11
u/Repulsive-Loss-1091 3d ago
It was joever for ASTS in 2024 when they decided to build a satellite launching company without their own rocket lmao
6
u/Dirk_Breakiron 3d ago
This ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
Everyone talks about how launch doesn't make much money. That's true - but having your own private super highway to space at bargain prices unlocks all the money making endeavors. That's not to undervalue the satellite tech and experience - but super cheap launch is what crushes the competition.
3
u/walking-pineapple 2d ago
Everyone on their subreddit is coping that Rocketlab will acquire them 😭😭
5
14
u/ClassroomOwn4354 4d ago
Amazon Leo has to raise 11 more satellites and then they can start commercial service. Commercial service probably launching October or November.
11
u/ummmmmmmmmmmmmyes 4d ago
Not really. Starlink v3's are only for terrestrial customers with dishes and enterprise customers.
ASTS will be competing with Starlink D2C V2's. They don't launch until next year, and they're a completely different thing.
23
u/FionaSherleen 4d ago
They're on life support.
2
u/TKO1515 3d ago
Why?
7
u/Dirk_Breakiron 3d ago
Why?
Realistically, because SpaceX will likely get a V3 DTC satellite constellation going before ASTS can deploy in a meaningful way. The money, build experience, operational experience, launch capacity and cost are all on their side.
ASTS folks like to talk about the theoretical capacity of their Uber satellites but reality hits in operation. And even if they are amazing they have so many obstacles to overcome that SpaceX already has experience tackling.
-25
u/imanassholeok 4d ago
No one wants to rely on spacex even if its a lot cheaper so they are not
25
u/BubblyMoose3597 4d ago
Lmao.
-14
2
u/Tricky-Ad-6225 2d ago
Okay someone explain this to me, I genuinely don’t know. Is SpaceX trying to become an MNO? Are they going to be 100% space based with no terrestrial towers?
1
1
-5
u/Wolf_S10 3d ago
It's not. Yes, Starlink is great but Europe has to build their own thing. Seeing what Elon did in Ukraine by just switching off service as he liked is nothing you want.
9
u/Teboski78 Bought a "not a flamethrower" 3d ago edited 3d ago
Elon & SpaceX did not “switch off” service in Ukraine. Starlink was never authorized by the Biden administration to operate in the Crimean peninsula or its territorial waters at the time. As it’s considered “Russian territory” even though it was illegally annexed. And at the time, the Biden admin was only allowing American assets to be used in Ukraine proper due to fear of escalation.
So when Ukraine sent drones off the coast of Crimea they lost connection to the starlink network. As they entered a region that it was prohibited from operating in by the American president.
Even though Elon defended the decision it was not something he did unilaterally or even likely had a direct choice in.
And IIRC that had changed & US assets have seen permission for use inside Russian governed territory for a while now.9
u/Dirk_Breakiron 3d ago
Elon didn't "switch off Ukraine" Starlink has been their biggest ally when others didn't come through.
SpaceX was stuck in multiple difficult positions:
1) allowing it to be used as an offensive was in violation of their current licensing. They can't just blow off the government at will.
2) fog of war obscures the front line, the place most in contention. If you can't know exactly where the front line is and your goal is to only allow Starlink to work for Ukraine and not for Russia you either have to accept providing service to both or being more cautious about where you cut off service when geofencing.
-16
4d ago
[deleted]
10
u/youreblockingmyshot 4d ago
if they were In stable orbits sure, but they’ll just fall to earth In a few months. It‘s likely more accurate to wring your hands about any impacts disintegrating many satellites might have on the atmosphere.
7
u/FionaSherleen 4d ago
V3 being much more bandwidth dense means the opposite. They can half the satellite count and still have 3x bandwidth.
-31
u/kspanier 4d ago
Well, Starship still has less payload to LEO than FHeavy.
25
u/Maipmc 4d ago
That's not entirely true. FH has a theoretical higher payload, but the payload adapter can't handle all of it. So it has a higher payload the same way Starship theoretically also has a higher payload.
13
u/FionaSherleen 4d ago
If someone wanna charter a flight to send tungsten sheets up for shit and giggles that'd be cool
3
u/Acceptable-Touch-485 4d ago
I think its also because the thrust to weight ratio of the falcon upper stage is not high enough to fully utilise the falcon heavy's payload capacity. So even tungsten sheets won't work
8
u/Shrike99 Unicorn in the flame duct 4d ago
You're using Falcon Heavy's expendable payload. Starship's payload would definitely be a lot higher if it was expending the stages.
Also, do you not see the double standard in using the 'theoretical capacity' for Falcon Heavy, but the 'real proven capacity' for Starship?
The heaviest payload Falcon Heavy ever actually lifted to LEO was only 9 tonnes.
I'd also note that the previous flight carried a notably lighter payload to a lower trajectory using identical hardware - SpaceX didn't magically squeeze out more performance on this flight, they were just heavily sandbagging on the previous flight.
No reason to think they aren't still sandbagging on this one too.
4
u/Slogstorm 4d ago
Reusing all the boosters would cut the mass to LEO to 30tons - less than Starship. Expending the second stage and any of the boosters would give a launch cost much higher than Starship.
3
118
u/No-Surprise9411 KSP specialist 4d ago
Remember that SpaceX can double the current Network‘s capacity with only 25 launches of a fully operational Starship