We have a bright future full of endless "space-junk". As the price to orbit drops, people will inevitably send up more and more satellites that have questionable value. In 100 years will the sky at night just be a massive grid of dots moving across the sky?

Who will create the first advertisement in space using satellites as pixels to create their company logo? Maybe they can add some color and animations for kicks.

Edit: Another note on space junk is the effect on our atmosphere with all the "burning-up" of various materials. Apparently they don't just completely vaporize, but instead leave behind micro particles that float around for a long time. People are studying this and hopefully raising appropriate alarms (Making the case for wood satellites).

Hank Green did a video recently advocating for an "orbit value tax" -- like a Georgist Land Value Tax, but for orbits. This tax would, among other things, help fund orbital cleanup and internalize the externality of polluting orbital shells. It's an idea that deserves more discourse IMO.

Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLjW6zuYmos

And who does the tax get paid to? Some mythical Global Government that will totally work this time?

My new startup, SPECTRE.

It's a new SaaS play - Satellites As A Service. That is, your satellite gets to stay in orbit as long as you pay me.

Otherwise my satellite killer eats them.

Any company removing space debris from orbit. Like a carbon capture price to offset your launch.

In low earth orbit, space debris removes itself after a few years

What you're describing is a global government, otherwise that can't be enforced.

US could sanction countries/corporations/people who don't comply.

US can enforce US satellites, no?

Provided they are launched in the US, on a US-owned carrier? Most likely

Can't necessarily stop a multinational firing things to space on Russian/Chinese/ESA launch vehicles

US spontaneously would go against one of their main strategic interests for the planet ? Doesn't make sense at all.

It's like this bicycle meme where the person puts a stick in its wheels.

It's for the same reason that petrol cars are encouraged in the US.

Punishing SpaceX will lead to a bigger financial crisis, an upset Elon Musk who might refuse to fund the next democratic election and dozens of thousands of lost jobs (fortunately they already became millionaire, riding the right rocket) for a problem that most of the rich population doesn't care about.

Because in the city, it's about your petrol car, big trucks, and nobody to see the stars and a bit more pollution doesn't change much at that scale from their eyes.

CFCs (these gazes destroying ozone) were a notable exception, because it would lead to death of everyone (the same way that petrol with lead), except death, universally there was no advantage to defend.

But a space filled with US satellites is a great advantage for the US, since they are the only ones with the capabilities to deploy thousands of them, and it's a big business for military intelligence.

The main reason they are going to regulate, is so that older satellite debris don't destroy the new shiny satellites, but beauty of the sky is going to be the very least important factor.

The video discusses this directly.

Do you think Russia will be willing to pay a tax on their new Rassvet constellation?

In practice the lower cost of access to space had made it viable to star requiring people to at least deorbit their upper stages, something that was long a no-go, with the excuse being that the extra fuel and redundancy would eat too much into the payload mass.

Nowadays it is generally frowned upon if you leave upper stages in orbit or if your satellite fragment spontaneously. There are of course exceptions (like some chinese launches leaving massive core stages in orbit that ten randomly fall back a couple months later) but AFAIK the situations seems to be actually improving due to the added robustness, that was only made possible by cheaper access to space.

There is a legitimate concern with space junk hitting useful stuff or even manned spacecraft but I think space is big and the sky won't appear bright soon. Not all satellites are that reflective and they need to reflect the sun, they don't just glow visibly.

At present, I don't believe there are industry standards / codes mandating minimization of reflectivity. My understanding is that SpaceX has engineered for this from their own internal requirements and "goodness of their hearts" (which may be related to avoidance of public pushback). As we anticipate a major scale-up of LEO in the future, it follows that "cost pressures" may (mal)incentivize players to skip this concern.

> "goodness of their hearts" (which may be related to avoidance of public pushback)

I hate this cynicism in everything. People didnt work there 10 years ago to be millionaires in a far away IPO, they worked there because they are Team Space.

Nonetheless, the company didn't start the whole non-reflective paint thing until well after the complaints started streaming in, significantly less than 10 years ago (DarkSat launched in 2020)

On the positive side, clearing out all this space junk could end up being a meaningful contributor to global GDP. See also Planetes [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

Thanks for reminding me, I started watching this and forgot about it!

Oh great the NIMBYs are coming for space now.

It's already a massive grid of moving dots. You can see it from the ground in certain dark-enough areas, but in order to see it in space you have to get outside LEO, like Artemis did. They don't have lights but they are shiny and they catch the sun, making them easily visible from certain angles, which the Artemis photos illustrated.

Not a grid of dots, a ring! https://earthsky.org/human-world/kessler-syndrome-colliding-...

It's a tragedy of the commons situation. And given how well we are able to regulate those kind of situations globally, I'm rooting for the ring.

Satellite broadband stonks in shambles after the inevitable Kessler syndrome

Dark night skies will probably be one of the main selling points for the off world colonies. I can see the Bladerunner-esque ads now.

It’s already starting to be like that. If you get far enough out into the bush away from light pollution and watch the stars for a bit, you can see the grid of satellites orbiting. It’s kind of cool but also kind of depressing.

"Unobstructed view of the stars" will soon be how space tourism companies upsell their customers to higher orbits.

I think they saw how SpaceX was using Starlink as launch lever to provide SpaceX a baseline of regular launches at bare-minimum cost. As RocketLab starts to scale up, being able guarantee a minimum number of launches is a significant hedge against the dips in the global satellite market.

Also, RocketLab builds their own sats and can add the Iridium constellation replacements to their order book. It's a win-win. A smart move by Peter Beck and his team.

What does Tesla have to do with Starlink or launch services?

Derp; I meant SpaceX.

Might be one-in-the-same soon enough

This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster ?

"Rocket Lab acquires Iridium" sounds like a notification out of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Anno 2205.

Rocket lab used to be a New Zealand source of pride, having started there. From the press release, now it’s American. What happened?

It was always an American company. In order to launch rockets from countries in the US sphere of influence (even from NZ), companies must obtain an FAA license.

Rocket technology itself is so intensely regulated by US export control laws that it’s practically impossible to develop an orbital launch vehicle without being a US- or Europe-registered company.

It is a real shame. It also looks like a lot of engineering work is shifting away from NZ — Auckland seems to be focusing more on operations and space systems, and the launch stuff is moving to the US with Neutron.

Needs access to American capital markets, contracts, governance structures, and jurisdiction (applicable law).

SpaceX previously said that are not allowed to hire foreign nationals generally.

So guess NASA told Rocket that if they want American contracts, they need to move?

https://qz.com/794101/elon-musk-explains-why-he-doesnt-hire-...

at least it's still got a bunch of Kiwi engineers building the Rutherford engine.

It sure doesn't help that New Zealand's housing market is one of the most unaffordable in the world.

same thing that always happens to companies, money

Capital probably, market access. It is pretty hard to raise capital for high risk ventures like that everywhere in the world other than the US.

RocketLab gains spectrum + profitable satellite company

> Rocket Lab has secured commitments for a $3.6 billion bridge loan from Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo to fund the cash portion of the acquisition.

Given the timing, this seems like a risky move as they'll be issuing debt in mid-2027 to refinance the bridge, at a time the market could be saturated / corrected.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/rocket-lab-bu...

Iridum gains 23 launches per year with 100% success rate in the past 12 months, a satellite manufacturing pipeline with 6 satellites produced and launched, and a cost-to-orbit of $25K/kg operational (with an in-development design targetting $4K/kg).

They are late compared to SpaceX, to be sure: 150 launches per year, 2400 satellites manufactured per year, $3K/kg operational with F9, target $200/kg in development with Starship.

You act as if 'launch' is a thing. All Rocket Lab launches ever combined don't even fill a single SpaceX rocket. Those are not the same thing.

Lets see their reliability when they have a bigger rocket and if they can land reliably. Because their rocket will be quite expensive to build.

I think that’s the point of their niche right? They are already plenty reliable. Also let’s them do stuff like this:

https://rocketlabcorp.com/updates/victus-haze/

And access to a customer base. A lot easier to sell them new services if they already have a big contract with you

A profitable satellite company with a lot of debt and satellites that target the previous model of bespoke terminals when the market is moving to satellite service on regular phones.

Iridium is launching 5G standards-based direct-to-device capabilities this year: https://www.iridium.com/services/iridium-ntn-direct

> the market is moving to satellite service on regular phones.

I don’t think there a unified “market” here. The fixed rooftop terminals and fixed-ish roaming terminals use high (tens of GHz) frequencies with correspondingly wide bandwidth, have excellent beamforming capabilities and some degree of MIMO to improve spectrum reuse, and consume an amount of power that would be outrageous for a phone. Phones don’t have reliably clear views of the sky and have much weaker RF capabilities.

Oh, and phones are well served by existing 4G and 5G networks in dense areas, with better spectrum reuse than seems practical for a satellite constellation.

I expect that we will actually see two separate markets that happen to share the same satellites and backhaul.

//I don’t think there a unified “market” here.

You mean like the ASTS/Vodafone partnership that birthed the Satellite Connect Europe?

https://www.vodafone.com/news/newsroom/technology/satellite-...

https://www.vodafone.com/news/newsroom/technology/vodafone-a...

Or like the US JV where they provide the infra for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260513491108/en/AST...

//Phones don’t have reliably clear views of the sky and have much weaker RF capabilities.

And they appear to have circumvented that, although ease of scaling remains to be seen.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/comments/1k6whtf/rak...

My claim is that these are not the same market as the traditional Starlink service.

Iridium terminals can be very power-efficient. Consumer ones are the size of a deck of cards and can last for days.

The spectrum is the big thing. If they wanted a revenue stream they could just buy bonds.

I like RocketLab. Looking forward to Neutron etc. But this is a bad investment, no other way to put it.

> But this is a bad investment

Brother, share with us a sentence or two of why you think so

Uncertain what Iridium global RF band allocation holdings were worth.

If it is still pole-to-pole global monolithic coverage, than hardware/legacy-protocols are of secondary interest. Modern SDR transceivers with proper RF beam-steering front-ends could retrofit the business while slowly phasing out legacy hardware.

But I do agree, Iridium was too pricey for most consumer product markets, and there were several other satellite broadband services.

Additionally, Starlink Direct to Cell (VoLTE) service now leverages global cellphone client infrastructure. It would be extremely foolish to compete with something proprietary. =3

“Rocket Lab” not “RocketLab”. Although I think the latter is better.

Good to see the competition making moves, SpaceX's huge lead isn't ideal.

Sailors may be a small and dwindling community, but this is our core use case. When you are sailing offshore you need to download weather predictions so that you can chart your course to catch favorable winds. My experience with Iridium is that you open a targeted set of ports for the modem to feed your phone via, and then you don't have to think about it again. 100+ nautical miles offshore and it just works.

It’s not about Iridium. It’s about Iridium’s customers and partnerships. RocketLab hopes to launch their own satellites presumably and then can sell significantly improved services to them, without having to build a customer base from scratch.

AFAIK Iridium is part of some important airliner navigation systems and standards - while a niche, it can still be very lucrative business. and I would not be surprised if it was embedded like this into various other systems that are less cost sensitive.

Remember when NeXT acquired Apple for negative 400 million?

RocketLab market cap is 57b.

Iridium market cap was 5.5b and this transaction values it at 8b.

How is Rocketlab valued 57B? They made $500M of revenue in 2025. This is 100x their entire balance sheet.

Yeah, that seems grossly unrealistic. They are growing. Neutron is almost complete, and I'd expect significant growth in their launch revenue from that, and their space services are also doing well. So I could easily see their revenue increasing 5x over the next 5 years, maybe 10x. But that market cap can only be justified by the space market as a whole growing 100x, and RL maintaining a significant portion of it with strong competition from SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others.

> Neutron is almost complete...

I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars from my early investments in RKLB but this isn't true if by "complete" you mean they have a proven launch vehicle. The company is now targeting late 2026 for Neutron's inaugural flight.

Neutron was announced in 2021. There were hopes for a 2024 first flight. Then it was mid-to-late 2025. Now it's Q4 2026 after a failure related to the stage 1 tank earlier this year.

If anyone can pull off using carbon composite for a launch vehicle of this size, it's RKLB. But nobody has done it before and I think the retail investor base is taking for granted something that is not at all guaranteed. There's much more risk than a lot of people think.

In some ways, RKLB is more like pre-clinical biotech stocks, which usually produce binary outcomes (a drug succeeds or it fails, and the company's fate is based on that). If Neutron works, RKLB gets to execute its grand vision. If it fails, it doesn't. The vision (and valuation) doesn't work without Neutron.

A rocket being nearly complete just means they haven’t started the multi year testing delays when the first couple of launches inevitably fail

This is a good question for SpaceX too.

Why was Uber valued in billions for years while making zero profit?

Why was Amazon valued at billions while making zero profit?

The stock market prices companies by many factors, revenue and profit are factors but so is growth.

Utilities companies make lots of profits but they are valued badly because they don’t grow at all!

Markets are forward looking and space is seen as a huge growth driver for the future, also RocketLab has been growing their top line revenue massively over the last few years.

Uber and Amazon made zero profit, but a lot of revenue. That's very different from losing money on fairly little revenue

But RocketLab did have five years of strong revenue growth. And they have a lower PS ratio than SpaceX. So at least compared to industry-rivals the valuation is justified

Exactly my point.

Iridium's revenue is larger, and I wouldn't think they'd be losing money.

But apparently you can buy things with promises (if you're in the right club, of course).

I'm guessing they acquired it mostly exchanging stocks. Which I guess is an indication that their stock is overvalued right now if they're willing to overpay by that much.

Look at GameStop’s quixotic attempt to acquire eBay. Which is actually not impossible.

It's an interesting way to apply for the eBay CEO job for sure.

Someone's been reading Money Stuff.

5x the market cap!

Did GameStop acquire eBay?

They are trying.

Rocket Lab's market cap is 57B and are buying Iridium for 8B. I'm assuming you're implying some other measure of worth, but it's not that crazy based on stock price.

Also folks acquire things "worth" more than them all the time. That's in part why debt exists.

There are a lot of folks out there that are overly cynical and so they'll just write things like the OP from time to time which just don't make much sense or have much to do with how the real world works. What's more interesting is looking at or trying to understand strategically why Rocket Lab is making this move, especially if you are an investor.

Dell bought EMC for 67b when they were worth 24b

This is one of those times you actually get to use "leverage" as a verb without sounding turbo cringe: a leveraged buyout is an acquisition with borrowed money; the hope is that you will be able to pay back the debt with the money you make off the acquired assets. Doesn't always pan out but sometimes it does.

That's this thing called credit.

People do this all the time, that's how they buy their first house (or at least used to...). Your net worth is basically zero beyond what you saved for the down payment, but the bank advances you the money to buy the house because it believes your future income streams will allow you to pay the principal plus an interest.

being able to foreclose on the house/property is a pretty decent protection for the bank that doesn't exist for a business though