Re: [AFMUG] Scary Product...

Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:56:47 -0800

It's not clear to me what the ground-based end of this will look like. However, they just got approval for an additional 7500+ satellites. They will be operating in the 35-45 GHz frequency bands, so it will require some unique antenna technology.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/16/2018 7:12 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

We seem to be assuming this is targeting North America and will be competition for us.  Maybe that’s true.  I thought the idea was more along the lines of using this to feed ground based sites in third world countries that would in turn feed Internet to end users.  If so, that would also make fancy CPE that has to track moving sats more feasible, it’s not like someone’s cellphone needs that antenna technology.

 

From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Carl Peterson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 8:25 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Scary Product...

 

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]> 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

Reply via email to