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.
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?
Alright, this doesn’t support your argument. That is a counter example that SpaceX ISN’T receiving subsidies. Anything else? I do appreciate the discourse though
can I get a source on the math for this? I haven’t heard that before
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.
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?
It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.
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.
Starlink was definitely on track to receive significant subsidy, the FCC recently rescinded.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/us-agency-will-not-reinstate-900-mln-subsidy-spacex-starlink-unit-2023-12-13/
Alright, this doesn’t support your argument. That is a counter example that SpaceX ISN’T receiving subsidies. Anything else? I do appreciate the discourse though
I didn’t make an argument, I just provided primary source facts.