Hacked intelsat 20 All Latest PowerVu Keys List 2020 – dvbs
We get Powervu keys from open source, and it is for informational purpose only. Sony Network PowerVU Keys on Intelsat 17 @ 66E. It is working Powervu Keys of Sony Network HD. Sony network was launched by Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd in 1995. Sony Network Updated PowerVU Keys on [email protected] and [email protected] Here is also updated PowerVU keys of Sony Network, ESPN, Six HD, Pix HD, AXN HD and Max HD on [email protected] [email protected] E TP H PowerVu Key 5C32D5EB5BE4EF ACh.
Keys PowerVu du 23.04.2020
Digital Satellite Update Biss Key and Frequency SatDTH. By Unknown In: PowerVU Key Insert Manual 2 comments. Download new update latest file software firmware and how to upgrade SW Freesat/GTMedia V7 Version all series and type V7 HD, V7 Max, V7 Combo, V7 Combo ATSC, V7 Plus, V7S Europe, V7S Middle East support DVB Finder, SatFinder, Auto roll Power Vu SPN Sony Packages Channel Satellite Asiasat 7, Intelsat 17, Intelsat 20, PBO Channel Measat 3A. Potentially dangerous file types require moderator validation! PowerVU was broken from last few years after that satellite developers are finding powervu keys of all satellite channels packages which are using the same encryption.
All Satellites Biss Keys 2020
Sony Entertainment TV Intelsat 17 PowerVu Key. Sony Network HD PowerVu Keys On Intelsat 17 E Updates Channel Name: Sony Entertainment TV HD, Sony Kix HD. Sony SAB TV India HD Sony Pix HD, Sony Six [HOST] Max HD [HOST] Max 2 HD, SET India HD. Frequence: H Satellite: Intelsat 17 E Date: 21/04/ Format: MPEG4, HD ECM 0: 98 6D E3 D2 83 A7 83. Sony Max HD New Biss Key Sony Max. Hi friends suddenly from yesterday Sony package 3845H30000 signal goes very weak on 6ft dist previously I got 70% signal on side lnb now 0% on base does any other member facing this issue. All Channels Power Vu Keys: Here Is The Key Which Is Need For Special Channels To Unblocked And Become a Free.
- Intelsat PowerVU Key Satellite Channels UPDATED 17.01.2020
- All Satellite PowerVU Keys 2020 – Kazmi Elecom
- How to Enter Biss Key on Some HD Receivers
- Wezone-CLAN 8785-8786 Latest Software Sony ok! – JK Dish Info
- Solid Hds2 6141 Powervu Biss Key Cccam Option
- Shaykh Muhammad Waseem Abbas – Well Info Site
- Sony Network HD PowerVu Keys On Intelsat 17 66E Updates
- Download Cracked TurnItIn Full Software
- Update latest biss keys
- Firmware Tanaka T21 Komodo
PowerVu Keys - Welcome to "JK Dish Info", It's All About
SATELITE DONGLE Q-Sat Q15G Dstv Decoder GPRS MPEG-Full HD. Powervu key new software intelsat 17 66e ok 23 september 2020 ALI3510C HW102.02.999 TEN SPORTS AUTO ROLL POWERVU KEY NEW SOFTWARE HELLO FRIENDS TODAY I M SHARING WITH YOU ALI 3510C HW102.02.999 TEN SPORTS AUTO ROLL POWERVU KEY NEW SOFTWARE USB APRIL 22 2020 NEOSAT 560D+ HD RECEIVER AUTO ROLL POWERVU KEY NEW SOFTWARE Alots of things or speculations surroundings the death of powervu specifically. Purchase satellite receiver which has Powervu keys option, otherwise, you will not be able to unlock Powervu keys channels. Geo Wild HD, Fox News, Sport 24 HD. PowerVU Key: 00= 98 6D E3 D2 83 A7 83 00 01= 25 CE 74 90 45 77 A5 00. INTELSAT-20/68.5E.
New PowerVU Keys 2020 – All Your Favourite is Here
What is powervu What is powervu. Here Sony Network HD PowerVu Keys On Intelsat 17 E Updates. PlayStation Network for games, Video Unlimited for film and television, Music Unlimited for music, and PlayMemories for photographs and videos. Intelsat 17 power vu keys s. DVB-S: 5000-7/8: Roli 121006: 11505 H tp AF7K Africa 0: Mindset: DVB-S: 13271-3/4: 5.5: Anonymous 200406.
- Latest PowerVu Keys – JK Dish Info
- Channel Keys Powervu keys 2020 - DVB Channels
- Sony Network All Channels Latest PowerVU Keys 2020 – All
- PowerVu Keys – JK Dish Info
- Merlin project crack mac
Key strong frequency of all satellite 2020
All Satelites TV Channels New Power VU Keys 2020 - Sat Guru https://fotodorogi.ru/download/?file=1327. Eng: Fugee 110205: 11519 H tp AF7K Africa (feeds) DVB-S: 3255-3/4. In this page we have posted powervu keys of American packages which are available on western satellites. This is a well know brand in India, but current software has few limitations such as not supporting BISS key, DiseqC 1.1. Home / PowerVu Keys / Sony Max HD On PowerVu Key [email protected] E Sony Max HD On PowerVu Key [email protected] E admin September 27, PowerVu Keys Leave a comment.
Activation code new Powervu key Daily update
Menu Application Shabbat Search Engine JewJewJew.com visit the website. Date: May 17, 2020 Author: satofficials 0 Comments Here HBO, CNN Update PowerVu Key On Intelsat 20 68.5, Satellite Tv channel are HBO, CNN Update PowerVu Key On Intelsat 20 68.5. Powervu keys 68e new, Powervu keys 68e 2020, Powervu keys Intelsat 20. AFN Powervu keys 2020, Powervu keys Asiasat 7 2020. Intelsat PowerVU Key Satellite Channels UPDATED Intelsat PowerVU Key Satellite Channels Pay TV, AFN Prime Atlantic, AFN News, AFN Sports, SET Asia, SET Middle East, Sony Max Asia, Sony SAB TV, Max Middle East, Sony Six HD, Animal Planet, TLC HD World India, Discovery Channel, BBC World News, NHK World Premium, Sony Kix HD, Sony Max. Miracle Box latest Version 2.54 Full Crack keygen Without Box 100% working Free Download with full Tutorial.
Key generator receiver Software (ReceiverSoftware) on Pinterest
Update latest biss keys. Satellite technical details and PowerVU keys. It is also used by cable companies to prevent viewing by unauthorized viewers and non-cable subscribers. Required fields are marked * Comment. Your email address will not be published.
New PowerVU Keys - Opentro Digital Content
STAR SAT SR-2020 HD HYPER RECEIVER SERIAL NUMBER 13, 14 https://fotodorogi.ru/download/?file=1322. Launched on the Long March 3B rocket, the satellite has a design life of 15 years with initial goals to provide broadband internet access, digital television broadcasting, remote and rural telephony, emergency. NK box then you can use this software ok, Download Software from Bellow Link. Sony Network New PowerVu Key 2020 Channel Name: Sony Ten 1 HD1, Sony Ten Golf HD, Sony Six SD, HD and Sony Kix, Sony Wah, Sony Pix, Sony Plex HD, Sony Sab HD, Sony BBc Earth. Intelsat PowerVU Key Satellite Channels UPDATED 17.01.2020.
SOLID 6363/6303 ALL FIRMWARES – JK Dish Info
Sony India Package PowerVU Keys on Intelsat 17 @ 66 E; Sony Pictures India PowerVU Keys on Intelsat 20; BBC World and NBCU E entertainment 68e powervu keys; INH PowerVU Key; Discovery channel PowerVU Key on Intelsat 21 @ 58.1 W; Telstar 18 @ 138 East PowerVU Keys; CNBC Africa PowerVU Key on IntelSat 20; On 101 West Sat.
- All Satellites Working Powervu Keys. - Neelum Tv HD
- Latest New Powervu Keys 2020 Updated Daily
- Sony Network HD New PowerVU Keys Frequency Biss key 2020
- New PowerVu Key 2020 – All Information About Satellite Dish
- Intelsat 17 66e PowerVu Key 2020 – dvbs satellite information
- Salaam TV On YahSat-1A @52.5E - All Satellite Biss Key
All Channels PowerVU Keys - Free download and software
Sony Network PowerVU Keys on Intelsat 17 @ 66E. Intelsat 17 @ 66E 3845 H 30000 P 0000 00 BCAF41BB6FDE1F; P 0000 01 C53F3032DD3BB3; Posted in PowerVU Post navigation. Reveal Search Form Reveal Off-canvas Navigation. SEN provided access to services, including PlayStation Network for games, Video Unlimited for film and television, Music Unlimited for music, and PlayMemories for photographs and vid. Intelsat's Globalized Network combines the world's largest satellite backbone with terrestrial infrastructure, managed services and an open, interoperable architecture to enable customers to drive revenue and reach through a new generation of.
|1||Intelsat17 66East Sony Network Latest Power VU Keys 2020||80%|
|2||Sony India Package PowerVU Keys on Intelsat 17 @ 66 E||45%|
|3||Latest powervu keys 2020, latest powervu keys, new powervu||17%|
|4||Sat Guru: All Satelites TV Channels New Power VU Keys 2020||3%|
|5||Sports Feed GERMAN FOOTBALL Bundesliga Biss Key Code||2%|
|6||RECORD TV On SES-6 40.5West - All Satellite Biss Key Feed||88%|
|7||ABS CBN PowerVU Keys Intelsat 19 - Opentro Digital Content||34%|
Hack keys Serial Shabbat Search Engine JewJewJew.com
All Satellites Powervu keys 2020 look at these guys. ALL POWERVU KEYS OF INTELSAT [email protected] EAST INTELSAT [email protected] EAST CHANNELS POWERVU KEYS Intelsat 20 E. Intelsat 20 E Satellite Tv Channel Name are Discovery Channel India, Discovery Tamil Nadu, Animal Planet India, Investigation Discovery India, Discovery Science India, Discovery Turbo India, TLC India, Discovery Kids India, BBC World News, NHK Premium, HBO South Asia, CNN Intl. Keys power vu last update latest keys power vu, power vu keys, update powervu, discovery europr keys, key discovery network powervu, astra E, asiasat E, powervu keys sony, wah, pix south asia, bbc earth, yay test, le plex, bbc earth, iptvsat4k new update satellite keys. Spelling Lists for 11th Grade https://fotodorogi.ru/download/?file=1311. Download new update latest file software firmware and how to upgrade SW Freesat/GTMedia V7 Version all series and type V7 HD, V7 Max, V7 Combo, V7 Combo ATSC, V7 Plus, V7S Europe, V7S Middle East support DVB Finder, SatFinder, Auto roll Power Vu SPN Sony Packages Channel Satellite Asiasat 7, Intelsat 17, Intelsat 20, PBO Channel Measat 3A, Tandberg, Auto Biss Key, CCcam, SCam, Youtube and IPTV.
Welcome to the r/SpaceX Inmarsat-5 Flight 4 Official Launch Discussion & Updates Thread!
Information on the missionIt’s SpaceX’s 5th launch out of Launch Complex 39A, and SpaceX's 4th East Coast communications satellite launch since JCSAT-16 in August 2016. Some quick stats:
- this is the 34th Falcon 9 launch
- the 5th SpaceX launch from Pad 39A
- the 6th launch since SpaceX suffered an anomaly during their AMOS-6 static fire on September 1, 2016.
This mission’s static fire was successfully completed on May 11th, and weather is currently 90% go for launch.
SpaceX is targeting an evening liftoff on May 15th at 19:20 EDT / 23:20 UTC from KSC, bringing Inmarsat-5 into geostationary transfer orbit, or GTO. This will be a 51 minute window, closing on 20:10 EDT / 00:10 UTC. The backup window is 24 hours from then, on May 16th.
Watching the launch liveSimilar to the last launch, there is no technical webcast for this flight.
SpaceX Launch Webcast (YouTube)
Official Live Updates
|Time (Local/UTC)||Countdown (hours : minutes : seconds)||Updates|
|20:50 / 24:50||SpaceX on Twitter - Quick video recap|
|New picture!, and Another one!|
|T+33:15||And that concludes the webcast. Thanks everyone for tuning in!|
|T+31:48||Payload separation confirmed! Full mission success!|
|T+28:28||Good transfer orbit!|
|T+26:25||John is back <3|
|T+25:45||MVac chill is underway|
|T+10:00||Holy hell, MECO was at 2.7km/s. No wonder it broke up so fast!|
|T+07:40||Stage 1 LOS, as expected|
|T+07:00||Crowd seems to be reacting to something?|
|T+05:30||I spoke too soon. Just S2 cam now. :(|
|T+04:40||Everything looking good on second stage|
|T+04:15||Still showing Stage 1, not that I'm complaining|
|T+03:35||Fairing separation confirmed|
|T+02:47||Stage separation confirmed!|
|T+01:30||I see it out my window! :D|
|T+01:13||Mach 1 and Max Q|
|T-00:00||Ignition! and LIFTOFF!|
|T-00:50||F9 is in startup. GO FOR LAUNCH|
|T-01:20||Vehicle in self align, FTS ready for launch.|
|T-01:50||Stage 2 closeout. F9 on internal power.|
|T-03:30||Strongback partially deployed and FTS is armed.|
|T-04:30||Range and Weather are GO!|
|T-05:00||Closing RP-1 loading for first stage. Also working no issues. LOX was loaded 10 minutes later to compress the countdown.|
|T-07:00||What a gorgeous view!|
|T-09:00||There we go!|
|T-10:00||Ten minutes to T-0, and still not live. Either the late LOX loading delayed things, or this will be a shorter webcast than usual.|
|19:00 / 23:300||T-20:00||♫ ♫ Webcast is up! ♫ ♫|
|18:55 / 22:55||T-00:25:00||"Late LOX load, TBD impact on launch time tonight." Thankfully the window extends until 08:10 local time (12:10 UTC)|
|18:45 / 22:45||T-00:35:00||LOX loading has started, about 10 minutes later than expected|
|18:28 / 22:28||T-00:52:00||SpaceX on Twitter - "All systems and weather are go."|
|18:25 / 22:25||T-00:55:00||Fueling has started|
|18:20 / 22:20||T-01:00:00||One hour to go! GO/NO GO polling for RP-1 loading should be underway|
|18:05 / 22:05||T-01:15:00||75 minutes to go, fueling soon|
|17:20 / 21:20||T-02:00:00||2 hours to liftoff, still quiet.|
|11:00 / 15:00||T-08:20:00||Weather is now 90% GO for launch!|
|07:45 / 11:45||T-11:35:00||Falcon 9 is vertical|
|03:45 / 07:45||T-15:35:00||Signing off for now, goodnight!|
|00:00 May 15 / 04:00 May 15||T-19:20:00||Launch thread goes live|
|09:00 May 14 / 13:00 May 14||T-26:20:00||Falcon 9 rolls out to LC-39A|
Primary Mission - Separation and Deployment of Inmarsat-5 F4Inmarsat-5 will be the 3rd GTO comsat launch of 2017 and 14th GTO comsat launch overall for SpaceX. Inmarsat-5 is a commercial communication satellite that will be launched for its customer, Inmarsat. At 6,070 kg, it will be the heaviest payload SpaceX has delivered to GTO. The satellite was manufactured by Boeing.
No first stage landing attemptThis launch will be a rare one going forward as it will not be followed by an attempt to land the first stage. As seen in the photographs, this Falcon 9 core is “naked”, ie without legs or grid fins. There will be no landing attempt because the payload is quite heavy (6,070 kg) and going into a high-energy geostationary transfer orbit. The last mission to fly on an expendable first stage was EchoStar-23 on March 16.
With the current version of Falcon 9, the payload limit for a reusable GTO mission is around 5,300 kg. There will be more expendable missions in the future (The next one could be Intelsat 35e some time in June), but the majority of missions will continue to include recovery attempts.
Useful Resources, Data, ♫, & FAQ
- Reddit Stream of this thread
- Mission Patch, courtesy SpaceX
- Official Inmarsat-5 F4 Press Kit, courtesy SpaceX
- RocketWatch, courtesy u/MarcysVonEylau
- Low bandwidth audio stream, for those with slow internet, courtesy u/SomnolentSpaceman
- Weather forecast
- Hazard area map
- SpaceX FM, courtesy u/Iru
- Inmarsat-5 F4 on Gunter’s Space Page
- Inmarsat-5 F4 Campaign Thread, courtesy SpaceX
- 7-Day KSC weather forecast, courtesy Weather.gov
- Hourly KSC weather forecast, courtesy Weather.gov
- SpaceXNow, courtesy u/bradleyjh
- Countdown Timer autodetects your time zone
- Another countdown timer
Participate in the discussion!
- First of all, launch threads are party threads! We understand everyone is excited, so we relax the rules in these venues. The most important thing is that everyone enjoy themselves :D
- All other threads are fair game. We will remove low effort comments elsewhere!
- Real-time chat on our official Internet Relay Chat (IRC) #spacex on Snoonet.
- Please post small launch updates, discussions, and questions here, rather than as a separate post. Thanks!
- Wanna talk about other SpaceX stuff in a more relaxed atmosphere? Head over to SpaceXLounge!
Previous SpaceX Live EventsCheck out previous SpaceX Live events in the Launch History page on our community Wiki.
Setting the score straight on SpaceX and its many absurd promises
There is a lot of ground - and many ridiculous claims - that need to be covered, so I'll be as brief as I can to avoid making a gigantic treatise-post out of it all. This is still going to be a pretty long post though (I count just over 3000 words).
- The carrier rocket that SpaceX currently has in operation. On its face, nothing particularly special about this one - the majority of its business is in delivering satellites to orbit or delivering cargo to the ISS. Was developed with the help of NASA as part of the COTS program, which sought to create new rockets to replace the Space Shuttle for cargo deliveries. A decent craft with a decent, if not remarkable, reliability record (in terms of both loss-of-mission and delays).
- Although its capabilities are nothing all too special (it can lift most medium-to-heavy satellites to common orbits, but has trouble with more advanced missions), its main selling point is that it is "extremely cheap." Indeed, Falcon 9's are offered moderately cheaper than the US Atlas or Delta (operated by ULA, very high reliability and high performance but quite expensive) and somewhat cheaper than their commercial competitors - Ariane and Proton - the difference tends to be severely exaggerated. When considering every factor that would matter in choosing upon which craft to launch - launch price, insurance costs, schedule anxiety, special mission requirements, and so on - it starts to become fairly clear that Falcon is merely one option, not the end-all be-all of rockets. And even for strictly commercial business, although price is important - and low prices did secure Falcon a lot of early business - other factors such as launch delays and lack of capabilities which might be used to extend a satellite's lifespan (each such factor can be worth tens of millions of dollars in satellite revenue over its lifespan) - lead to a situation in which saving a couple million dollars up-front is not the best choice overall.
- Despite this, SpaceX's biggest "advocates" assume that the only reason anyone does not fly anything and everything on a Falcon 9 is because of some form of conspiracy against SpaceX. The reality is that there are some missions that people choose to buy a SpaceX launch on, and some on which they don't, for any number of perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with hating SpaceX. The design choices that were made that reduced costs also often led to a lack of capabilities relative to more advanced rockets.
- The price point that SpaceX offers - around $63 million for a baseline 5.5-ton GTO satellite delivery - is a bit cheaper than the competition, but also nothing which the company's competitors are unable to bridge with upgrades to their current fleets or by reducing their profit margins (SpaceX makes little-to-no profit on its launches even if 100% of them had been successful, so it's already on the edge). The key promise they make to justify why it's going to retain a price advantage is that since Falcon 9 boosters can be reused, that price is going to come down significantly.
- The economic benefits of reusability, however, are heavily touted but never properly demonstrated. Indeed, the reason that most launch providers use expendable craft is because it's cheaper and more versatile to launch rockets without having to worry about recovering them, than to pay for R&D and infrastructure, to add additional hardware to reuse the rocket, and to refurbish the recovered craft for additional use. The case for reusability or lack thereof is a purely economic one, and the consensus over all schemes that seemed even somewhat viable is that it would be only worth it with higher flight rates than the current space economy can provide.
- No one in the space community said that "landing a rocket" was impossible - in fact, the McDonnell Douglas DC-X did this back in 1993 and provided the technological basis for Blue Origin and SpaceX to make the very same craft (and Blue Origin is at least honest about basing their recovery on the DC-X). However, between the payload penalty for having to save fuel to land (about 30% but it varies), inability to recover the craft for certain missions (too much strain, too much weight, other reasons), additional hardware required for piloting and landing, R&D costs, and other infrastructure requirements, we get the same problem as with every other recovery scheme: you need a lot of launches to actually get any net savings.
- Despite all the fire and fury, SpaceX has never actually demonstrated any meaningful savings. One statement from the company's COO says that they saved "half the cost" - which is deliberately ambiguous as to avoid specifics (half of what? which costs went into this accounting? how consistent is this savings?). Prices haven't gone down significantly, if at all (10% price reduction offered for early reusers - ironically about what kind of per-launch savings a lot of the competitors said they might save), justified as being because SpaceX wants to make back their R&D costs. Many boosters that are recovered are never going to be reused, and recently many boosters that could have been recovered were not. None of which definitively shows that reusability is not viable, but none of which provides evidence to the contrary.
- The VTVL ("landing a rocket") scheme has been studied by quite a few parties independent of SpaceX, and the consensus seems to be that somewhere in the 20-40 launches-per-year range is needed to gain significant cost savings. Given a worldwide downturn in the satellite industry (in both commercial and government) in the past year or two, you can expect that after SpaceX clears its current backlog the number of launches per year will significantly decline. The volume of contracts SpaceX has won has dropped substantially in recent years.
- Yes, "Block 5 is going to solve all of these problems" is a known claim. Over the years you will find that "we overpromised but the next iteration will make your dreams come true" is a standard MO for Musk businesses. Next it will be that "reusability will only become truly great on BFR." And so on.
- This additional commentary within this thread covers some of these Falcon 9 issues in a little more detail, including the competitors of SpaceX and where their competitive advantages lie.
- In short: the Falcon 9 represents a decent rocket that can launch fairly standard payloads with a reasonable reliability at a competitive price. However, if you evaluate it by what it actually does rather than by what it is hyped up to be able to do, it's much less impressive: it provides a couple million dollars of savings to its commercial and government customers on relatively standard missions, while making not all that much profit of its own. That's less "disruptive innovation" and more "price dumping."
- The cargo version does the mundane but important job of hauling supplies to the ISS pretty well. I'm surprised it doesn't get hyped too hard because I don't really have too much to say against it. But I guess there's nothing too inspirational about a rote task either; it just pays the bills.
- For the Crew Dragon, all I really have to say is that it's pretty late to release. Its Boeing equivalent (CST-100 Starliner) isn't particularly speedy in development either, but at this point we'd be lucky if either of them carries a single person to space before 2019. If the ISS ends its life by 2025 (after US government support is scheduled to end), it will have had a fairly short run since it's not really configured for missions beyond docking with a space station in low-Earth orbit.
- No, it's not NASA being an evil bureaucracy that is stopping SpaceX from realizing all its goals with Dragon. NASA gives each of its commercial parties a fair bit of freedom in how they chose to design their craft, but at the end of the day there are some very stringent safety requirements for manned missions. NASA ordering seats on Soyuz has very similar requirements (not the exact same because the situations are not the same, but similar nonetheless). And believe me, NASA would love to be able to stop having to ask Congress to buy more Soyuz seats - they just have to make sure that their astronauts are safe before they can do that.
- SkyPL covered most of the major issues very well in this post and I recommend reading his piece.
- Beyond that, all I will add is that rather than being an "absurdly cheap heavy launch vehicle" as was claimed by the SpaceX fandom, it's more so an awkward rocket with few practical uses. Its current manifest includes mostly (if not entirely - I'm not 100% sure on STP-2) missions that could be handled by a regular Falcon 9. While it was clearly designed to try to offer Delta IV Heavy capacities for cheaper, the truth is that there's barely a market for Delta IV Heavy as it is (consisting almost entirely of rare, highly specialized missions with high reliability requirements) and Falcon Heavy would mostly be competing with Atlas V for certain government missions. I really don't know why they thought that trying to make a Delta IV Heavy competitor would make business sense when there really just isn't any good market for that. The technological constraints of the original Falcon 9 design (small payload bay, low-powered upper stage, etc.) really just don't make this look like a very good idea.
- If Falcon Heavy can fill in certain gaps in Falcon 9 performance - such as being able to do direct GEO insertions - those were not demonstrated yet. The capacity is claimed in the abstract, but without any specific figures backing up such a claim, such as payload to that orbit.
- A plan to place thousands of relatively small communication satellites in low-earth orbit to provide high-speed internet access to the entire world. While LEO satellites don't cover as much terrain as GEO satellites, they do provide an advantage in lower latency. This blog by Intelsat provides as much detail as most would care about in describing how LEO constellations work compared to traditional GEO sats. The latter is a much simpler and more defensible project, though.
- The story of Iridium is often used as a good cautionary tale for the dangers of creating LEO constellations and assuming your market will be bigger than it actually is. I recommend that article, for seeing how the business was constructed, where money was spent, and how the logistics actually worked for getting to that point. While Iridium did become a marginally profitable business after bankruptcy, it's still high-capital, low-margin and vulnerable to even rather small income shocks. The reason the Iridium example is used for this comparison is actually a bit counterintuitive: because it was an engineering success (and only an economic failure).
- The historical LEO constellation that is actually most similar to Starlink is a different one though: Teledesic, also led by a well-regarded billionaire people didn't like to question until the idea died just a few years later. Same story, really: too much capital expenditure, not enough profit, but for Teledesic the capital kind of dried up before they launched the constellation and lost even more money.
- The OneWeb satellite constellation attempts to do the exact same thing and has pretty much every advantage over Starlink. OneWeb bought licensing rights from Teledesic, lined up customers, found extremely cheap satellite producers (target of $500k a pop but probably closer to $1m each come production time), got very cheap launches (on Soyuz in sets of 20+ per launch) - and even with all that it's a questionable multi-billion dollar venture whose profit potential is not certain. SpaceX has none of that going for it and thinks it will somehow do a better job, for no adequately explored reason.
- In all likelihood both ventures are just going to lose to terrestrial internet providers, who are inherently just straight-up better for all but the most niche of applications (e.g. providing internet to remote islands or ships, where there is no economic merit to creating a really long wire). They also have to compete against new high-throughput satellites which are going to make bandwidth (the real "product" for sale of those satellites) a lot cheaper. Neither of those businesses have anything close to the desperate margins that LEO sat operators tend to have.
- But contrary to pretty much every real-world indicator, Musk claims that Starlink will not only be profitable, but will be such a resounding success that it will fund all his Mars plans. Plus give Falcon 9 the high launch frequency it'd need to actually make reusability worth it as an added bonus! Unfortunately it's pretty clearly a fairy tale. To quote one of the articles linked above:
"It's not so sexy to build roads, but we're not going to overcome the challenge of missing infrastructure with flying cars"(a rather apt way to describe a lot of these pie-in-the-sky ventures proposed by Musk)
BFR, BFS, and other Mars Craft
- It's hard to talk definitively about something that exists mostly only on paper and has more conceptual artwork than precise technical details. The fact that one year the BFR can have 42 engines on its first stage, to the next year having 31 smaller engines, should tell you that either no serious engineering work was done on it or that it was a wasted effort because no one actually thought through the requirements well enough to be able to have something as steadfast as the basic design set down. And that of course has a cascade effect on everything down the line, such as what payloads it might be able to carry, and what their weight requirements would be.
- The only part of the rocket that is kind of real is the Raptor engine - and even that is thoroughly revised (downward, I might add) in terms of capacities (thrust and specific impulse) every time changes are discussed. This suggests some difficulties in developments - a reasonable expectation for an engine cycle (full-flow staged combustion) that hasn't flown before. Raptor has a higher chamber pressure than the ORSC RD-170 and RS-25 engines and uses subcooled methane (close to its freezing point for increased density), which suggests they are desperately trying to squeeze as much power as they can out of already notably small engines relative to the initial design. With such complexities, one may turn his/her attention to cost - and if the costs increase enough on a per-unit basis for Raptor, it will be simply inferior to a hydrogen-based solution (which will have significantly higher specific impulse simply by virtue of hydrogen being a more efficient fuel).
- These projects all promote methane as a fuel as if it were somehow something magical - when it's really just a hydrocarbon not all that different from the standard kerosene (RP-1) fuel. The issue of a lack of a high-power upper stage as with Falcon remains. For creating fuel on Mars, a hydrogen-oxygen craft would be far more efficient (both methane and hydrolox production require water, hydrolox is more energy-efficient and fuel-efficient). It's really hard to figure out how any of this might make sense beyond just hype.
- No, reusability isn't somehow going to make it all super cheap (same problems as with Falcon 9, but much larger scale). No, it won't be plausible to use BFR for Earth-to-Earth travel (much less profitable when even Concorde was a money-losing idea).
- Vertical integration (of the supply chain) - the decision to make everything in-house if possible - does reduce costs, but there are good reasons the competitors don't do it. The idea was fairly prominent in Ford-era manufacturing, and while it does reduce prices, it also severely reduces flexibility and adaptability such that your product line will generally be far more stagnant than that of competitors who are able to leverage the competitive advantage of suppliers in producing certain components. The results are quite consistent with that reality as well: Falcon sells for a discount, but the competitors are much better at creating advanced products or putting together missions that have special requirements.
- SpaceX arranges for absurd hit pieces to be published about their competitors - such as this one. They generally involve unreliable info spread by SpaceX-friendly reporters (who are being fed the story), and they allow that story to infect the public discourse. A very dishonest, and poisonous, practice that goes a long way to explain why it is that the media is so hostile to most genuine space ventures.
- Encouraging "a new generation of space fans" is really not a benefit if that generation is actively hostile to most productive work that is actually done in the field. It is genuinely harmful to the stated goal of promoting space when a certain subsect of the fanbase actively and aggressively heckles every competitor of SpaceX - by going to every news article, every video, every discussion and interjecting with "but can it land" or "overpriced garbage engineering" or "I don't like that it doesn't have enough cameras" or something of the sort. That is a toxic attitude that unfortunately the SpaceX folk have helped to create. While not every fan is like this, the SpaceX fandom is actively responsible for being genuinely toxic to all those who don't agree. This also does have a real effect on how people perceive others, including organizations like NASA.
- No, the fact that other launchers don't make a giant spectacle out of their launches doesn't mean that they're behind the times. The primary task of a launch isn't to snap tons of beautiful pictures or to show a rocket landing, it's to complete the main mission of getting the extremely valuable payload into the intended orbit. Everything else is secondary.