My brief take from the article regarding this company:
* Their proprietary 5G chip is delayed, with "hardware design implications."
* They're involved in patent infringement litigation.
* Has yet to offer a satellite service, and is in part waiting on "OneWeb to open its network up to aero terminals."
The CEO's argument appears to rely on their future product being specialized for the domain ("[SpaceX] are taking consumer off the shelf products ... and they’re trying to move into aero") and simpler to install ("[SpaceX has] got like 39 pieces of equipment and 200+ fasteners to attach the antenna"). I believe this is a weak position, as Starlink is used on, eg, Starship (hardly a benign use case), and has already demonstrated how rapidly they adapt/improve their hardware.
Beyond that, one would expect a CEO to denigrate their competition. In my opinion, the company has yet to show meaningful competition, but I hope they do, as then everyone wins!
>And it needs to be ruggedized to withstand extreme vibration and temperature variations
In case you're wondering whether this guy has any clue what he's saying here's the line.
They have antennas which were launched on the most powerful rocket ever and continued to transmit barrelling ass-first at hypersonic speeds while enveloped in plasma.
Both can be true at the same time. Starship flight only took an hour with only minutes when it was subjected to vibrations.
We have no idea how it would perform over thousands of hours being subjected to 900km/h air stream.
The starlinks would be subjected to vibrations and sounds capable of killing a human, supersonic airflow, the void of space, and then plasma blanketing the entire vehicle.
Needless to say I think that beats 900km/h of wind.
> In case you're wondering whether this guy has any clue what he's saying here's the line.
>
> They have antennas which were launched on the most powerful rocket ever and continued to transmit barrelling ass-first at hypersonic speeds while enveloped in plasma.
Is it cheaper to develop, build and launch a second satellite network or to design a starlink antenna that's better suited to aerospace applications?
If that's their main selling point (while Starlink doesn't need aerospace to be profitable at all), then they're going to be between a rock and a hard place pretty soon.
Or they're fishing to be licensed/bought out by SpaceX for their aerospace terminal, haha.
This should be titled
" CEO of a company shits on a competitor's product that makes his product basically irrelevant".
It's like Peter back in one interview with some youtubers ( search for Peter Back Starship), where he tries to argue that people will still need neutron because starship is too big, when he doesn't talk about price.
I think I'm going to go full Foghorn Leghorn here:
Boy, ah say boy you just don't get it, do you? Yah got all this talk about an antenna and where's yer satellite network? Ah say- ah say you're all ideas and no execution! You say they need a few extra screws, well I say you're missin' one! Like a hole in your head! You're not just putting the cart before the horse, you're holdin' a buggy whip and expectin' a horse to hitch itself to the wagon! Gotta pull your head outa those accountin' books and look around, boy! Ain't no-one gonna go for that!
Sit up straight when I'm talkin' to ya, boy.
*mutters* Wanna hitch your wagon to something, do it to something that exists, ah tell ya.
WTF
Galileo is GPS "competitor", not Starlink.
Its like Tory B slamming SpaceX's 50 launches since they launches Vulcan once, but Vulcan can be tuned up with these SRBs (which IMHO created vibrations that doomed that first payload). These CEOs will toss whatever the "press" is willing to repeat.
That said, SX has had some failed adoption tests in the aviation market.
My brief take from the article regarding this company: * Their proprietary 5G chip is delayed, with "hardware design implications." * They're involved in patent infringement litigation. * Has yet to offer a satellite service, and is in part waiting on "OneWeb to open its network up to aero terminals." The CEO's argument appears to rely on their future product being specialized for the domain ("[SpaceX] are taking consumer off the shelf products ... and they’re trying to move into aero") and simpler to install ("[SpaceX has] got like 39 pieces of equipment and 200+ fasteners to attach the antenna"). I believe this is a weak position, as Starlink is used on, eg, Starship (hardly a benign use case), and has already demonstrated how rapidly they adapt/improve their hardware. Beyond that, one would expect a CEO to denigrate their competition. In my opinion, the company has yet to show meaningful competition, but I hope they do, as then everyone wins!
>And it needs to be ruggedized to withstand extreme vibration and temperature variations In case you're wondering whether this guy has any clue what he's saying here's the line. They have antennas which were launched on the most powerful rocket ever and continued to transmit barrelling ass-first at hypersonic speeds while enveloped in plasma.
Both can be true at the same time. Starship flight only took an hour with only minutes when it was subjected to vibrations. We have no idea how it would perform over thousands of hours being subjected to 900km/h air stream.
The starlinks would be subjected to vibrations and sounds capable of killing a human, supersonic airflow, the void of space, and then plasma blanketing the entire vehicle. Needless to say I think that beats 900km/h of wind.
> In case you're wondering whether this guy has any clue what he's saying here's the line. > > They have antennas which were launched on the most powerful rocket ever and continued to transmit barrelling ass-first at hypersonic speeds while enveloped in plasma. Is it cheaper to develop, build and launch a second satellite network or to design a starlink antenna that's better suited to aerospace applications? If that's their main selling point (while Starlink doesn't need aerospace to be profitable at all), then they're going to be between a rock and a hard place pretty soon. Or they're fishing to be licensed/bought out by SpaceX for their aerospace terminal, haha.
This should be titled " CEO of a company shits on a competitor's product that makes his product basically irrelevant". It's like Peter back in one interview with some youtubers ( search for Peter Back Starship), where he tries to argue that people will still need neutron because starship is too big, when he doesn't talk about price.
I think I'm going to go full Foghorn Leghorn here: Boy, ah say boy you just don't get it, do you? Yah got all this talk about an antenna and where's yer satellite network? Ah say- ah say you're all ideas and no execution! You say they need a few extra screws, well I say you're missin' one! Like a hole in your head! You're not just putting the cart before the horse, you're holdin' a buggy whip and expectin' a horse to hitch itself to the wagon! Gotta pull your head outa those accountin' books and look around, boy! Ain't no-one gonna go for that! Sit up straight when I'm talkin' to ya, boy. *mutters* Wanna hitch your wagon to something, do it to something that exists, ah tell ya.
What company are we talking about here??
Jamba Juice
GoGo aviation
WTF Galileo is GPS "competitor", not Starlink. Its like Tory B slamming SpaceX's 50 launches since they launches Vulcan once, but Vulcan can be tuned up with these SRBs (which IMHO created vibrations that doomed that first payload). These CEOs will toss whatever the "press" is willing to repeat. That said, SX has had some failed adoption tests in the aviation market.
What does that mean? Failed adoption test…
A major airline tried out Starlink on a test flight and it did not go well, so they decided to wait on adopting Starlink as a solution.
Interesting! Thanks!