SpaceX Raising Funds at $92 Billion at Double Old Price Will Make Elon Richest in the World

SpaceX is in talks with investors to raise another round of funding and seeks to double its valuation to as much as $92 billion. SpaceX is looking to close the deal in January 2021.

SpaceX is building out its Starlink satellite network to provide worldwide broadband Internet from low-Earth orbit. They have launched 955 satellites. The company has opened a beta testing program in the U.S. and Canada, with kits costing $499 plus $99 per month for the service. The expected service is 50Mbps to 150Mbps for downloads and uploads with latency from 20 ms to 40 ms over the next several months.

The price per share was $270 at the $46 billion valuation during the October, 2020 raise. The new valuation would be $540.

SpaceX will get $88 million each year from the FCC for ten years to provide rural high-speed internet.

The fully reusable SpaceX Starship had a mostly successful high altitude flight and the next Starship SN9 prototype should fly in January 2021.

Elon Musk owns about 54% of SpaceX. This is currently worth $24.8 billion but will be worth $49.6 billion in January, 2021 when this deal is completed.

The extra nearly $25 billion and if Tesla is 10% or more over its current price then Elon Musk will become the richest person in the world.

SOURCES- Bloomberg
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

98 thoughts on “SpaceX Raising Funds at $92 Billion at Double Old Price Will Make Elon Richest in the World”

  1. He's going to be the richest person eventually. That's a given.
    Elon is about that money, but he's not ALL about that money. His main interest is advancing human abilities.

    Most notably:
    Getting off the carbon economy
    Establishing a permanent colony on Mars

    Reply
  2. Einstein said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – but he clearly never used a personal computer…

    Reply
  3. Whish I could invest. SpaceX will be worth a trillion in 5 years or less. Once Starlink is fully up worldwide they could have revenue close to 200-300 billion per year (200-300 million subscribers at 1k per year per) with a high profit margin. Considering it would require 20k+ satellites (figure a high of maybe 10k users per sat) with a 5 year life span that requires 1000-1200ish replacement satellites per year, so 15-18 F9 launches at around 70 million for the launch and sats at 60 per launch. So 2-2.5 billion a year to maintain the satellites and maybe another billion a year for ground station expansion and upgrade, add another 5-6 billion for licensing fees, government fees, terminals that will be at a loss(this may run 5billion a year at a 500 loss per unit, figure 10 million units a year once it gets going 1k per to make), service call centers, and other stuff. So 10-12 billion in operating expenses. It becomes profitable likely at 10-15 million users being the break even range. They might get a 90% profit margin if they get over 150 million subscribers with a 24k sat network.

    Reply
  4. I've heard of biological 3d printing as an example : Growing large protein crystals, layer by layer creation of something that would otherwise collapse in earth gravity. There is some ultra pure zblan material that can be used to make very good optic fibre cables. More space stations with cheaper access to them also means more scope for experimentation.

    Reply
  5. There is all the stuff we don't know about because we have little experience. Check out the experiments on the last Dragon cargo for a taste. 0 g goes along with free sunlight in Space, a contributing factor. And very easy high g, compared to Earth. And free vacuum. Use your imagination!

    Reply
  6. I bet you there is going to be a sufficient number of "settlers" to make a viable first city, and from then on it's just going to grow. There are about 7 billion people on earth, and you only need a tiny fraction of intrepid men and women to make it work.

    Please remember that the West was won in about the same way, by people taking huge risks. That is why the USA has a slightly different genetic make up than Europe. Mars people will be much more tough, resilient and risk tolerant than earth people, at least for the first few generations. Say, for at least 200 years.

    Wait some time and Mars will become a separate country with their own laws and customs.

    Reply
  7. And how much valuable "stuff" can you make in zero gravity? I may, or may not, be beneficial for producing semiconductors. Let's assume it will be (but I have doubts about that).

    What other "killer applications" for zero gravity is there? It would seem that having a few factories in space would suffice for making semiconductors – if that is even a thing – and have all the rest on plants.

    Reply
  8. Does anyone actually have any location of one of these famous platinum asteroids? Can anyone point to a map of the solar system and say "thar she blows"?
    Or are we just speculating at this point?

    Reply
  9. Really, could just do sample return with the platinum. Of course, the value of rare metals is going to crater when it becomes obvious this technology is viable. What are the implications of more reasonably priced platinum, palladium, gold, etc. on industrial applications?

    Reply
  10. Look dude, you can be a skeptic all you want. SpaceX is a private company, and it is their dollars they are flushing if you are right and there is no market for this technology. But, my bet is on the guy who has built multiple billion dollar businesses and not the internet concern troll doing some idle speculation.

    Reply
  11. Where do you live? Most of the US has abysmal broadband. Even on the edge of cities, you will quickly find places without cable service and are more than x km from a telephone CO and thus have no broadband beyond line of sight or cellular network, which are often quite low level of service and expensive.

    Reply
  12. None of the uber-rich like Gates, Bezos, Musk, etc. can actually consume any meaningful percentage of their wealth, regardless of how many yachts or homes they buy. The only thing they can use their wealth for is charity or begetting more wealth.

    Reply
  13. A Martian city will require a lot of capital assets just to keep people alive. Paying to get the human to Mars is nothing compare to the cost of bringing all the equipment to keep that person alive on an ongoing basis. Mars will need to import most complex manufactured goods until an industry can be bootstrapped there. Mars won't really be able to export much in the way of physical goods back to Earth to help pay for their imports. Maybe the Martians can export services, but most clients want to be able to meet/talk on the phone to their service providers, and real time communication with Mars is impossible, do you are left with exchanging email or video messages. I'm sure earth-funded science could be a big part of the Martian economy, but is that enough to support an ongoing civilization?

    Mars will be a charity until it can bootstrap industry sufficient to expand its own economy with minimal imports. Maybe Musk will use his colossal wealth to be that patron. But then he basically becomes defacto god-emperor of Mars.

    Reply
  14. There is a company that manufactures specialized fibre optic cabling with superior properties to that made on earth. It can be made more easily in microgravity and is worth a lot. So, that is one example of orbital manufacturing that could become useful. Who knows what other markets may open up.

    Reply
  15. The Starship could probably lift enough material for a pretty good solar screen if Global Warming is a problem. A few trips could easily be paid out of major oil company annual exploration budgets. Your power satellites in the right orbits might accomplish both functions.

    Reply
  16. Let me add a statistic to support your view. Mars One had 202,586 applicants. The day Elon puts out his "Shackelton" post, I bet we will have 1Mn+ applicants in no time.

    Just because most people don't want to do a thing, doesn't meant that not enough (out of 7-8Bn) don't want to.

    Reply
  17. Because it is much cheaper to put satellites in orbit than it is to wire fiber down to the last inch. The numbers only look big because it is internet for the whole globe and you don't know or realize how much of a sunk cost is in the fiber you use.

    Because Starlink is an obvious win for planes, trains, cars, and boats- anything that moves.

    Because Starlink is an obvious win for countries that have poor infrastructure and haven't begun to build fiber backbone.

    Because Starlink is usable as an auxiliary internet connection for the world. In these work-from-home-school-from-home times having a backup is kind of nice.

    Reply
  18. "Ok good answer, but where exactly is that? I don't know a soul who doesn't have access to an optical fiber line. 56% of the Earth's population lives in an urban area."

    So you are saying that Starlink can capture 44% of the Earth's population and that is somehow not worth $500 billion per year??????

    Reply
  19. The fiber internet has had twenty-four years of funds supplied by telecom subscribers (taxed) to expand service to those lacking broadband options. Now they would begin a mad dash of expansion, after feathering their nest for two decades.

    Reply
  20. So it will not work for you, and you are projecting that on the rest of the human race. 

    We might live on Mars, we might not and for the exact reasons you mention. That being said, the solar system is a big place and Mars is not the only destination, or even the most attractive. 

    With the capabilities Elon is bringing to the table, we will be able to bring to life the dreams of people like Werner Von Braun or Galileo. We will no longer be dependent on government to accomplish great things in space, and my belief if that humans will seize it in both hands. You may disagree, and that is fine. Who knows, you may be right. I just think that if you are right and we never do anything in space, humanity will be poorer for it.

    Reply
  21. Sirius and XM Radio services, introduced during the Reagan Era, provided the first widely hailed audio programming from space. This in turn inspired DirectTV and USSB ground services for video, the receivers of which, were initially over $300 in 1993. 

    These services predated high fidelity internet video and audio, and were successful for decades. Fast cellular connections to mobile computers with the side gig of telephone service supplanted all that. You go with the best options at hand for the time.

    Reply
  22. There is no difference between back then and now, because human nature has not changed. If people can go, we will. Granted we cannot live off the land like they did back then, but then again we don't need to do we? We have capabilities and technologies they could never have dreamed of, and with low launch costs we have never had before many things are possible as never before.
    Centrifugal gravity will resolve most of the problems you are claiming with a planetary environment, because we do not need the planet just the magnetosphere or shelter from solar radiation. Heck, living above the cloud cover of Venus in floating habitats will be intriguing, or Dyson spheres.
    One thing is true, if Elon succeeds like we believe he will, we will for sure find out who is correct. The next 100 years are going to be VERY interesting, and with life extension technologies going mainstream who knows, we might just get to live to see some of it. Hard work and preparation we agree on but hey, hard work and risk in pursuit of goals and dreams are one of the things that make life truly interesting and worth living aren't they?

    Reply
  23. If fear of a big honking solar pumped laser could be allayed, magnesium could become the basis of a high density, mobile energy storage medium.

    The Japanese research showed that intense optical direct reformation of the oxide was scientifically feasible. The technical issue was the concentration limitation of non-coherent light to achieve the needed energy density for economic viability.

    Reply
  24. But that doesn't mean they are going to buy Starlink. They may not be able to afford it. If the goal of Starlink is to provide cheap access to the internet for the underserved customers then it has to be affordable. $99 a month aint cheap when you're living on a dollar a day in a third world country,

    Reply
  25. I read that link. Here's what it says:

    "To help further shape that mission, the Fiber Broadband Association recently released a study by the consulting firm Cartesian that finds that between reasonable additional actions by Congress, the Commission, and other government agencies, coupled with the efforts of private broadband providers, we can deploy future-proof, all-fiber networks to 90% of households in the next decade. By achieving this goal, we will ensure that rural consumers have full access to economic, social, and political opportunities to participate in and drive our country’s future. These all-fiber networks also will be the underlying inputs for 5G and other next generation wireless networks, smart communities, and IoT applications. The study is just a start, and the Fiber Broadband Association stands ready to support the Commission’s efforts to make all-fiber networks a reality throughout the country.

    Reply
  26. Will it grow? Of course it will if it's cheaper. Installing fiber is always going be a lot cheaper than launching satellites, except of course for Wild Alaska Guy and Guy on Remote Desert Isle. If that weren't true, then all of the cable companies would stop installing it. Have you seen any evidence of that? Take a gander at the stock prices of the cable companies. I dont see any evidence that their investors are jumping ship.

    Here's a link to a Fiber Broadband Association study that says its possible to deploy future-proof, all-fiber networks to 90% of all US households in the next decade. If Starlink was a cheaper alternative, why would the FBA pursue that?

    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091254337624/Fiber%20Deployment%20Cost%20Study%20Letter.pdf

    Reply
  27. But will the range of fibre grow and grow? Now that there is an alternative already in place, the push to spend $billions to get fibre out to all those people who live km from their nearest neighbours will be dropped.

    Reply
  28. Yes, I know space access is shaped by really, really high costs. Hence the reason I said "Starship will make it cheaper to go to space".

    The example of power satellites is an interesting answer. I could see that being a new market, although do you honestly see us adopting such a system in the next 10-25 years?

    I think for Starship to really create new markets there would need to be a serious movement to colonize space. So far there isn't a tangible economic model to spur that. Lots of folks on this site seem to be highly enamored with the sacred goal of colonizing Mars. They remind me somewhat of the first Jamestown settlers who happily starved to death as they vainly searched for gold. I'm all for cheaper space access and new markets. I'm all for colonization. But there's too much wild speculation and emotion driven thinking, i.e. "once Starships are available then we are going to build a city on Mars". We need to be practical about this endeavor if we are going to successfully colonize space. Wishful thinking just leads to dead adventurers on the surface of Mars.

    Reply
  29. I'm not saying people wont want to go to Mars. But a sustainable, permanent city is a whole other thing. Yes, there are people who want to go, and some who can afford to go, and many who will be willing to die once they get there.

    That's a science outpost. A city on the other hand, means families. It means a safe environment. It means jobs, schools, a sustainable market economy, and a functioning government to maintain all of that.

    It's one thing for 50 intrepid, courageous explorers to hop aboard Starship for a one way trip to Mars. It's another to build an entire city and to convince families that it's a safe place to raise their children.

    Reply
  30. You don't really read my whole posts do you? How did you miss the part where I discussed "Wild Alaska Guy". It might be helpful if you actually read and digested the whole post before you commented.

    Reply
  31. Actually, I already thought of that. It's my Wild Alaska Guy comment. I do think Starlink makes sense in that example. The challenge is that over the long term small villages without fiber will become the exception rather than the rule.

    Reply
  32. I think my point is, over the long term your parents' situation will become more and more the exception rather than the rule. How is Starlink, which I'm sure you know is going to cost tons of money to sustain in space, going to pay for itself as its customer base shrinks? I'm honestly asking the question. I personally don't care whether Starlink is successful or not, althoug I wish Elon the best. But I am curious as to how it's going to be profitable over the long term. I suspect that Starlink will need to compete against fiber if it's going to survive.

    Reply
  33. Everybody counts buddy. Even arrogant folks like you who presume that they know anything about me including that I have a "limited circle of acquaintances". Politely shove your judgmental attitude where the sun doesn't shine.

    "The advantages of Starlink are that it provides access comparable to cable, anywhere the population densities aren't too high, (It can only support so many links per square mile.) and that access is portable."

    Okay, that makes sense to me. I honestly hadn't thought of that, hence the reason I posted. You still didn't address the main point I made, which is that fiber will continue to expand.

    My cable isn't available 10 feet from my house. If I had Starlink it would be available anywhere I went. That's huge.

    How is that huge? When's the last time you were more than 10 feet from your house and you couldn't access the internet via a router or the hot spot on your phone? I've been surprised at how many times I've gotten a cell phone signal even while hiking the Appalachian Trail in some pretty rural areas. But even so, I didn't need it. And I didn't need to download anything. I had a map, which doesn't cost me $99 a month.

    Reply
  34. Again, read my last paragraph. Yes Brett, I'm sure you will go to Mars and die happy, as will many other intrepid explorers. I honestly wish you a safe journey and salute your courage.

    On the other hand, my wife says that we aren't taking our young kids on a 6 month journey thru heavily irradiated space to an inhospitable planet until there is a day care center there, along with a shopping mall, grocery store, good school system, plenty of jobs, and she's sure the low grav is not going to harm the kids.

    A science outpost, sure. A city, not for a long time.

    Reply
  35. Again, there's huge difference between intrepid explorers willing to risk life and limb, and families relocating to a city on Mars. You miss my point entirely. Again, I have no doubt that people are going to go to Mars. They will face many hardships. Some will die. But there isn't going to be a city there until Mars provides a safe, prosperous environment to RAISE FAMILIES!!!!!

    Here's a quick way to understand my point. Go find some young married couples who have kids. Not tell them that you think they should move their families to Mars. Make sure to tell them your philosophy that they should, as you put it "happily leave the earth for somewhere new, dying in large numbers" . Now watch how many of the wives tell you your crazy.

    Again, big difference between you JS going on a great adventure to happily die on Mars, and you getting your wife to agree to move the family there. That's why, while you will see a science outpost on Mars in the next 10 years, you wont see a city there any time soon.

    Reply
  36. You're comparing the New World and the Klondyke Gold Rush to colonizing Mars? There's a huge difference between a 6-week sea voyage to another continent, and a 6-month voyage across space to a low grav planet with an extremely thin atmosphere that can't support life. The Jamestown settlers had great advantages. The place they were going had a breathable atmosphere, game to hunt, land for crops, a 1g surface gravity, and a pleasant climate.
    None of that is on Mars where temps dip way below zero. And worse, on Mars there are no Van Allen belts to shield you from the Sun's radiation. At Jamestown you could cut down some logs and build a cabin. You could use a hoe to plant a garden and fish in a local stream. Doing any of that is impossible on Mars.

    Someday though it might be, but it's going to take a lot of hard work and preparation. At first, small groups of people will go to Mars to build an outpost and conduct experiments. They will learn how to grow crops in Martian soil. And how to build structures to shield themselves from harmful radiation, etc. etc. But all that will take time. Science outpost first, then, assuming the low grav doesn't kills us, eventually a city.

    Reply
  37. You're going to die regardless. You have some choice as to whether you do it achieving something worthwhile, or just marking time.

    Reply
  38. Industrial mining of asteroids will require rockets with better specific impulse than chemical rockets. That, or use of native resources for the return propellant.

    Manufacturing chemical propellants out at the asteroids would be a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but there's no real reason that you couldn't use the less valuable parts of the asteroid as propellant using a mass driver as a rocket engine. Or an "ion" engine only using charged dust.

    Reply
  39. To be fair, we are comparing to sat broadband, not passenger jet aircraft, so enuf speed to keep fairly close to *station* is good for that.

    Reply
  40. Its so nice to see people becoming wealthy buy building and creating rather than financial leeches… my hope is he becomes the worlds firs trillionaire and maybe buy a country here on earth that could be truly free too

    Reply
  41. That second link works for me.

    The article itself is interesting. Though it starts by saying it's a brand new aircraft design, then mentions it dates from the 1860s. As aircraft go that isn't very new…

    More importantly, as even the comments on the article immediately point out, what is the speed? The big issue issue with airships is that they can't move or react fast enough to deal with winds, and this doesn't appear to address this issue. Making it quieter is cool and all, but not the issue that prevented airships from being successful in the first place.

    Reply
  42. If Starship allows the industrial mining of asteroids, this will be peanuts compared to some future trillionaires, Musk among them.

    Reply
  43. Very interesting. Loon claims to navigate, wonder if it like this? Also, does thin air at very high altitude prevent the blimp from moving (accelerating) as fast, but would work with bigger *wing*? And most importantly as to competing with Starlink or other sats, does the thin air the blimp is in allow light to travel fast enuf to beat the longer path thru space the sats use?

    Reply
  44. Yes, that works. Orig shows "…" may be to get out of way of "Show More", which is determined by screen size . . . edit: once I found the page with the complete link, the browser now finds the incomplete match, as you said. Hard to test for these things in production, BTW! edit:, now it quit working on orig link no matter what!!! I hate variable computer behavior.

    Reply
  45. They are testing a blimp cell tower in my town (NH USA). It is a fairly complicated affair will several guy wireds to a giant rotating base station. It is on the ground more often then it's in the air. There is a minders shack on the site too. The amount of active management going into it and the UV vs plastic sheeting problem… Lets just say tech readiness level is low right now.

    I like the "atmospheric satellites" much better.

    Reply
  46. Yes, how dare people have like feelings and opinions about stuff. I much prefer my humans to have empty heads. Makes rounding them all up and stuffing them into the cattle cars so much easier. We never should have taught the plebes how to read look at all the horrible prosperity they have created for themselves why soon they might not even need to be imprisoned all the time!

    Reply
  47. Another potential way of serving internet (or even perhap mobile phone signal) to rural areas is the use of blimps.

    A British Group is seeking to reduce the size and cost of the blimps by
    having them fly using bouyancy changes alone, rather than a heavier
    propeller and motors:

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/avi … ancy-alone

    If it works it could provide the satellite and other internet providers with some useful competition.

    Reply
  48. The fact that people have failed to listen to O'Neill for over 40 years means they will continue to do so, unless. . .

    "A mass driver and catcher aren't going to come anytime soon." So, O'Neill is wrong? It takes 4 hours to drive to Dallas. But I have not been there in years. Does that mean it takes years to drive to Dallas?

    "planetary surfaces will be the best place for bulky resources such as. . ." Seems to require some justification to me!

    I do agree that lunar poles are good for water, but having to be on a planet to get half of your radiation shielding is a big cost. Especially if you have to go thru Space, the best place to be, to get there. edit: Al Globus' ELEO is even better than Moon or Mars surface for radiation protection, but is a little further throw for the mass driver.

    Reply
  49. Adding to these comments: Think of a small village somewhere where there is no existing web connection. They can connect everyone via a router. Think of someone on top of a mountain or on a small island that has no internet services. They now have internet and telephone and remote medical and learning. Now look at the price in those terms.

    Reply
  50. A mass driver and catcher aren't going to come anytime soon. For the foreseeable future, planetary surfaces will be the best place for bulky resources such as propellant, shielding / insulation, structural components, water for sanitation, irrigation, drinking, and breathable oxygen, organics, metals, glass, ceramics, NPK, etc. I too have read, "The High Frontier" but, like Chris68 remain a "material resource chauvinist". And, if you start at the poles of the Moon you have a better power situation than even equatorial LEO and a far, far, far better shielding situation than GEO or L5.

    Reply
  51. See my reply to Jean. Please consider Elon's statement (Guadalajara) of the Venn diagram intersection between those who want to go and those who could afford to go and that they would fund their ticket via their savings (e.g. sake of their home).

    A 100 tonne Starship payload could deliver an inflatable habitat with a footprint of about 2 acres. So a lunar or Martian settlement could provide a great deal of living space for settlers.

    Reply
  52. Consider the economics of lunar settlement with Starship. A round trip (launch to re-launch) to the Moon would occur about every 11 days per Starship. Let's say that SpaceX develops a fleet of 100 Starships. That comes to 3,300 trips per year. Say 100 settlers per launch paying 250k per ticket. So ticket sales would come to $83 B/yr with an increased company valuation of perhaps $330 B with Elon's value increasing perhaps $180 B. Mars round trip takes 70 times longer so divide those numbers by 70 to see the value of Mars.

    Reply
  53. The current market for space access is shaped by really, really high costs. As costs go down, market expands, and it doesn't do so linearly, because things that weren't economical to do suddenly become economical.

    For example, Starship will probably be cheap enough to make solar power satellites an economically feasible proposition. And that's a HUGE market.

    Reply
  54. "I don't know a soul who doesn't have access to an optical fiber line. "

    It's not a good look, confusing your limited circle of acquaintances for a representative sample of the population. Yeah, a bit over half the population lives in urban areas. A bit less than half doesn't live in urban areas, do they not count? There are people only a few minutes drive out of built up areas who can't even get cable! You absurdly over-estimate the penetration of fiber internet.

    The advantages of Starlink are that it provides access comparable to cable, anywhere the population densities aren't too high, (It can only support so many links per square mile.) and that access is portable.

    My cable isn't available 10 feet from my house. If I had Starlink it would be available anywhere I went. That's huge.

    Reply
  55. It is simple human nature. You mention Starship being cheaper, as is correct. Then you discount the effect that will have on people who will happily leave the earth for somewhere new, dying in large numbers, yet creating the very markets you discount along the way.
    Now they will be able to leave, whereas before the cost was way to high. Elon is doing to space travel what Hershey did to chocolate.

    Reply
  56. Why leave comfortable Europe, take a sailboat for on an months long uncomfortable and dangerous voyage across the ocean, land in a frontier with no family support, encountering hostile natives and diseases with a high risk of death? That was how the New World started.
    Why go to frozen Alaska, risk your life on the tiny chance of striking it rich in the Klondike gold rush?
    People will leave the earth for myriad reasons, from political and religious freedom, new opportunities etc. Some of those reasons will not make any sense to someone like you who already has the comforts of home. They will line up in droves none the less.

    Reply
  57. Elon will get close to Jeff Bezos if this goes through in January (likely) and TSLA stays above $700/share (less likely) but he probably won’t be judged #1 richest because SpaceX is private and harder to value.

    He’s also got the fact of nearly running through every tranche of his compensation program up through $650B market cap so he’ll soon lock in 10’s of billions worth of SpaceX options. Also hard to evaluate what that’s worth. It will be cool to see his compensation plan phase 3 though. TSLA up through $2 trillion in $100B slices?

    Reply
  58. 0 g is not on planets, nor is continuous bright sunlight, nor the ability to move things around without lifting, nor mix them all, nor easily get high g, basic industry stuff. Nor much room, barely one more Earth total in the system. But in Space, as you say "All the resources are there." A lunar mass driver or NEO/TCO capture may be as hard as digging stuff up on planet, but I doubt it. Then, the planet falls quickly behind. Please continue with detailed observations.

    Reply
  59. Yes, I've read it. Whatever you build in space, whether it be an O'Neill cylinder, space station, whatever, is essentially just a vessel. You still have to bring resources to it to make it economical. The advantage of planets is you don't. All the resources are there.

    If you're mining some extremely rare gas from the atmosphere of a gas giant, then O'Neill makes sense. For almost every other economic endeavor, planets are the better option.

    Reply
  60. Perhaps for some things, like being on a planet, or in a gravity prison. No way for making $$$s, clearly! Nor for much more than one tiny Earth more than we have now Planets are soooo small!.

    Reply
  61. In space there is nothing. No air, water, food, resources. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Planets have all that.

    To put it even more simply…..

    Space = zero

    Planets = stuff

    Reply
  62. Ok good answer, but where exactly is that? I don't know a soul who doesn't have access to an optical fiber line. 56% of the Earth's population lives in an urban area. Those that live in rural areas mostly have access as well. I suppose folks living in a 3rd world country like Mali may not, but then again they don't have running water or electricity. So if your spending billions of dollars to to build a space based internet system, one would think you'd need to have a market for it. The 1st world is out because they have access to fiber, and the 2nd world has become part of the 1st since the end of the Cold War, and the 3rd world can't afford it. So again, who is this for exactly and how is it going to be profitable? Sure, some guy living in the wilds of Alaska will subscribe. How many "wild Alaska guys" will Starlink need to sign up to become profitable?

    Thinking long term, which I know people detest, and given the rate of global economic growth, one would think that in the next 50 years most people are going to have access to fiber. Elon, being a smart guy, probably knows this as well. so I would think he has to have a better marketing plan than "Wild Alaska Guy". The only way to do that is be able to compete against fiber. For Starlink to survive it has to offer a better price, better service, or both.

    Chris68

    Reply
  63. What market is Starship going to create that doesn't already exist for a super heavy lift rocket? There's a modest requirement to put stuff into orbit like satellites, science probes, and telescopes. Then there's the need to take supplies to the space station. But beyond that, anything that can be produced in space and brought back to earth, can be produced much more cheaply here on the surface of the planet. Starship will make it cheaper to go to space, but it wont create any markets.

    In the next 10 years a Mars science outpost is much more likely than a city. No one knows what is going to happen to the human body living long term in Mars' low grav environment. The human body may not be able to endure .38g over the normal human life span. Then there is the cost of maintaining the outpost in an environment that doesn't support life. And if you want people to migrate to said city, they've got to be able to make a living there. Which means an economy able to provide people with a similar standard of living to what they have here.

    I'm sure there are plenty of intrepid people willing to go to Mars and endure harsh conditions in the name of science and exploration. But moms, dads, and kids hopping aboard a starship to Elon City is a long, long way off in the future.

    Chris68

    Reply
  64. Musk is stuck in planet chauvinism. Remove the limit to be on *a* planet from his task of preserving consciousness and you will find a much better solution with O'Neill/Bezos

    Reply
  65. Yeah, could be worse. All that money could have gone to a classical style billionaire CEO buying yatches and mansions.

    He wants space yatches and space mansions, and that's fine for me as well. Because even if space is only for the rich now, the door will now be open and the cost will eventually go down.

    Reply
  66. If you live in a city or metropolitan area, you aren't their market.

    It's for people that don't have what you have. That is, a good, cheap, ISP through optical fiber.

    Or people that want to have what you have, where it previously wasn't available.

    Reply
  67. Umm, internet service with a $500 kit and $99 a month? I pay less than that now for Cox and get a decent download speed. What's the business case for Starlink? If it's not cheaper than what's already commercially available, why are folks going to switch to it? Or is this mainly a service for those folks who live in remote areas and can't get access normally?

    Reply
  68. Starlink and Starship will be big business opportunities. Things that are mostly near Earth.

    Starship will create markets in space as well.

    The Mars city? not that much. Not that I believe it will be a big loser either, but it won't be a cash cow as the other two.

    But Musk isn't in it for the easy bucks. He wants his Mars city and he's gonna have it.

    Reply

Leave a Comment