Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#2Elon Musk suggests he is pulling internet service from Ukraine after ambassador told him to ‘f** off’
‘We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine,’ says Space X
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-starlink-intern...
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#3Absolutely incredible to make a big deal about "donating" all this stuff, and then decide what you actually want is a big fat Pentagon contract.
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#4No post body was provided.
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#5Absolutely incredible to make a big deal about "donating" all this stuff, and then decide what you actually want is a big fat Pentagon contract.
iIf the war keeps going for a decade or longer, is SpaceX supposed to provide free service forever?
I don't want to take Musk's side here, but I don't think your take is entirely justified too. They donated a lot of hardware and free service for more than half a year. That's a lot, and I don't think donating that much means they have to keep donating forever.
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#6Absolutely incredible to make a big deal about "donating" all this stuff, and then decide what you actually want is a big fat Pentagon contract.
iIf the war keeps going for a decade or longer, is SpaceX supposed to provide free service forever? I don't want to take Musk's side here, but I don't think your take is entirely justified too. They donated a lot of hardware and free service for more than half a year. That's a lot, and I don't think donating that much means they have to keep donating forever.
More relevant than that, the constellation is already deployed and serving the rest of the planet's surface. What is the cost (not in terms of lost revenue, but in terms of actual operational cost) of supporting Ukraine?
I'm assuming the cost is marginal. What he's concerned about is of becoming a military target, something he should have considered before he decided to become a military telco service provider.
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
iIf the war keeps going for a decade or longer, is SpaceX supposed to provide free service forever? I don't want to take Musk's side here, but I don't think your take is entirely justified too. They donated a lot of hardware and free service for more than half a year. That's a lot, and I don't think donating that much means they have to keep donating forever.
More relevant than that, the constellation is already deployed and serving the rest of the planet's surface. What is the cost (not in terms of lost revenue, but in terms of actual operational cost) of supporting Ukraine? I'm assuming the cost is marginal. What he's concerned about is of becoming a military target, something he should have considered before he decided to become a military telco service provider.
What do you mean, not in terms of lost revenue? That's the cost a business and its shareholders care about. If you wanted to care only about operational costs, you should've put up your own constellation (e.g. government-tax funded).
Don't become Russia while fighting it.
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#8Absolutely incredible to make a big deal about "donating" all this stuff, and then decide what you actually want is a big fat Pentagon contract.
[deleted]
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
More relevant than that, the constellation is already deployed and serving the rest of the planet's surface. What is the cost (not in terms of lost revenue, but in terms of actual operational cost) of supporting Ukraine? I'm assuming the cost is marginal. What he's concerned about is of becoming a military target, something he should have considered before he decided to become a military telco service provider.
What do you mean, not in terms of lost revenue? That's the cost a business and its shareholders care about. If you wanted to care only about operational costs, you should've put up your own constellation (e.g. government-tax funded). Don't become Russia while fighting it.
Is it reasonable to be able to extract any revenue from Ukraine during a war? If not, then there is no loss of revenue. There is also no increased operational costs - the constellation is up there already, and replacements need to be sent up from time to time, regardless of whether they fly over Ukraine or not and regardless of whether they keep their radios on while doing so. The operating cost of a satellite constellation cannot be split by country served and stopping service to one country does not change the overall cost.
They may stop sending dishes though, but, apart from that, not much would change.
Re: Musk says SpaceX cannot fund Ukraine's Starlink internet indefinitely
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean, not in terms of lost revenue? That's the cost a business and its shareholders care about. If you wanted to care only about operational costs, you should've put up your own constellation (e.g. government-tax funded). Don't become Russia while fighting it.
Is it reasonable to be able to extract any revenue from Ukraine during a war? If not, then there is no loss of revenue. There is also no increased operational costs - the constellation is up there already, and replacements need to be sent up from time to time, regardless of whether they fly over Ukraine or not and regardless of whether they keep their radios on while doing so. The operating cost of a satellite conste…
It is not reasonable to be able to extract services and hardware for any/no cost from a private business just because they built something that could be used.
AFAIK that'd only be possible in a limited way if the US itself was at war.
Why should SpaceX have to provide services and hardware for operational costs only, while Lockheed Martin, BAE, Raytheon, etc can keep their profits?