Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
I think you're missing the amortization of the r+d and capital upkeep of the whole launch complex. Since the satellites have such a short lifespan you can't only count the upfront costs of manufacturing and launching, you have to include the whole shebang. The starlink system has to include the entire Falcon 9 architecture as overhead. And since it's so integral to their ultimate business model you should also include all the development costs of starship to each starlink satellite. The ROE probably doesn't look so good including all that, which explains Space Ai.
I think the $1.5 million per satellite includes the amortized costs from everything else. They've launched 10,000 satellites so far, so the other fixed costs are spread around across all the satellites and the service itself. And they have lots of paying customers, including maritime and aviation customers. The rural customers who can be served by the network are already additional revenue, and don't cost any extra to serve.
Similarly, the development costs of each rocket should be amortized across all the ways the rocket is used, including external paid customers unrelated to Starlink, who just pay for their own payloads to go to space.
Looking it up, SpaceX had $11.4 billion in revenue from Starlink in 2025. As far as I can tell, that segment of their company is profitable, and it's everything else that is a disaster.
But my point is simple: the useful lifespan of a satellite just changes the amortization calculation. If there are enough customers who will use it, then it can still be cheaper than fiber trenched to a single customer.