Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 09/03/2023 07:50 amQuote from: Eric Hedman on 09/02/2023 07:04 pmThe main purpose of this lawsuit is to make money for the lawyers. Everything else is secondary.A tad too cynical.Bezos companies track record in executing space projects is, let’s face it, less than impressive in terms of expenditure of time and money v tangible results. Kuiper is facing a formidable competitor that is already established, with a structural advantage in launch cadence and costs that is only likely to grow wider.Amazon shareholders are more than entitled to question if pursuing Kuiper as intended (or at all) is actually in their interests. There also do seem to be grounds to question if the Amazon board fulfilled their duties in scrutinising this project. If there is enough customer demand to make Starlink profitable then market is big enough to support a competitor or two. At around $2000 year only need a couple million rural subscribers to make $10B outlay worthwhile.Kuiper will already come with AWS customer base so they don't need anywhere near 2 million rural customers.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 09/02/2023 07:04 pmThe main purpose of this lawsuit is to make money for the lawyers. Everything else is secondary.A tad too cynical.Bezos companies track record in executing space projects is, let’s face it, less than impressive in terms of expenditure of time and money v tangible results. Kuiper is facing a formidable competitor that is already established, with a structural advantage in launch cadence and costs that is only likely to grow wider.Amazon shareholders are more than entitled to question if pursuing Kuiper as intended (or at all) is actually in their interests. There also do seem to be grounds to question if the Amazon board fulfilled their duties in scrutinising this project.
The main purpose of this lawsuit is to make money for the lawyers. Everything else is secondary.
The repeated assertions that excessive customer demand can force SpaceX to slow Starlink deployment against their will are non-sensical.If SpaceX sees a customer launch as worth more than the opportunity cost of not launching another Starlink batch, then they will WILLINGLY forego the Starlink launch. If they don’t, they will not accept the customer request, or offer to launch it at a time of their choosing.In each case, they will make the decision based on what makes business sense for SpaceX.The idea of “forced” customer launches is absurd. People seem to love invoking “anti-monopoly” laws at the drop of a hat, but choosing to launch their own Starlink network over customer payloads is SpaceX’s right. They have no obligation to be at anyone else’s beck and call, beyond what has contractually been agreed to.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09/04/2023 05:23 amThe repeated assertions that excessive customer demand can force SpaceX to slow Starlink deployment against their will are non-sensical.If SpaceX sees a customer launch as worth more than the opportunity cost of not launching another Starlink batch, then they will WILLINGLY forego the Starlink launch. If they don’t, they will not accept the customer request, or offer to launch it at a time of their choosing.In each case, they will make the decision based on what makes business sense for SpaceX.The idea of “forced” customer launches is absurd. People seem to love invoking “anti-monopoly” laws at the drop of a hat, but choosing to launch their own Starlink network over customer payloads is SpaceX’s right. They have no obligation to be at anyone else’s beck and call, beyond what has contractually been agreed to.Exactly. If Amazon wants to negotiate for the equivalent of 92 launches between 2024 and 2029 (one every 4 weeks), the accountants at SpaceX will compute a profitable price. A steady customer like that would get a good discount. "92 launch equivalent" is a bit hard to evaluate. F9 cannot launch as many satellites/launch as the yet-to-be-proven Vulcan, Arianne 6, or New Glenn, but Starship will kick in at some point. The deal could be that SpaceX agrees to keep F9 flying at an agreed-upon price/satellite and a 4-week cadence, but has the option to use Starship at the same price/satellite. 13 Kuiper launches/yr is a small fraction of Elon's projected F9 launch cadence.
Nonsense. SpaceX extremely quickly launched OneWeb satellites.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/04/2023 07:24 pmNonsense. SpaceX extremely quickly launched OneWeb satellites.Oh nice, hello. Do you mean to suggest SpaceX views OneWeb and Kuiper as equivalent competitors?
<snip>SpaceX will not choose to launch Kuiper no matter how profitable a launch contract may be. Looking at SpaceX’s future revenues, Starlink is the dog wagging the launch services tail without question. To repeat, from a money-making perspective launch capability and capacity is but a means to the constellation’s end.Currently, Starlink has the lead and Kuiper seeks to fast-follow. In that effort SpaceX has precisely zero motivation to help them move any faster.
Each commercial launch is worth about $40m in profit, with Kuiper likely to be 10-20 launches. Not the type of money SpaceX can ignore with Starlink deployment and SS development are costing them a fortune.
SpaceX will not choose to launch Kuiper no matter how profitable a launch contract may be.
Doesn't One Web work differently than Kuiper or Starlink? Doesn't it require a larger dish to operate? SpaceX could turn down Kuiper launches until Starship is operational and launching Starlink satellites.
. Not enough: they need to launch half their initial constellation by mid-2026 to meet their FCC obligation.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2023 12:26 am. Not enough: they need to launch half their initial constellation by mid-2026 to meet their FCC obligation.They will be given an extension especially as delays were out of their control. Unlucky to have 4 launch ( ABL 4th) providers that weren't able to deliver their satellites on time.
If Amazon wants to negotiate for the equivalent of 92 launches between 2024 and 2029 (one every 4 weeks), the accountants at SpaceX will compute a profitable price. A steady customer like that would get a good discount. "92 launch equivalent" is a bit hard to evaluate. F9 cannot launch as many satellites/launch as the yet-to-be-proven Vulcan, Arianne 6, or New Glenn, but Starship will kick in at some point. The deal could be that SpaceX agrees to keep F9 flying at an agreed-upon price/satellite and a 4-week cadence, but has the option to use Starship at the same price/satellite. 13 Kuiper launches/yr is a small fraction of Elon's projected F9 launch cadence.
