> So they’re just creating a vlan named “starshield” and then depositing $70M in the checking account?

It's always difficult to price products and services with high fixed costs and low marginal costs (like bridges). The best estimates I've seen are that Starlink costs $1B+ to operate. It sounds like they're finally profitable (at least on an ongoing basis); we'll see what happens when Kuiper finally comes online.

I'd say Kuiper is still firmly an "if" right now considering how long they have left to put up the constellation and the cost+potential flight rate of Vulcan and New Glenn. They have a much higher bar to clear in terms of costs before they can be profitable, and especially with the lawsuit about that, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they decide to cut their losses and settle for a smaller constellation and restricted user base like OneWeb.

> I'd say Kuiper is still firmly an "if" right now considering how long they have left to put up the constellation and the cost+potential flight rate of Vulcan and New Glenn.

I think there is pretty broad consensus that they won't make their deadline. But I also see pretty broad consensus that, if they make a strong effort, that a variance is pretty easy to get. I'm not really in the industry, so I don't really know what to believe.

> They have a much higher bar to clear in terms of costs before they can be profitable, and especially with the lawsuit about that, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they decide to cut their losses and settle for a smaller constellation and restricted user base like OneWeb.

I always saw Kuiper as a strategic move by Amazon to attack SpaceX. IMO, they'd probably scrap the whole thing rather than settle for a OneWeb sized constellation.

More broadly, I think satellite internet is a natural monopoly business. There's no reason for customers to go with the 2nd best service[1], so even though it costs more to launch the best constellation, it ends up being a better investment. Because of this, I don't really see OneWeb or Telesat's upcoming Lightning LEO constellation surviving longterm. There's just no good reason for their existing customers to be loyal to them. And the cost to maintain their constellations will be ongoing.

---

1. Obviously globally available bandwidth affects this, so there's probably room in the market right now for multiple providers. But as companies continue to invest revenue into improving their capacity, those conditions may go away. At which point, my original point stands.

While overall I agree with your points, the reason I think they might settle with a smaller constellation is that they could sell it as an AWS service with direct integration with their data centers. For example, as a lower latency low bandwidth interlink between continents. It would be similar to how Starlink integrates with the networking at Google datacenters, but made explicit as an AWS service.

Price would be definitely something that could persuade me to take the number 2 service

> Price would be definitely something that could persuade me to take the number 2 service

Sure. I guess what I was trying to say and didn't really do a good job of it is that the best network, if they price their service properly, should undercut everyone else. That's basically what it means to be the best, that they can offer global bandwidth for less money than anyone else.

IIRC one big feature of Starshield (compared to the source of much of the drama and false reporting regarding Starlink in Ukraine) is that the buyer (ie the DoD) controls the cells it's active in.

The announcement article linked within discusses imaging and other hosted payloads.

At only $70M it's doubtful this specific contract includes any dedicated satellites. A single Falcon 9 launch is close to that price.

> At only $70M it's doubtful this specific contract includes any dedicated satellites. A single Falcon 9 launch is close to that price.

While I broadly agree with you, if SpaceX is selling a service and not a launch, I think the proper number is the internal cost to launch which probably sits around $20m-$25m.

You are about right on cost. Elon stated that a full reuse of a first stage + new second stage is about $15m, adding in the Elon-number correction and 20-25 feels right.

IIRC the $15m is the per-unit costs (booster refurb, second stage production), the rest are the costs that can be divided up by increasing flight rate (launch pad operations, staff and other infrastructure).

Why would this need a dedicated launch? Starlink satellites launch in a stack of up to sixty at a time.

Starshield probably just swaps one or two of these for an alternate configuration (i.e., same bus, different payload).

I think creating then launching thousands of satellites cost-effectively is pretty hard