What about if costs decrease by a factor of ten AND payload capacity increases by a factor of ten. Without being handicapped by weight restrictions so much satellites could be build on heavier buses relying on less exotic materials
Sadly no, cost has already fallen by a factor of >2. In fact, demand has softened. We call this ineleastic, meaning that demand is insensitive to price. happens when the thing (launch) is only a small fraction of the total cost, or when other factors are more important than price https://t.co/GeR465xCFa
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
-
-
So, a factor of 100?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Do you have any thoughts on what RocketLab is doing with its Photon platform? I think their idea of making it cheaper and faster to build spacecraft is interesting given what you've said here.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Oneweb's bankruptcy would seem to counter this claim since their biggest debt is to their launch provider.
-
What I heard OneWeb went bankrupt, because it main backer Softbank lost lot of Billions$ in bad investments and stop financially supporting OW. OW want to launch majority of their satellites on Soyuz, with price just around 20% higher than SX internal cost for Starlink launches
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Has your price decreased to match your decreased costs? Or is the 2020 AF + NRO budget allocation for ELC greater than the year before, and the year before, and so on?
-
Yes, of course. ULA is a conventional business with a direct connection between price and cost. ELC no longer exists...
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Overall demand of launches in the US appears to be up considerably, but most of it is internal demand at SpaceX for Starlink. Starlink wouldn't be feasible without their low internal costs, so I think this is evidence for a elastic market. But it don't help other LSPs much now
-
SX raised billions $ from outside investors with promise of building LEO mega constellation for satellite internet. But this constellation didn't yet even start working. Making any revenue, profit so we don't know, if it will lead to more elastic market.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
@torybruno I don’t think people understand cost ratio of spacecraft to launch and the importance of successful payload to orbit. How many times more is cost of spacecraft (SO / PSP) vs rocket? ULA has lunched $70 billion in satellites. Launch cost is obviously tiny fraction? -
Part of the reason that satellites are expensive is the mass/volume restriction placed upon them by current launch providers. If that changes the cost of many future projects will change dramatically
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.