Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SpaceX Internet Satellite Network: Starlink

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
1630078506851.png


lol
 
Buried below the no-new-news headline is a compelling statement from Gwynne: She expects UT cost to drop 50% by end of year and then another 50% (no timeline given). Elon previously said they cost over $1k and [a few months old] Googs speculation has them around $1500 or so. Whatever number you start with that's a pretty impressive reduction and great news for users. Presumably Starlink will still subsidize UTs; $100-200 buy-in to service is way more palatable than whatever it is right now.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: scaesare
Bit of a nothing burger in that SpaceX response.

To be fair, as submitted, so is the Amazon complaint. It is unfortunate as (like I noted in another thread) Kuiper is not actually materially affected by either Starlink constellation option...so it comes across as a petty attempt at stalling from a distant competitor. And to be clear, it may in fact be just that, with no intent to be some White Knight (ahem) voice for "the rest of the industry".

But make no mistake, and after a few conversations behind the lines, its clear there's MASSIVE concern across the emerging space industry with the idea that spaceX may be allowed to block orbital shells that they have no intention of filling. Whether spaceX's unprecedented filing is intentionally and proactively boxing out competitors or whether they're honestly just trying to maximize their future success via optionality is up for the individual to speculate, but the hard reality is that should the FCC green light this request two things will happen:

1) It will negatively impact anyone who wants to be in LEO (not just competitors) as all will need to plan around SpaceX shells both for the operational constellation as well as any transitional constellation geometries (like orbit raising and deorbiting). This hurts the small players the worst, as they have the least amount of resources to work around the roadblocks.

2) It will set a dangerous (and slippery slope) precedent, well beyond the town crier "Well what about the next person wanting 3 options? 5 options?". Much more pertinent and difficult will be essentially forcing the need to develop a fair and equitable workflow/regulation to govern this heretofore unprecedented attempt to file for optionality. With SpaceX being the defacto entity driving the conversation, its hard to imagine anyone in the rest of the industry being given a fair shake in the conversation.
 
Bit of a nothing burger in that SpaceX response.

To be fair, as submitted, so is the Amazon complaint. It is unfortunate as (like I noted in another thread) Kuiper is not actually materially affected by either Starlink constellation option...so it comes across as a petty attempt at stalling from a distant competitor. And to be clear, it may in fact be just that, with no intent to be some White Knight (ahem) voice for "the rest of the industry".

But make no mistake, and after a few conversations behind the lines, its clear there's MASSIVE concern across the emerging space industry with the idea that spaceX may be allowed to block orbital shells that they have no intention of filling. Whether spaceX's unprecedented filing is intentionally and proactively boxing out competitors or whether they're honestly just trying to maximize their future success via optionality is up for the individual to speculate, but the hard reality is that should the FCC green light this request two things will happen:

1) It will negatively impact anyone who wants to be in LEO (not just competitors) as all will need to plan around SpaceX shells both for the operational constellation as well as any transitional constellation geometries (like orbit raising and deorbiting). This hurts the small players the worst, as they have the least amount of resources to work around the roadblocks.

2) It will set a dangerous (and slippery slope) precedent, well beyond the town crier "Well what about the next person wanting 3 options? 5 options?". Much more pertinent and difficult will be essentially forcing the need to develop a fair and equitable workflow/regulation to govern this heretofore unprecedented attempt to file for optionality. With SpaceX being the defacto entity driving the conversation, its hard to imagine anyone in the rest of the industry being given a fair shake in the conversation.
When has the rest of the industry ever given SpaceX a fair shake?
 
  • Love
Reactions: bhzmark
When has the rest of the industry ever given SpaceX a fair shake?

The space industry has been giving SpaceX hall passes and preferential treatment more or less since they've been a 'real' company. To be fair some entities didn't get actually get on board until SpaceX really started launching things (so, maybe mid-teens), but in general SpaceX has been the darling of the entire space industry for many years, and that includes both commercial and government agencies. Money talks, The Man desperately wants multiple heavies at their disposal, and launch availability is a cherry on top. Don't let the glut of "OMG can you believe so-and-so is being SOOO mean to SpaceX?!?!?!" chatter skew reality here. Make no mistake, "unfairness" toward SpaceX pales in comparison to the favorable treatment they've been given over the years, and generally falls into a few categories:

1) Self inflicted wounds from either a) giving a *sugar* about existing processes, concepts, and generally 'the way things are done' (= likely the case here), b) leveraging 'never had to think about it that way before' loopholes in said processes (= also a possibility here) or b) wearing the bully pants too tight and getting "spaceX is so mean to us" blowback (= potentially the case here too). Whether honest or Intentionally subversive, none of these are really legitimate to consider as properly unfair.

2) Some politician in control of the money flow Mitch McConnells SpaceX's progress/efforts for the explicit purpose of helping their team. So, while generally less "the industry" and more "someone outside the industry" here (also occasionally partisan appointed officials), its at least proper to call it 'unfair' toward spaceX.

3) Some industry competitor Sidney Powells SpaceX because they're bent their solution very obviously loses, but they still want All The Monies and so fall back on Plan B: Be nefarious, make *sugar* up, and keep it going until you can convince a critical mass of ignorants + decision makers to believe fake news. Again, legitimately unfair toward SpaceX...though again, pretty infrequent in the grand scheme of SpaceX.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: EVCollies
It will be interesting to see how this ongoing drama plays out. This has been going on for a while and it doesn't seem like there's any new news in this particular article, and given that given that its infuriating to read a Bloomberg article (which is what I linked), allow me to editorialize:

TLDR, Charlie and Mike Dell own some 12GHz spectrum and want to expand its use terrestrially; Elon says its going to wreck Starlink service. Complaining via flamboyant responses ensues.

The most interesting element here (IMHO) is that Charlie and Dell want to enhance mobile service, notably in dense/urban areas where those high frequencies can be most effectively utilized [for mobile devices]. SpaceX's response is really toeing the line on that spectrum's use as an FSS and so Chuck and Mike should go pound sand with their mobile aspirations. Where that logic really gets fuzzy is when one considers that Starlink wants to put UTs on moving things. One could probably argue that a plane or a train or even a bus is not a mobile device, but when we start talking about farther-future things like automobiles and even 'backpack' type handhelds, it definitely becomes MSS territory and thus a bit self-defeating re: the FSS argument.

There's also the reported "two major MNO deals" that Starlink has (presumably for tower backhaul in remote areas) that play into this one too. Big anchor tenants like that will likely represent major revenue for Starlink and so Elon will be keen to keep them happy, and you have to imagine a big MNO doesn't want some pretenders encroaching on their turf either.

Odds are the combined SpaceX and MNO lobbies will prove too much for Chuck and Mike, but methinks this one's going to get messier before it gets cleaner.
 
So then, since I'm sure your post wasn't simply to push an agenda, what's your take on the 12GHz fight?

(Note that the article linked doesn't actually throw any punches toward any of the protagonists. Its pretty squarely a "just the facts" pen, just with a clickbait title to pay the bills and some unnecessary flamboyance to keep attention. )