11–20 of 77 posts
Lost $250M using the advertised launch price of $67M for Falcon 9 , which of course is way higher than what it actually costs SpaceX.
Granted maybe there's some marginal benefits, eg launching n+1 rockets is cheaper per rocket than launching n rockets
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the article you can answer both of your questions. The Sun has no intentions, and solar flares don't choose cohorts of satellites.
How do solar flares burn satellites? I thought they just mess up the ionosphere and inhibit communication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the article you can answer both of your questions. The Sun has no intentions, and solar flares don't choose cohorts of satellites.
How do solar flares burn satellites? I thought they just mess up the ionosphere and inhibit communication.
That said, the satellites have an expected life of 5 years so it's not necessarily a big deal. Their planned constellation is so large that it's dependent on having a nearly continuous churn of replacement satellites.
* This is a bit of an oversimplification
Is this intentional? Is it just happening for newly launched satellites?
If you read the article you can answer both of your questions. The Sun has no intentions, and solar flares don't choose cohorts of satellites.
Lost $250M using the advertised launch price of $67M for Falcon 9 , which of course is way higher than what it actually costs SpaceX.
The fuel costs about half a million. Beyond that it's mostly people's times and materials they have stockpiled for economies of scale. I would guess the lost satellites cost a bit more to manufacture that to launch in a reused Falcon 9.
Lost $250M using the advertised launch price of $67M for Falcon 9 , which of course is way higher than what it actually costs SpaceX.
Lost $250M using the advertised launch price of $67M for Falcon 9 , which of course is way higher than what it actually costs SpaceX.
There's reason to be skeptical of that. I think their most recent profitable quarter (maybe their only profitable quarter?) was with a profit margin of ~3%. Granted maybe there's some marginal benefits, eg launching n+1 rockets is cheaper per rocket than launching n rockets
So if the company is breaking even, then its manufacturing & launch business must have good margins.
Which means, self launched rockets cost SpaceX noticeably less than their commercial pricing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do solar flares burn satellites? I thought they just mess up the ionosphere and inhibit communication.
Dunno if it's what happened in this case, but solar flares make the atmosphere bigger* which increases drag on satellites in low Earth orbit. That said, the satellites have an expected life of 5 years so it's not necessarily a big deal. Their planned constellation is so large that it's dependent on having a nearly continuous churn of replacement satellites. * This is a bit of an oversimplification