I had heard that they were going to be secondary payload on launches.
Does this include that in the estimate?
On 11/16/18 6:25 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
Based on the time limits in their license, I'd guess they are going to
be launching the initial batch of them on F9 at ~24 sats per launch
with a ballpark cost of ~30 mil per launch. Round it up to 1.5 mil
per sat to launch and ballpark 500k for the sat so 2 mil each in the
air. Thats not too bad considering that they will likely get
manufacturing costs of the sat down in time and will eventually be
launching on a reusable second stage (BFR). Lets guesstimate that
they can eventually get the cost down to 1mil in the air with a
lifetime of 2 years so 500K per year. Would you pay 500K per year per
AP for 20Gig APs with minimal LOS issues that could cover the whole
world? Numbers aren't amazing, but I'm betting they could at a minimum
break even and likely make ok money on it while using it to create the
egg needed to bring launch costs down. It solves the chicken/egg
launcher/payload issue.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:03 AM Matt Hoppes
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Except they still haven’t called the lodge cost problem. Just
because they own the launch mechanism, doesn’t mean there isn’t a
cost associated with it. You still have a cost negative at that
point unless you can figure out a way to make it positive even if
it’s on a different company.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
