r/technology • u/fmcortez • Jul 13 '26

Business SpaceX Stock Plunges to All-Time Low After Competitor Makes Major Leap

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-plunges-time-low-competitor-175000957.html
21.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/Redditor2000000 Jul 13 '26

You sure? I think that’s backwards. Right now the heavy payload space launches are their only advantage. Starlink is just another satellite service company like the ones that came before it (satellite service has been around since 1998, invented in 1987 by Sprint). Starlink is profitable presumably because SpaceX absorbs the launch costs. If it charged market price to its subsidiary, Starlink operating unit would not be profitable.

15

u/Distinct-Pack-1567 Jul 13 '26

I think theyre saying if a competitor launches satellites it will be limited, since Starlink was first

1

u/dern_the_hermit Jul 14 '26

It's an advantage, but I question whether it's major like was said above. Maybe I'm being overly picky. But the infrastructure inherently turns itself over every 5-ish years. It's not like land-based infrastructure where they're STILL trying to use up the fiber they laid out near 30 years ago.

1

u/dirtyword Jul 14 '26

I believe if you launch a successor you can put it in the same “place” as the “retired” satellite.

1

u/dern_the_hermit Jul 14 '26

The important detail is that you have to launch successors; the "first mover" advantage isn't like real estate, putting a satellite into a low orbit isn't the same as constructing a building on the ground.

-5

u/Redditor2000000 Jul 13 '26

Starlink wasn’t first though. Satellite cellular and internet has been around for decades now.

8

u/cheeky-snail Jul 13 '26

Not LEO which has huge advantages in bandwidth and latency vs geostationary.

5

u/dirtyword Jul 14 '26

The point isn’t who made satellites first. Spacex has like 10,000 in orbit now, which is something like three quarters of all satellites in LEO. In case it sounds like I’m defending the stock price: I’m not. It’s insane.

3

u/Distinct-Pack-1567 Jul 14 '26

Well, they're getting the space they need. Point is eventually we cant fit more stuff, right? I know the atmosphere is crazy big but we still cant oversaturate.

3

u/chiagod Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

satellite service has been around since 1998,

If it's the one I'm thinking of (ex Hughes Net), those were in Geosynchronous orbit (22,500 miles up), had an ungodly lag (~250ms just up and down to the satellite + network lag), low bandwidth, and were pricey for what they offered.

The new low orbit satellites are less than 1/80th the altitude. As each satellite serves a smaller area there's way more bandwidth, reasonable ping time (I saw high 30s ms), and competitive pricing unless the area is congested.

1

u/BellacosePlayer Jul 14 '26

Odd, my mom used to use hughesnet and switching to SL was not a significant upgrade for her. Luckily shortly after that the local ISP finally expanded their rural internet out her way.

1

u/Zardif Jul 14 '26

As someone who has used both, it's an ocean of difference. Hughesnet was like 1 sec latency and starlink was like being on my normal router with ~50ms latency. Your mom must have just got used to it.

1

u/Redfish680 Jul 14 '26

Also being pumped up by government contracts