It's a possibility but I doubt it's a potential. They know what they're doing, so save some uncertainty occurring, they will only move forward and spend resources as signals state that it's a good decision, e.g. Starlink pre-orders and global demand. If that demand is real and Elon's projection that Starlink can support the under or poorly served bottom 3-5% then that's an estimated $30 to $50 billion annually in revenue; SpaceX expected to be a $5 billion/year business itself, at least in the near-term.
He's setting an aim for the company and is spending resources requiring a convergence to reach certain milestones. If they borrow funds and have debt or loans they must start paying back but don't have the expected revenue coming in soon enough then they could be in trouble, but in reality so long as they're inching forward then they'll be able to get loans from any number of people who believe in what they're doing - or need them to succeed for security purposes. It's important for him to state this in order to build confidence that he's aware and to give a goal to the workforce.
SpaceX launch capacity must match being able to launch Starlink satellites (as well as upgrading them) as quickly as Starlink demand scales, as that's the revenue stream they're planning to rely/depend on. If rollout is slow, service is subpar/poor, then it won't scale as well because they won't want to oversaturate the available bandwidth.
Thanks. That's better. If SpaceX is really so dependent on Starlink i see doom for both. There are still substantiated doubts whether the buisness model of StarLink is solid and if it does an IPO if the buiness model is percieved as viable given potential competition from Bezos.
If i am seeing a competition between a man who overpromises and underdelivers, is being investigated for securities fraud (SolarCity, $420 tweet) and bets his company a lot and the man who has been CEO of Amazon for the last 27 years and Bezos is trying to compete with Musk i would bet on Bezos until he stops competing.
Internet access is a fungible good for most people provided competition exists. I don't see how there is much of a first-to-market advantage if the product is so fungible. If it is non-fungible don't forget local companies which are first to market too. The on the ground rivals are companies native to their market and can hope for government backing against competition of the US from space. Internet is a critical infrastructure and any nation not building local networks has a huge strategic vulnerability.
This problem is worse in case of Blue Origin, though. For a company founded in 2000 and backed by one of the richest people worldwide, they have so far underdelivered to a woeful degree.
He's setting an aim for the company and is spending resources requiring a convergence to reach certain milestones. If they borrow funds and have debt or loans they must start paying back but don't have the expected revenue coming in soon enough then they could be in trouble, but in reality so long as they're inching forward then they'll be able to get loans from any number of people who believe in what they're doing - or need them to succeed for security purposes. It's important for him to state this in order to build confidence that he's aware and to give a goal to the workforce.