.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
[1] https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
[2] https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/