5 ms·

$3.5 billion dollar satellite? That must've been one hell of a piece of equipment. I really can't even imagine would was on that thing that would cost that much

by debt 9y ago

$3.5 billion dollar satellite? That must've been one hell of a piece of equipment. I really can't even imagine would was on that thing that would cost that much to develop.

whoisjuan 9y ago
From my understanding developing Military Satellites is far more expensive than developing commercial satellites. The reason is actually the amount of secrecy and protocol behind the development of classified technologies. Building a satellite is already an ultra-complex project that requires designing and sourcing specialized parts that need to comply with some very detailed specs. I'm speculating but I'd have to imagine that a project so heavily classified, would result in a larger cost (reduced availability of contractors, more time required to design specialized parts, less availability of researchers and manufacturing workforce that meet the security criteria, etc.) Just a reference, Envisat which was was an earth observation satellite developed by the EU, had a cost of around of $3 billion USD.
- samstave 9y ago
  Hi.
  - solarkraft 9y ago
    Interesting - that statement kind of puts you both in danger.
  - bhouston 9y ago
    It doesn't matter how he answers them, if he answered them in a way you could interpret.
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    Or he was trolling you.
    - samstave 9y ago
      I can only hope, I didn't like his answers, from a security perspective.
      - matt_the_bass 9y ago
        Ha! That’s awesome. :)
paunchy 9y ago
That is the program cost. Like with software, much of this cost would be in the design and intellectual property of the program. The replacement cost, the cost of goods sold, is far lower.
sigstoat 9y ago
a lot of the cost of a given spacecraft is the years of test and verification that goes into inspecting the hardware and confirming that it is flight-ready. that involves dozens or hundreds of engineers working long hours in clean rooms with enormous vacuum chambers. also god only knows what the electronics on these spy satellites looks like. i wouldn't be surprised if there is significant custom silicon on them.
dqpb 9y ago
Maybe the $3.5 billion dollar transaction was the product.
- itronitron 9y ago
  true, no one can criticize your product if you crash it into the ocean
- matt_the_bass 9y ago
  Why the down votes? I think it’s cynical but certainly within the realm of possible.
  - BookmarkSaver 9y ago
    >I think it’s cynical but certainly within the realm of possible. Just about anything is "within the realm of possible". Without even a shred of actual positive evidence, this is just obnoxious flat-earth level conspiracy bullshit. You could make the exact same statement about just about every single government expenditure you are too lazy to research. Unless you have a basis for suspicion, this is just a waste of time that is pandering to people who flatter themselves with their "realistic" worldview.
    - matt_the_bass 9y ago
      Well, a lot of the discussion on this post is about other possible conspiracy theories (imho less cynical than this one), so I thought I’d was relevant that the GP was suggested as one possible option. The other theories are not much supported either.
otakucode 9y ago
Most of the expense in government/military contracts comes from the many, many layers of "management" that have to be continuously fed a diet of large stacks of cash. Then you have to factor in the perverse incentives created for the contractor, where the longer they can drag a project out for and the worse of a job they can do and the cheaper the people they can hire to just barely get the sign-off for completion at the end, the bigger a success it is for the contractor. I worked for quite awhile doing maintenance on a system which was originally developed by an external contractor (one of the ones whose names appears in the comments on this thread). There was originally a contract to develop 3 separate systems. After years of delays and renegotiations and whatnot, 3 separate contracts had been given to the company, and once the government got sick of throwing good money after bad and said 'just give us whatever you have', they got 1 system delivered. That took 9 months of continuous effort to get into a state where it could be used. You know what you call that? A stellar success. At least, if you're the contracting company.

by debt 9y ago

$3.5 billion dollar satellite? That must've been one hell of a piece of equipment. I really can't even imagine would was on that thing that would cost that much to develop.

whoisjuan 9y ago

From my understanding developing Military Satellites is far more expensive than developing commercial satellites. The reason is actually the amount of secrecy and protocol behind the development of classified technologies. Building a satellite is already an ultra-complex project that requires designing and sourcing specialized parts that need to comply with some very detailed specs. I'm speculating but I'd have to imagine that a project so heavily classified, would result in a larger cost (reduced availability of contractors, more time required to design specialized parts, less availability of researchers and manufacturing workforce that meet the security criteria, etc.) Just a reference, Envisat which was was an earth observation satellite developed by the EU, had a cost of around of $3 billion USD.

samstave 9y ago
Hi.
- solarkraft 9y ago
  Interesting - that statement kind of puts you both in danger.
- bhouston 9y ago
  It doesn't matter how he answers them, if he answered them in a way you could interpret.
- matt_the_bass 9y ago
  Or he was trolling you.
  - samstave 9y ago
    I can only hope, I didn't like his answers, from a security perspective.
    - matt_the_bass 9y ago
      Ha! That’s awesome. :)

paunchy 9y ago

That is the program cost. Like with software, much of this cost would be in the design and intellectual property of the program. The replacement cost, the cost of goods sold, is far lower.

sigstoat 9y ago

a lot of the cost of a given spacecraft is the years of test and verification that goes into inspecting the hardware and confirming that it is flight-ready. that involves dozens or hundreds of engineers working long hours in clean rooms with enormous vacuum chambers. also god only knows what the electronics on these spy satellites looks like. i wouldn't be surprised if there is significant custom silicon on them.

dqpb 9y ago

Maybe the $3.5 billion dollar transaction was the product.

itronitron 9y ago
true, no one can criticize your product if you crash it into the ocean
matt_the_bass 9y ago
Why the down votes? I think it’s cynical but certainly within the realm of possible.
- BookmarkSaver 9y ago
  >I think it’s cynical but certainly within the realm of possible. Just about anything is "within the realm of possible". Without even a shred of actual positive evidence, this is just obnoxious flat-earth level conspiracy bullshit. You could make the exact same statement about just about every single government expenditure you are too lazy to research. Unless you have a basis for suspicion, this is just a waste of time that is pandering to people who flatter themselves with their "realistic" worldview.
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    Well, a lot of the discussion on this post is about other possible conspiracy theories (imho less cynical than this one), so I thought I’d was relevant that the GP was suggested as one possible option. The other theories are not much supported either.

otakucode 9y ago

Most of the expense in government/military contracts comes from the many, many layers of "management" that have to be continuously fed a diet of large stacks of cash. Then you have to factor in the perverse incentives created for the contractor, where the longer they can drag a project out for and the worse of a job they can do and the cheaper the people they can hire to just barely get the sign-off for completion at the end, the bigger a success it is for the contractor. I worked for quite awhile doing maintenance on a system which was originally developed by an external contractor (one of the ones whose names appears in the comments on this thread). There was originally a contract to develop 3 separate systems. After years of delays and renegotiations and whatnot, 3 separate contracts had been given to the company, and once the government got sick of throwing good money after bad and said 'just give us whatever you have', they got 1 system delivered. That took 9 months of continuous effort to get into a state where it could be used. You know what you call that? A stellar success. At least, if you're the contracting company.