upvote
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.

reply
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.

reply
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/

reply
> 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...

reply
And access to a customer base. A lot easier to sell them new services if they already have a big contract with you
reply
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.
reply
Iridium is launching 5G standards-based direct-to-device capabilities this year: https://www.iridium.com/services/iridium-ntn-direct
reply
> 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.

reply
//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...

reply
They didn't circumvent phone antennas being largely omnidirectional (unlike VSAT or phased arrays, which are highly directional) and as a result having much lower gain, they just work with it, just like Iridium, Globalstar, Inmarsat, Thuraya, and all the other early players in what's now called "direct to device".

The market is as bimodal as ever on the device side: On one side, you have small, battery-powered, (mostly) omnidirectional device antenna, portable devices that mainly operate in the L-band, which works much better in these conditions; on the other side, you have highly sophisticated, steered, high power (dozens of watts) antenna arrays operating in the Ku or Ka band.

On the satellite side, both can be served by the same satellites, as has been the case for e.g. Inmarsat's I-6 series and Starlink's direct-to-cell capable satellites (I believe these all include Ku-band coverage as well).

reply
I suspect that the lack of ability to form nulls in the beam is as big or even a bigger limitation than the reduction in gain when going from a big array to a phone.

The SNR in Shannon’s Law has a log in front of it, but spectrum reuse is more or less linear. If there are five visible satellites and I can null out four of them, then I can receive from and transmit to the fifth without substantial interference. (I’m not saying this is easy! Contemplate how many WiFi generations have had MIMO and how limited it still is.)

So I believe that it’s comparatively straightforward to demonstrate a shiny new direct-to-cell system with a single phone on a stage, but achieving usefully large aggregate bandwidth in a dense area will be more challenging.

FWIW the problem with Iridium, historically anyway, was that available bandwidth was very low, so they had to charge a silly amount for usage of that bandwidth, so very few people used it. Iridium used low-ish frequencies, with narrow bandwidth, and (I think) no MIMO whatsoever, not even polarization diversity.

reply
My claim is that these are not the same market as the traditional Starlink service.
reply
Iridium terminals can be very power-efficient. Consumer ones are the size of a deck of cards and can last for days.
reply
I wonder how much of the power-efficiency is due to being much slower.

Don’t need to blast and beam-steer if you can deal with poor SNR by taking your time to differentiate the 0s and 1s?

Which is more power efficient per megabyte?

(But I get it: sometimes a few bits is all you need)

reply
All of it. You can't really get around physics.

Iridium has historically targeted low-power, omnidirectional terminals (antennas can be larger at lower frequencies without requiring steering than at higher frequencies).

They recently had some forays into steered, high-bandwidth antennas with their Certus line and their second-generation satellites that now allow native packet switching (the first gen was circuit-switched at 2.4 kbps only), but that brings you into the bandwidth-limited regime, and is honestly just a waste of scarce L-band spectrum and much better served by all the Ku- and Ka-band LEO competitors.

It's going to be interesting to see if Rocketlab start also serving that market, like some of their main competitors already are.

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