this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
317 points (77.6% liked)
Technology
59358 readers
6665 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's the rub. Starlink is not and can not be profitable without venture capital and subsidies. It exists to funnel money away from taxpayers. It's a con built on lies like the rest. At least some people get to benefit from this, unlike people sold overhyped cars and promises of Mars colonies, but that's changing with price hikes and service degredations too.
can I get a source on the math for this? I haven't heard that before
What math do you want? The cost of launching infinite space ships forever is more than what subscribers pay. The satellites fall down in about a year and new ones need to be launched. The subscribers would have to pay for every single rocket launch. Right now American tax payers do.
The problem is you say this with certainty but have no numbers or evidence to back it up. How do you know the revenue from subscribers can't cover rocket launches?
It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.
It seems Starlink A) isn't getting subsidies and SpaceX is B) providing services in exchange for payment rather than just getting free money.
On top of this, SpaceX is reportedly still profitable. I just don't understand your argument here. No sources, no actual hard data just conjecture.
Starlink was definitely on track to receive significant subsidy, the FCC recently rescinded.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/us-agency-will-not-reinstate-900-mln-subsidy-spacex-starlink-unit-2023-12-13/
Alright, this doesn't support your argument. That is a counter example that SpaceX ISN'T receiving subsidies. Anything else? I do appreciate the discourse though
Musk's companies had received an estimated $4.9 billion in government support by 2015, and they've gotten more since.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-subsidies-tesla-billions-spacex-solarcity-2021-12?op=1#spacex-lands-a-289-billion-contract-with-nasa-in-april-2021-1
I didn't make an argument, I just provided primary source facts.
fair, my apologies, thought you were the original commentator