3 ms·
Historically speaking, generally because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent th
by makomk 8y ago
Historically speaking, generally because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save. (Remember, there's a whole bunch of cost in building the satellite too.)
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save This is a valid pitch. Memorably, Skybox almost went bankrupt waiting for their Ukranian launch partner to put their birds in orbit. That said, this isn't a good business plan. Pitching availability for a non-just-in-time manufactured product is a bearish bet on competitors' production schedules. Not a bad bet in the rocket business. But re-usability both decreases costs and increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 is, on multiple levels, the EU calling Elon Musk on a bluff. Not unreasonable a decade ago, when the project was planned. But wrong today. It's also awkward to advertise a project by the low demand for it.