> > Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate, > exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards > zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite > under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the > existing sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year operational > lifetime, in this regard. >
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-starlink-satellites.html I would highly dispute any analysis that the failure rate was trending towards zero. That doesn't happen on the ground, let alone in orbit. On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 7:09 PM Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am happy to see the conversation about starlink escaping over here, > because it is increasingly a game-changing technology (I also run the > starlink mailing list, cc´d)... > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 3:56 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > >> > >> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are > the real economics. > > There is a whole other cluster on the drawing boards, called > Starshield, which you can read about here: > https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ > > The current "retail"economics are limited to US allies as a result of > the ukraine war showing how important information and bandwidth are to > modern warfare. There are also political implications to downlinks in > each country. > > I imagine, for example, that India is holding off on licensing until > Musk gets them a tesla factory. > > Multiple other countries are making a huge investment into retaining > control of the "spacewaves", so there´s that also. > > >I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand because they > still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to overcharge in the > mean time. > > Throttling demand is not how I would put it. Each cell has a limited > capacity, so starlink has been running promotions to get more > subscribers into more rural cells where the capacity exists. > > I have kvetched elsewhere about how poorly starlink manages bandwidth > and bufferbloat currently, but they are largely better than modern day > 5G and DSL, so... > > > Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them much more > expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? > > The original cost/dish was about 2k, so they were selling those at > well below the install price, with a ROI of about 12 months, given > that figure. I imagine with mass manufacturing the cost/dish has come > down substantially, and they also charge a realistic price on the > business quality dish of $2500. It would not surprise me if the basic > dishy essentially cost less than 500 to manufacture nowadays. > > The default wifi router, which many replace, cannot be more than 50 > dollars on the BOM. > > > I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that > mainly just software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the > truck roll. > > There is no truck roll. They have gone to amazing extants in - put the > dish in a clear area, power it up, you are on. > > Establishing infrastructure, like downlinks, connected near fiber in > civilization does have a large cost, takes time, and is also subject > to government regulation. > > > > > - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month, > that's $165M in revenue, > > Creating A 2B dollar/year business in 4 years is quite impressive. A > reasonable projection would be 10m subs in 4 more years, e.g. > 10B/year. That aint' chicken scratch. In fact, I think it funds > humanity´s expansion into the solar system quite handily. > > > - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to 60 > Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats in > the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume the > public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff, they > aren't launching an external paying customer.) > > > - The reported price per sat is $250k. > > There are multiple sat types, the mini v2 (which can only be flown on > the falcon 9, is rumored to cost about that much) > > Starship had had a much larger, much more highly capable sat designed > for it, but it is running a few years behind schedule. The hope for > that was that launch costs would decline even further. > > Also OPEX - running this network - is probably a substantial cost. I > have lost track of the number of downlink stations established (over > 200 now) but I would guess those are about 1m per. > > There is a really amazing site that looks at this stuff called starlink.sx > . > > > > > Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the orbital > buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for > sats. > > The present day capacity, even if they were to do no more launches, is > still underused. Roughly half the USA has no starlink service yet, > multiple countries have been slow to license, and nearly all of Africa > remains uncovered. Maritime and air are big sources of new business. I > try to stress it is where people are but infrastructure isn´t is > where starlink really shines, > > and that very little bandwidth is required for things like email and chat. > > > > > - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K > cluster, that's 1200 a year. > > Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate, > exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards > zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite > under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the > existing sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year operational > lifetime, in this regard. > > > > > That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. > Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. > > > > So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's > just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing costs > of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from staff , > R&D, etc . > > > > Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. > > > >> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will > he does have big ambitions. > > > > > > Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > >>> > >>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner > >>> rather than later? > >> > >> > >> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for > those services to completely replace terrestrial only service. > > I agree they will not replace terrestrial service, but maritime, > roaming, airplanes, and rural are big enough markets. > > >> > >> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only niche? > I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he > does have big ambitions. > >> > >> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the > incumbents. I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest. > >> > >> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are > the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling > demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to > overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe that > makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see > marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just > software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: > >>> >> Mark, > >>> >> > >>> >> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options. > >>> >> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. > >>> >> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US > >>> >> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there is > >>> >> no service. > >>> >> > >>> >> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not a > >>> >> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a > ~1/3 > >>> >> take rate. > >>> > > >>> > I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many markets > >>> > is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers > that, > >>> > since there is only so much money and resources to go around. > >>> > > >>> > What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the > >>> > opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are > >>> > capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low > >>> > hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative > >>> > provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other > thread. > >>> > > >>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner > >>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if > >>> they do they could compete with their caps. > >>> > >>> Mike > >>> > > > -- > Podcast: > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos >
