> There is no single standard physical interface I'm aware of for attaching a satellite (larger than cubesat size) to a payload adapter, while ensuring inherent

> There is no single standard physical interface I'm aware of for attaching a satellite (larger than cubesat size) to a payload adapter, while ensuring inherently safe behavior of the satellite, for the protection of ground crews. From a purely technical standpoint, I see no reason why SpaceX or another organization couldn't provide a 'satellite skeleton' that people could add an array of standard modules to using an online configurator and click "build/deploy/launch". And have it go to a customer-specified orbit and orientation. But it seems it would make more sense for that provider to just launch those satellites themselves and provide access to the data. I'd imagine that adding any non-standard component so that your satellite has differential value-add vs. existing commodity satellites would add at least some fair bit of 'real' engineering. But likely a 'satellite skeleton' (framework, bare-bones satellite) could take a ton of work out of that endeavor. But given that we're talking about people who say "I need my own satellite(s)" and specifically not "I need data from existing or soon-to-exist satellites"....I'd be surprised if people with those needs would care that much about the (seemingly?) relatively small savings from a pre-designed satellite structure, especially given how any design decisions for that barebones solution inherently implies genuine tradeoffs vs their own design.