3 ms·
I don't think it has anything to do with launch costs. Satellites take a very long time to develop, and they're hundreds of millions of dollars. You have one sh
by shaklee3 8y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with launch costs. Satellites take a very long time to develop, and they're hundreds of millions of dollars. You have one shot to get it right, and lowering launch costs doesn't really make a big dent in that.
- vidarh 8y agoSatellites are that expensive in large part because if you're spending hundreds of millions on a launch anyway, you can't afford to launch ten cheaper satellites. To be a bit hyperbolic: if launches were cheap enough you'd have amateurs launching stuff hacked together in the garage, knowing if they fail it doesn't matter - they can just try again.
- shaklee3 8y agoI would agree with this if the launch cost was a substantial portion of the satellite. There are a lot more things that play though, especially for Geo satellites. Things like orbital slots are finite, so you really want to make as large of a satellite as possible, which also translates to more expensive. Even if SpaceX gets the launch costs cut in half, that's still not a large portion of the total costs. I believe after all is said and done, the launch cost is still between 5 to 10% of the total costs.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y agoDo you have any substantiated data to go with your pricing assumptions?