SpaceX is super heavily vertically integrated which probably helps a lot with the financials. Also note that their financials aren't public, so there's all kinds of funny possibilities (what if SpaceX launches are sold below cost as a loss leader?)
I'd also imagine that they need a TON of subscribers to make it profitable. However by commoditizing their satellites the marginal cost of improving coverage is low (compared to GEO where every satellite is a billion dollar bespoke system).
Phased array antennas have been around for a while but I wouldn't be surprised if the starlink terminal is the first consumer device to actually use them (other than maybe boat radars?). They're still pretty expensive.
I've heard it suggested that Starlink is used by SpaceX to keep their schedule fully booked, which helps them maintain quality standards, training, etc. If so, they could perhaps lose money on Starlink but still come out ahead when you factor in the benefit of having experienced workers for whom building and launching rockets is routine.
That's a great point. Similarly it's also a great opportunity for them to push the limits of reusability. A rocket failure with a paying customer's payload is Very Bad. But the risk tradeoffs look a little different if it's your own payload and you already have an assembly line churning out replacements
We know about how much investment was made in SpaceX. And the idea that SpaceX has for 10+ years sold launches as loss leader simply doesn't add up.
The opposite is more likely, they were profitable already for years and then the made re-usability happen and their margin should be huge. They have not really lowered the price since they introduced re-usability.
This is where I get a bit suspicious of the whole thing, as the areas where this service makes the most sense for a consumer is sparsely populated rural areas. I don't see how the economics works out.
You don't see how the economics works out because you are not factoring the client with the deepest pocket: the military.
Putting tin hat
The low orbit large non-stationary constellation of Starlink makes harder for other countries to deny service by attacking the satellites.
Also, the sensor fusion from modern jets need a point to point (to avoid possible compromised infrastructure), high bandwidth low latency communication. Starlink seems a great fit.
This is only based on what we know the system is capable of. Going on the realm of speculation, it is not difficult to imagine how a system, at low altitude, that cover the whole planet, can be used to eavesdrop communication from other countries.
Also, the satellites are made to have a right turnover, they can be always updated with the latest technology.
Lets not forget that the Arecibo Observatory (that collapsed this week) was made to listen for russian radio waves reflected from the moon. Maybe Starlink is the Arecibo 2.0
In summary, I think the Starlink is a military project subsided with paying customer. I wasn't made to make profit, it was made to make SpaceX a viable company in the long run.
My experience is poor memory :) After looking into it a bit, it seems that only the military is using phased array radars on boats. I think I misremembered an article about Garmin and Raytheon introducing solid state radars a few years ago
I'd also imagine that they need a TON of subscribers to make it profitable. However by commoditizing their satellites the marginal cost of improving coverage is low (compared to GEO where every satellite is a billion dollar bespoke system).
Phased array antennas have been around for a while but I wouldn't be surprised if the starlink terminal is the first consumer device to actually use them (other than maybe boat radars?). They're still pretty expensive.