3 ms·
$62m is the retail price. It's likely the cost to launch is significantly lower, especially as they are often the 3rd/4th/5th/6th (has there been a 6th yet?) l
by Cogito 6y ago
$62m is the retail price.
It's likely the cost to launch is significantly lower, especially as they are often the 3rd/4th/5th/6th (has there been a 6th yet?) launch of a booster.
Assuming the $62m pricetag covers the cost of the booster, the marginal cost of the Starlink launches is recovery of booster and fairings + refurbishment of booster and fairings + stage 2 + fuel + operations.
A smallsat rideshare may well be paying a significant portion of those costs.
- mlyle 6y agoHe said "price" not "launch cost". Yes, SpaceX probably has OK margins, but when we're considering how much of SpaceX's manifest is Starlink, this is not really relevant. There's been 9 launches + 3 launches that are 5% not Starlink = 9.15 launches worth of non-Starlink revenue. And even having this different argument you're triyng to have, SpaceX's margins are not so good that collecting 5% of nominal market price will put them in the black for that launch... That's just fantasy.
- Cogito 6y agoI generally agree with your points, and reading back realised I misread you; you said 3-7% of the rate for an entire launch, and I read that as 3-7% of that launch. On the broader point, I agree that SpaceX is sinking a lot into the Starlink, but even if it fails I doubt bankrupts the company. Part of that is just how cheap launch is for them, but it’s also because I can’t see a catastrophic fail mode for them. The satellites are clearly already working, worst case they have to sell the constellation to someone else. Probably a failure of imagination on my part though.