A written response to Thunderf00t / Phil Mason’s Jul 13, 2021 video (“Starlink: BUSTED!!”), which I’m not linking to because nobody else should be forced to endure his mocking, derisive tone.
Phil: Falcon 9 launch cost to SpaceX is $60M.
Actual: that’s what they charge external customers. Actual internal cost is like 1/2 (CNBC) to 1/4 (Musk) that number.
Phil: Starlink ground stations will pay $1B/year for bandwidth.
Actual: Tier 1 ISP peers do not pay for bandwidth, since they transit each other’s traffic. (Starlink isn’t Tier 1 yet, but offers connection scope that will eventually get it there.)
Phil: Customers require 20 Mbps, so a 20 Gbps sat can only serve 1,000 customers.
Actual: US fixed broadband customers average less than 3 Mb/sec during prime time.
(So a 20 Gbps sat can serve over 6,000 customers.)
Phil: A fully-deployed 10,000 satellite Starlink network can only support 3 million customers “at best”.
Actual: With 3,580 satellites Starlink is currently supporting over 1 million customers, despite huge countries like India and Indonesia not having service yet.
Phil’s general approach here is to fudge all his numbers a few-fold worse than reality, and to no one’s surprise, the business case then doesn’t make sense. Using today’s numbers, 1 million residential customers @ $110/month = $1.32 billion/year gross revenue; 50 launches/year @ $15M(?) internal cost = $0.75 billion/year launch cost, so the system economics hinge on the per-satellite cost and longevity. That’s not counting the extremely lucrative business, airline, maritime, and military customers, growth potential in many countries (esp. middle east, south Asia), and Starship enabling much more capable satellites.
I hope Starlink succeeds, it’s 10x faster than my other options available here in Alaska, and I love it!