4 ms·
I'm not sure I agree. These aren't satellites like the GPS satellites where each one cost hundreds of millions or billions to make, let alone launch. These are
by dgrin91 4y ago
I'm not sure I agree. These aren't satellites like the GPS satellites where each one cost hundreds of millions or billions to make, let alone launch. These are more akin to fancy cube sats where you can mass produce and make them (relatively) cheap.
Still very expensive, but if a company was structured around building lots of these then this wouldn't be game ending.
- ugh123 4y agoI think it's more about the launch costs to get replacements back up there fast
- Dylan16807 4y agoOne launch loss would not ruin most companies.
- Fatnino 4y agoUnless you're virgin orbit
- entropicgravity 4y agoYes and for SpaceX their launch costs are particularly low as their boosters have been reused up to fifteen times.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoCube sat is a bit of an understatement of the size and complexity of these satellites. IIRC they are roughly the size of a small car (albeit only a few hundred kilograms).
- _0ffh 4y agoYeah, the comparison would be okay-ish for the old ones, which where about 1m^3 in volume, just big and flat instead of cubes. The new V2 are ~5x the weight @2k8 pounds, the V2 Mini ~3x @1k8 pounds.
- rlt 4y agoI think that was basically the point of the parent comment. SpaceX has figured out how to build these relatively inexpensively.