SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satellite antennas

Re:SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satell... by fallingknife on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @04:31PM (#37501342)

Amazon sold a dollar for 90 cents for 20 years, and I don't see anyone laughing now. It's not a bad business model for a massive fixed cost but minimal marginal cost business like Starlink.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satell... by justapassenger on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @05:50PM (#37502209)

It does have minimal marginal cost, as long as you live in the right place on earth, without many other customers next to you.

Once you exceed, fairly limited amount of people that can use it one cell, you need to grow massively your fixed cost, as you need to grow the whole constellation or just won't be able to grow.

Time will tell if that will add up. I don't think it's obvious it will.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satell... by Breza on Friday September 15, 2023 @08:38AM (#37522050)

You nailed a big difference between Starlink and Amazon: if all my neighbors become heavy users of Amazon, Amazon becomes more profitable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satell... by LargeTomato on Thursday September 14, 2023 @12:31AM (#37504993)

The starlink satellites decay after 5 years. The constellation costs $40B. That's an $8B annual burn rate just to maintain the current constellation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satell... by inemesitaffia on Thursday September 14, 2023 @05:51AM (#37506886)

Where did you get this $40 billion idea?

[ Parent | on HN ]