Haven’t heard that though you need a lot of other launches with space available….

Unless you want to separate starlink from spacex it’s kinda the other way around.

I think spacex was adding starlink deployment to all their rockets and their “plan” was to launch other satellites and nasa projects, then get the starlink stuff up there for less.

That "for free" part is probably paid for by someone (invertors, rocket company, ...)

Great theory, but the Falcon 9 is already a proven design and most of SpaceX’s R&D is going to the starship, which uses completely different engines and which has blown up or disintegrated just as much as its successfully gotten above the atmosphere. It’s also never actually completed an orbit or delivered a gram of anything to orbit.

Starlink is a useful tool to boost launch numbers precisely so investors think things are better than they actually are. Originally SpaceX burned through government and private investor money. Now that they’ve blown through the entire Artemis budget the interim director of nasa gave them through blatant corruption, and launched even more billion dollar fireworks using private investor money, they are desperately trying to convince the public for more fireworks funds.

GPS was planned out and deployed over 20 years (from proposal to operational).

It was also designed and worked for its intended purpose with only 24 satellites.

Block III gps satellites are designed to last 15 years and there are 10 of them.

Starlink is disposable chains of 1,000s of satellites that will be constantly burning up in the atmosphere and replaced at huge costs, including co2 from the launches.

I don't think it's the same, we already have the infrastructure for the network in most places with a dense population. Existing infrastructure is of the similar quality to Starlink, and the maintenance cost for the existing infrastructure is lower.

In case of GPS, the infrastructure existing before was much worse.

The only cases I can think of, where Starlink outperforms the existing infrastructure are:

1. Areas with low population density - the problem, in those areas, by definition, there aren't many customers

2. Situation when someone is actively trying to sabotage the existing infrastructure, like those ships, that are breaking underwater internet cables, or the active jamming near the front lines - what happens in the Ukraine shows that Starlink is great for that case. It is enough to treat it as strategically important, but it doesn't justify the starlink valuation. I really hope this market won't grow much.