Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

justbadthings t1_iu9f6fz wrote

This is side of the dumbest click bait bullshit. The article is a pure hypothetical rambling by a SpaceX fanboy that has zero basis in reality. If r/space did a "What if" series a la Marvel, that's where this belongs. Ot put forth as actual news


MaltenesePhysics t1_iu9jqaj wrote

Someone asked an Amazon VP if they’d consider launching with SpaceX. The VP said they’d be “crazy not to.” Not rambling.


ausnee t1_iubq0l2 wrote

That's not a plan - that's an Amazon exec saying SpaceX has a good track record & costs.

The reality is that Musk wouldn't ever "allow" a rival to Starlink to launch on "his" rockets, without significant financial incentive to do so.


wgp3 t1_iubvqki wrote

That's literally not true at all. They already launch internet satellites for other companies and there are plans for oneweb, another leo service, to be launched on spacex rockets. The significant financial incentive is a rival paying for the rocket. Rivals are the ones who don't want to use spacex because then they're funding their competitor. Launching a satellite isn't funding a competitor nor does choosing not to launch it stop your competitor. It would only lose you money.


ausnee t1_iubxdf5 wrote

Does Musk "troll" the CEO of OneWeb on Twitter? OneWeb is a much, much smaller constellation than Starlink or Kuiper, and serves different markets. SpaceX knows OneWeb won't seriously compete with Starlink and so they could care less.

If you don't think Musk would interfere in any kind of deal between Amazon and SpaceX if only just to stick his finger in Bezo's eye, you're an idiot.


DrJoshuaWyatt t1_iudgixu wrote

>you're an idiot

I'll give you an upvote for Name calling. Exactly the discourse I like to. By the way, one web has infinitely more days in orbit than kuniper.


proper_ikea_boy t1_iu9r135 wrote

Okay so pls explain your plan to launch hundreds of sattelites into orbit without reusable rockets and still recover you costs.


horsemagicians t1_iuadw3r wrote

Why do they have to be orbital? And you charge people for use of your internet service just like every business ever.


seanflyon t1_iuaj2ma wrote

Satellites have to be orbital to stay up. What kind of non-orbital internet service are you thinking of? Running cables on the ground certainly works.


Shrike99 t1_iubr474 wrote

>Why do they have to be orbital

Because suborbital satellites tend to have lifespans on the order of minutes. Having to replace your entire satellite fleet on a bi-hourly basis is a very, very poor business case.

>And you charge people for use of your internet service just like every business ever.

That works if you have a monopoly, but not in a world in which competition exists.

If it costs you ten times as much to launch a comparable satellite constellation to your competitor, then you need to charge each person ten times as much, or subscribe ten times as many users which means 1/10th the bandwidth per user, or some combination thereof.

Either way, the consumer gets a worse deal, so why would they purchase your service as opposed to your cheaper and faster competitor's?