Hacker News Reader

Comment by Patrick_Devine | Hacker News Reader

There is a bigger question which was asked in the Economist this week (http://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-25-08/spa...), which is can SpaceX create a big enough market where they can realize the savings of reusability? Right now satellites cost more than the price of the rocket, so if you shave off $10 million on a launch that's pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to the overall price.

This isn't to take anything away from SpaceX. It's absolutely amazing what they've done. I only hope that they can open up the market enough for things like asteroid mining and space tourism.

View on HN

Mansa Musa can be considered the wealthiest man in history. On a pilgrimage to Mecca he gave gold to the poor everywhere along the way and traded great values of it too. He inadvertently destroyed many economies for a long time with the influx of capital.

Asteroid mining is going to do much the same thing, but the changes will be permanent.

It's not a matter of "if" but "when". Lots of sophisticated technology needs to be developed and the up-front cost is going to be in the billions... but once it's done and regular, lots of economies for materials are going to be shattered.

Satellite programs cost so much _because_ rockets cost so much. You can't justify putting a cheap satellite on an expensive rocket, but as the launch cost goes down, you get to being able to launch cheaper and cheaper satellites.

If SpaceX fails, someone else will succeed. The cat is out of the bag.

Building many identical satellites in an assembly-line like fashion cuts down on costs significantly. Large geostationary satellites are currently based on standard buses (like the Boeing 702 and its variants), but each satellite is generally a bespoke product. Larger quantities of the same thing like the second generation Iridium network and the o3b MEO satellites are very interesting from a per-unit cost perspective.

Right. It definitely looks like we could be in for a shakeup in the industry. The question still remains though; what is the total size of the market for all of those satellites? How many could we place in MEO/GEO/GSO before the market is completely saturated? I honestly have no idea. I would think the LEO satellite market will eventually be dominated by less powerful vehicles, although if SpaceX can survive long enough to open up other markets (like Mars tourism and mining), maybe those smaller rockets get cannibalized by payloads being co-launched on larger vehicles.

Geosync slots are scarce. There's a market in them.[1] Low-orbit slots are more available.

[1] http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Paper_satellites_free_u...

Reduced launch costs can compel emergence of entirely new kind of customers. Quite like the relatively affordable New England minicomputers of 1970s propelled whole new markets, branches of CS and eventual personal computing revolution.

The US gov't is working with contractors to make use of cubesats built from commercial off the shelf products to be able to produce cheap constellations of satellites for a fraction of the cost (hundreds of thousands per satellite instead of hundreds of millions) of what they've been paying. These satellites also will have significantly shorter lifespans (1-2 years) so they'll need more frequent launches to replenish the fleets, but the advantage is they can keep upgrading with the latest technology without being locked into a 10 or 20 year old machine. SpaceX dropping the cost of launches fits right into this.

If you can lower the cost for launching, you should also open up the market for cheaper satellites. Possibly not built the same rigorous way that a 100M satellite goes through.

This should also put pressure on the satellite manufacturers to lower costs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com