• cole@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    can I get a source on the math for this? I haven’t heard that before

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      What math do you want? The cost of launching infinite space ships forever is more than what subscribers pay. The satellites fall down in about a year and new ones need to be launched. The subscribers would have to pay for every single rocket launch. Right now American tax payers do.

      • cole@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The problem is you say this with certainty but have no numbers or evidence to back it up. How do you know the revenue from subscribers can’t cover rocket launches?

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.

          • cole@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It seems Starlink A) isn’t getting subsidies and SpaceX is B) providing services in exchange for payment rather than just getting free money.

            On top of this, SpaceX is reportedly still profitable. I just don’t understand your argument here. No sources, no actual hard data just conjecture.