How cheap could space hardware potentially be made?

[Vultur]

Assuming for the sake of argument that extremely low launch costs are achieved somehow - incredibly quick & cheap reuse for a future version or derivative of Starship, SpinLaunch, laser launch system, space fountain/space elevator/etc, whatever - could space hardware (assuming sufficient mass production) be made as cheap as Earth hardware?

There was a project called PhoneSat to use smartphone computers to run cubesats, and it worked, which suggests that the way consumer electronics is made is not totally incompatible with space. Those were in LEO,  so radiation was less of a problem than deep space, but if we're assuming truly cheap launch costs it's probably cheaper to add mass for shielding than to change the electronics.

I'm not sure how PhoneSat handled thermal issues. It seems to me (naively) that thermal issues would actually be worse in LEO, since the spacecraft is going from day to night every 45 minutes or so; in permanent sunlight, the thermal environment is pretty constant.

[redneck]

It seems likely that space hardware will remain more expensive for quite some time even assuming modest launch costs. Aviation has a situation where a $20.00 part for a car becomes a $100.00 part for an airplane mainly due to regulations. Starlink seems to be heading in the direction you're thinking though I don't have any real knowledge.  Henry Spencer has been involved in some small satellites using stock electronics. Says that they worked fine in LEO. I think there was mention of triple redundancy with voting.

Though if individuals spending their own money are in a competitive industry, it may happen much sooner than I expect. As long as heavy regulation doesn't interfere. 

[Paul451]

Aviation has a situation where a $20.00 part for a car becomes a $100.00 part for an airplane mainly due to regulations.

There's a big difference between parts intended to keep people alive, or emergency systems they might need, versus components intended for low-cost unmanned spacecraft.

[Proponent]

I have not yet listened to it, but the current episode Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast is entitled "Why do satellites still cost so much?".

[Bob Shaw]

I think it is time to turn the clock back to the original aviation construction material: wood. Constructing satellite components out of eco-friendly, lightweight and inexpensive wood using modern techniques should be the way forward!

The first NASA Lunar landers used wooden components!

[Bob Shaw]

A great deal of the $2 lightbulb which costs $100 is down to stock management overheads, staff training and safety costs and the like. Strict cost charging is now the norm and reflects reality.

[Robotbeat]

Starlink uses terrestrial solar cells, an assembly process derived from terrestrial solar panel lines, and shies away from expensive manufacturing methods like CNC and metal 3D printing, focusing on things like casting and sheet metal fabrication.

There fundamentally is no reason space hardware should be any more expensive than terrestrial except for lower volumes, which is changing.

[Coastal Ron]

In the early part of my career I worked for companies that made military electronics and companies that made consumer electronics. A big difference between the two is the operating environment that they have to survive, and space can be harsh.

For instance, many consumer grade electronics have operating temperature ranges that would fail in space, and that is because they can be cheaper if they only need to operate in places where humans can survive. But for space, you need electronics that have a wider range of operation, and that means a combination of more manufacturing processes, more costly materials, and stricter acceptance criteria.

SpaceX, as one example, has shown that within their Dragon spacecraft, which is thermally controlled internally, that they can deal with radiation issues by increasing the number of computers, so that if one goes offline (or temporarily fails) because of radiation issues, that the others can take over temporarily. So while the individual cost of the computer is the same as a non-space related use case, the cost is higher overall because of the added redundancy.

And I think in general the cost increases for space may be because of potential failure modes. So for a space station, what happens if air is lost in a module, but then the module is fixed and reoccupied? If the systems in that module are not hardened to survive in a vacuum, like displays, then the cost of that failure could be very high. So spending more on systems that can survive a vacuum would be more expensive, but maybe better insurance.

Also, if you are talking about human-rated systems vs hardware-only systems like a Starlink, then hardware-only systems can have a much higher failure rate.

Kind of like talking about the cost of snorkeling versus the cost of diving down to 100m underwater. I have a friend that is a professional diver that goes to 100m, and the cost of his equipment is much higher not only because of the additional systems he needs, but also because of the higher quality that is required.

So from that standpoint space will never be as cheap to support as the surface of the Earth. But we are finding many ways to significantly reduce the cost of doing things in space by rethinking the business models previously used.

[Greg Hullender]

I think it is time to turn the clock back to the original aviation construction material: wood. Constructing satellite components out of eco-friendly, lightweight and inexpensive wood using modern techniques should be the way forward!

The first NASA Lunar landers used wooden components!

Japan has you covered: Read about Lignosat. Apparently wood handles vacuum pretty well. No word on how well trees grow there though.

[Robotbeat]

Never say never. Earth is a humid and highly oxidizing environment with a freeze/thaw cycle and weather. The “never” argument doesn’t pass muster.

The reason Starlink is cheaper is due almost entirely to manufacturing approaches and volume, not reliability. Vast majority of space hardware has been CNCed or similar, not because CNC is better necessarily, but because it’s cheaper for low volume. Sheet metal is a little trickier to design for than CNC, but it need not be any less safe.

Automotive manufacturing meets all the environmental extremes (has to operate in hot and cold, humid and dry, dusty, etc. it also has to be safe and meet exacting reliability measures. But it’s cheap because the volumes are enormous, tens of thousands to millions of units.

It’s really strange how a lot of people just are completely ignorant of the differences in costs between the different low vs high volume manufacturing methods, or even how huge of a difference volume makes even using just CNC milling (due to setup time, CAM, tooling, fixturing, etc).

Going from 1 of a thing to 50 of a thing has about a factor of 8 cost reduction… and that’s just the same manufacturing method! Switch to high pressure injection casting or sheet metal redesign, and you can get a factor of 100 or more improvement in cost per kg. Plus, manufacturing is often much smaller than the engineering costs even at low volume. Factors of 1000 or more cost reduction is pretty reasonable when comparing low to very high volume production (millions of units).

[Coastal Ron]

Never say never. Earth is a humid and highly oxidizing environment with a freeze/thaw cycle and weather. The “never” argument doesn’t pass muster.

If this debate is about the relatively benign space environment of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), then maybe we could get close to the same cost. But overall space is a harsh environment, and there is no getting around that.

The reason Starlink is cheaper is due almost entirely to manufacturing approaches and volume, not reliability.

Yep, as I said, rethinking business models will get us closer.

Automotive manufacturing meets all the environmental extremes (has to operate in hot and cold, humid and dry, dusty, etc. it also has to be safe and meet exacting reliability measures. But it’s cheap because the volumes are enormous, tens of thousands to millions of units.

All true. However is every electronic or mechanical system we need available from the automotive industry here on Earth? If not, then you aren't buying "off the shelf" components, and you need to special order or create workarounds (i.e. higher redundancy, additional cooling or protection systems, etc.)

It’s really strange how a lot of people just are completely ignorant of the differences in costs between the different low vs high volume manufacturing methods, or even how huge of a difference volume makes even using just CNC milling (due to setup time, CAM, tooling, fixturing, etc).

I've planned or schedule one-off military builds and high volume consumer electronic product production lines. So I do have some perspective on this.

And on the whole we are agreeing more than disagreeing. I think my assumption is that what we need for space won't always be found already in production here on Earth, so some low volume custom production will always be a part of the space hardware supply chain. In other words, some components may achieve the goal of being the same cost, but overall product costs for space hardware will always be higher due to the nature of the environment that they need to operate.

And we see this here on Earth with the same products used in the military for use on land and at sea. The Navy versions always have additional overhead costs for protecting the various electrical and mechanical systems from salt water.

[Robotbeat]

The point is that space may have its own high volume.

Starlink (except for subcomponents like the cells) is obviously a custom design. Yet, because the high volume (thousands of satellites per year), they can get nearly-automotive costs by building them using automotive manufacturing approaches (sheet metal, casting, etc).

[Texl1649]

Once space hardware is getting produced autonomously in space, the real cost will be limited only to the cost to provide the energy of the production.  A colony on Mars will be very expensive to establish and maintain, possibly for the first 10-20 years, but then the automation should enable a self-sufficiency, if wars/violence can be avoided (which is nominally doubtful, given human history).  Asteroid mining should be a long-term objective kept in mind. 

[Robotbeat]

Once space hardware is getting produced autonomously in space, the real cost will be limited only to the cost to provide the energy of the production.  A colony on Mars will be very expensive to establish and maintain, possibly for the first 10-20 years, but then the automation should enable a self-sufficiency, if wars/violence can be avoided (which is nominally doubtful, given human history).  Asteroid mining should be a long-term objective kept in mind.

I think "autonomously produced in space" is not a useful metric, because it's just not predictable.

[InterestedEngineer]

And I think in general the cost increases for space may be because of potential failure modes. So for a space station, what happens if air is lost in a module, but then the module is fixed and reoccupied? If the systems in that module are not hardened to survive in a vacuum, like displays, then the cost of that failure could be very high. So spending more on systems that can survive a vacuum would be more expensive, but maybe better insurance.

If medium volume is 10x less cost than low volume, as another poster demonstrated, then no, it doesn't make sense to "spend more on systems that can survive a vacuum"

It's cheaper to stock 3 spares in 3 different modules.  That is, if the OP's premise holds, that mass costs are 10x lower than today.

Same approach as Starlink.  I suspect there per-satellite reliability for the first ~500 satellites off the mfg line isn't quite up to that of a GEO communications satellite, but it's also several orders of magnitude cheaper, AND, by the time they've made and deployed 500 satellites they've learned so much more than a low volume GEO communications satellite their reliability is probably higher for the next few thousand off the mfg line.

Never mind that 500 satellites will always be more reliable than one precious satellite however lovingly made.

[Vultur]

And I think in general the cost increases for space may be because of potential failure modes. So for a space station, what happens if air is lost in a module, but then the module is fixed and reoccupied? If the systems in that module are not hardened to survive in a vacuum, like displays, then the cost of that failure could be very high. So spending more on systems that can survive a vacuum would be more expensive, but maybe better insurance.

If medium volume is 10x less cost than low volume, as another poster demonstrated, then no, it doesn't make sense to "spend more on systems that can survive a vacuum"

It's cheaper to stock 3 spares in 3 different modules.  That is, if the OP's premise holds, that mass costs are 10x lower than today.

Actually, I was talking about launch prices way lower than 10x current ones ... 100x or better. Like $20/kg or something.

Never say never. Earth is a humid and highly oxidizing environment with a freeze/thaw cycle and weather. The “never” argument doesn’t pass muster.

If this debate is about the relatively benign space environment of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), then maybe we could get close to the same cost. But overall space is a harsh environment, and there is no getting around that.

Isn't LEO worse than high orbit in some ways since you have more space debris, rapid day/night thermal cycling, and maybe atomic oxygen?

In sufficiently high orbit you can have permanent sunlight (constant thermal environment), and you're out of the denser orbital debris.

SpaceX, as one example, has shown that within their Dragon spacecraft, which is thermally controlled internally, that they can deal with radiation issues by increasing the number of computers, so that if one goes offline (or temporarily fails) because of radiation issues, that the others can take over temporarily. So while the individual cost of the computer is the same as a non-space related use case, the cost is higher overall because of the added redundancy.

Sure, but (say) 3x of the same hardware is only 3x cost, which is pretty mild compared to existing space costs.

[Coastal Ron]

And I think in general the cost increases for space may be because of potential failure modes. So for a space station, what happens if air is lost in a module, but then the module is fixed and reoccupied? If the systems in that module are not hardened to survive in a vacuum, like displays, then the cost of that failure could be very high. So spending more on systems that can survive a vacuum would be more expensive, but maybe better insurance.

If medium volume is 10x less cost than low volume, as another poster demonstrated, then no, it doesn't make sense to "spend more on systems that can survive a vacuum"

It's cheaper to stock 3 spares in 3 different modules.  That is, if the OP's premise holds, that mass costs are 10x lower than today.

This gets back to an earlier question I posted - are we talking about space hardware that is only in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), or also hardware that is being deployed Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO)?

Because the further you get from your source of supply and support, the more important it is to have hardware that is fault tolerant beyond consumer level here on Earth.

And if you are on a spaceship, or even a space station far from Earth, you may not have the ability to have a large spare parts inventory.

Lots of ways to debate this in the abstract, so define the who, what, where so we can look at what the options really are.

Same approach as Starlink.  I suspect there per-satellite reliability for the first ~500 satellites off the mfg line isn't quite up to that of a GEO communications satellite...

They aren't, and why don't you know this? It is public knowledge that a Starlink satellite is designed for a much shorter operational lifespan than a GEO satellite.

...but it's also several orders of magnitude cheaper...

Sure, because they have a shorter lifespan, and need less power. All this is known, and it is like comparing an apple to an orange... 

...AND, by the time they've made and deployed 500 satellites they've learned so much more than a low volume GEO communications satellite their reliability is probably higher for the next few thousand off the mfg line.

Again, apples and oranges, but in a way you are making one of my arguments, that for custom GEO satellites they will never be as cheap as LEO satellites like Starlink, because the requirements are different. Plus, another point I made a while back, is that the further you get from Earth, the less likely you can use common components made for use on Earth.

[Coastal Ron]

Once space hardware is getting produced autonomously in space...

Autonomous production in space is a wonderful topic - wake me when we figure out how to produce complex things autonomously here on Earth... 

...the real cost will be limited only to the cost to provide the energy of the production.

Sure. Well, that and the material cost. And the cost of building the factory, and the cost of maintaining the factory (are you thinking it can self-repair autonomously too?), etc.

In other words, no, the cost of energy will likely be a very small percentage of the overall cost.

A colony on Mars will be very expensive to establish and maintain, possibly for the first 10-20 years, but then the automation should enable a self-sufficiency...

How are you assuming they will make lubricants on Mars? Where will they get the feedstock? Or seals, where will the feedstock for seals come from?

As someone that has had to keep a factory supplied and working, I have been public about stating that we are likely hundreds of years from making Mars self-sufficient - if it is possible at all.

[redneck]

Once space hardware is getting produced autonomously in space...

Autonomous production in space is a wonderful topic - wake me when we figure out how to produce complex things autonomously here on Earth... 

...the real cost will be limited only to the cost to provide the energy of the production.

Sure. Well, that and the material cost. And the cost of building the factory, and the cost of maintaining the factory (are you thinking it can self-repair autonomously too?), etc.

In other words, no, the cost of energy will likely be a very small percentage of the overall cost.

A colony on Mars will be very expensive to establish and maintain, possibly for the first 10-20 years, but then the automation should enable a self-sufficiency...

How are you assuming they will make lubricants on Mars? Where will they get the feedstock? Or seals, where will the feedstock for seals come from?

As someone that has had to keep a factory supplied and working, I have been public about stating that we are likely hundreds of years from making Mars self-sufficient - if it is possible at all.

One of the other costs is the forgone opportunity to make something different. An autonomous factory making widgets sounds great, unless you really need gadgets and gizmos. That which is seen and that which is not seen.   

[Vultur]

And I think in general the cost increases for space may be because of potential failure modes. So for a space station, what happens if air is lost in a module, but then the module is fixed and reoccupied? If the systems in that module are not hardened to survive in a vacuum, like displays, then the cost of that failure could be very high. So spending more on systems that can survive a vacuum would be more expensive, but maybe better insurance.

If medium volume is 10x less cost than low volume, as another poster demonstrated, then no, it doesn't make sense to "spend more on systems that can survive a vacuum"

It's cheaper to stock 3 spares in 3 different modules.  That is, if the OP's premise holds, that mass costs are 10x lower than today.

This gets back to an earlier question I posted - are we talking about space hardware that is only in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), or also hardware that is being deployed Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO)?

Both, but these make sense as separate questions.

Because the further you get from your source of supply and support, the more important it is to have hardware that is fault tolerant beyond consumer level here on Earth.

And if you are on a spaceship, or even a space station far from Earth, you may not have the ability to have a large spare parts inventory.

To a degree, but I'd argue that with the really low launch costs this thread assumes, that ability becomes way more likely/possible.

In that environment, I don't think the most important divide is necessarily LEO vs beyond. It might be broader Earth orbit/cislunar space (including the Moon and lunar orbits, Earth-Moon L points, NRHO, etc. as well as LEO, GEO, etc ) where you can do reasonably timed deliveries; vs Mars, asteroids, etc where you may have to wait months to potentially years for a launch window.

Well, it possibly breaks down to three regimes - LEO; higher Earth orbits/cislunar space/Moon/L-points; more distant destinations.

It is public knowledge that a Starlink satellite is designed for a much shorter operational lifespan than a GEO satellite

In low LEO orbits, orbital lifetimes aren't very long, so there's not much reason to design for long ones.

But really cheap launch costs may change the picture elsewhere too, because...

...but it's also several orders of magnitude cheaper...

Sure, because they have a shorter lifespan, and need less power. All this is known, and it is like comparing an apple to an orange... 

Sure, but lifespan isn't that much shorter. If you can get a satellite that lasts 5 years manufactured 20x cheaper than a satellite that lasts 25 years, that's 1/4 the manufacturing cost per satellite life year.

(Starlinks are a lot more than 20x cheaper than GEO comsats, but they're also smaller.)

This sort of thing would probably be more predominant in an environment where launch costs were something like $20/kg.

Once space hardware is getting produced autonomously in space...

Autonomous production in space is a wonderful topic - wake me when we figure out how to produce complex things autonomously here on Earth... 

...the real cost will be limited only to the cost to provide the energy of the production.

Sure. Well, that and the material cost. And the cost of building the factory, and the cost of maintaining the factory (are you thinking it can self-repair autonomously too?), etc.

In other words, no, the cost of energy will likely be a very small percentage of the overall cost.

A colony on Mars will be very expensive to establish and maintain, possibly for the first 10-20 years, but then the automation should enable a self-sufficiency...

How are you assuming they will make lubricants on Mars? Where will they get the feedstock? Or seals, where will the feedstock for seals come from?

As someone that has had to keep a factory supplied and working, I have been public about stating that we are likely hundreds of years from making Mars self-sufficient - if it is possible at all.

I think my view is somewhere in between.

Full 100% autonomy is crazy hard but also probably unnecessary.

Materials cost basically is just part of energy cost if you're working from locally mined materials - it comes down to the energy to mine the materials. Hardware costs OTOH ... I don't really believe in self-replicating "hard technology" (as opposed to much closer to living systems), even way in the future.

Self-sufficiency is a really really hard problem, but IMO probably not as impossible a problem as direct extrapolation of how modern Earth industry works (which is optimized for cost under very different constraints) would suggest.

I don't think lubricants, seals, etc will be anywhere near the hard part of the problem though. They'd have things like oils, artificial rubber, etc. - the Martian "petrochemical industry" will probably be a very important early setup. It just won't use fossil petrochemicals - probably something like atmospheric CO2 and mined ice H2O to syngas CO + H2 to organics of all sorts ... with the extra oxygen becoming breathing air or return propellant.

This is all stuff that could be done pretty easily on Earth, and has been done, using petroleum as a source is just cheaper.

I don't think anything chemical made of common elements will be the hard part of the problem, it'll be manufacturing of stuff like specific electronics that use rare elements, semiconductor fabs, etc.

[InterestedEngineer]

Because the further you get from your source of supply and support, the more important it is to have hardware that is fault tolerant beyond consumer level here on Earth.

That doesn't follow from cheap launch costs.

You could spend 100x on the project making hardware that is "fault tolerant beyond consumer level here on Earth".

That's what we do today.  project mgmt maxim:  "scope, schedule, resources. Pick any 2, preferably 1"

Or you could launch 10-20 times the number of probes by making them in bulk from cheaper and heavier hardware.

The reason we don't do that today is launch costs would soar by 10-20x, and the launch costs are already over 25% of any deep space budget, so it'd blow up the budget by 300 percent or more.

But if launch costs DROP by 30x, then it make sense to launch 30 times more probes, or 15 times as many probes that weigh twice as much. Half of them fail, so what?

[Robotbeat]

And the reliability would increase with the number you make. Starlinks were falling out of the sky left and right at first and now are probably MORE reliable than the average satellite.

[Vultur]

Because the further you get from your source of supply and support, the more important it is to have hardware that is fault tolerant beyond consumer level here on Earth.

That doesn't follow from cheap launch costs.

You could spend 100x on the project making hardware that is "fault tolerant beyond consumer level here on Earth".

That's what we do today.  project mgmt maxim:  "scope, schedule, resources. Pick any 2, preferably 1"

Or you could launch 10-20 times the number of probes by making them in bulk from cheaper and heavier hardware.

The reason we don't do that today is launch costs would soar by 10-20x, and the launch costs are already over 25% of any deep space budget, so it'd blow up the budget by 300 percent or more.

But if launch costs DROP by 30x, then it make sense to launch 30 times more probes, or 15 times as many probes that weigh twice as much. Half of them fail, so what?

Yeah.

Custom flagship type stuff is always going to be really expensive. But how much can we do without using that style of design/development/manufacturing?

Most of the outer system probably isn't available with current tech, since you can't do RTGs in Starlink style mass production. Solar works at Jupiter, but the radiation belts are a big limit: you could study Jupiter and Callisto but not much more.

Some stuff at Saturn might maybe be doable ... I could see a swarm of probes that were mostly solar panel, perhaps.

One thing I'd love to see, but would probably never get funded by any space agency: an "asteroid explorer swarm". Hundreds or thousands of mass produced identical, small, cheap probes with just a couple basic instruments, sent out to lots and lots of different asteroids (send say 5 to each of the really high interest asteroids, assume a high failure rate). Get a really broad sample of different types of asteroids, look at ones that are potentially interesting from a resource perspective as well as a scientific one, etc.

[DanClemmensen]

And the reliability would increase with the number you make. Starlinks were falling out of the sky left and right at first and now are probably MORE reliable than the average satellite.

Starlinks have an operational lifetime of five years, and are supposed to be deliberately de-orbited at the end of that time. At least that's what all of the initial descriptions said. Do we have any reason to think that these satellites are not being deliberately de-orbited? If this is indeed what is happening, we should expect that in steady state a constellation will be de-orbiting satellites on average at the same rate that they are being launched. A constellation with 40,000 satellites will be launching 8000/yr or about 22 satellites a day, and de-orbiting the same number.

[Coastal Ron]

And the reliability would increase with the number you make. Starlinks were falling out of the sky left and right at first and now are probably MORE reliable than the average satellite.

Well, maybe for the period time they operate, but they are only designed to operate for, what, 5 years? GEO satellites are more like 15-20 years, and can last far longer.

And do we really know what the reliability is of orbiting Starlinks? If one fails they don't immediately fall out of orbit, so just because a Starlink is in orbit doesn't mean that it is operating, or operating as designed.

Do we have any hard numbers regarding how many of the current orbiting Starlink satellites are operational, and how many are dead?

[Vultur]

If this is indeed what is happening, we should expect that in steady state a constellation will be de-orbiting satellites on average at the same rate that they are being launched. A constellation with 40,000 satellites will be launching 8000/yr or about 22 satellites a day, and de-orbiting the same number.

Absolutely... But Starlink is nowhere near steady state yet.

Well, maybe for the period time they operate, but they are only designed to operate for, what, 5 years? GEO satellites are more like 15-20 years, and can last far longer.

Sure, but so what? As long as the 5 year satellite is at least 4x cheaper than the 20 year one, it still ends up cheaper per satellite life year. And Starlinks are cheaper than that.

[DanClemmensen]

If this is indeed what is happening, we should expect that in steady state a constellation will be de-orbiting satellites on average at the same rate that they are being launched. A constellation with 40,000 satellites will be launching 8000/yr or about 22 satellites a day, and de-orbiting the same number.

Absolutely... But Starlink is nowhere near steady state yet.

No, but Starlink has been active since 2019. We would expect that satellites launched in 2019 began deorbiting last year and satellites launched in October 2020 will be deorbiting this month. They launched 180 satellites in October 2020, so we should expect (on rough average) they they would deorbit 180 satellites this month. That's roughly six a day. Yes, all the details are squishy, but the underlying reality is still there: the number to be deorbited roughly equals the number that were launched five years ago.

It appears that Chicken Little just woke up to this fact, but it's implicit in all of the information we have had from SpaceX for the last six or more years.

[Robotbeat]

And the reliability would increase with the number you make. Starlinks were falling out of the sky left and right at first and now are probably MORE reliable than the average satellite.

Well, maybe for the period time they operate, but they are only designed to operate for, what, 5 years? GEO satellites are more like 15-20 years, and can last far longer.

And do we really know what the reliability is of orbiting Starlinks? If one fails they don't immediately fall out of orbit, so just because a Starlink is in orbit doesn't mean that it is operating, or operating as designed.

Do we have any hard numbers regarding how many of the current orbiting Starlink satellites are operational, and how many are dead?

We actually do. Jonathan McDowell keeps track of this.

https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html

Look at Geosats like those used by Viasat, and the reliability doesn’t look great. Plenty of infant mortality, regardless of design intent for 10-15 year lifetime.

[thespacecow]

I have not yet listened to it, but the current episode Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast is entitled "Why do satellites still cost so much?".

I listened to this a few days ago, one thing they mentioned is that each layer of subcontractor will add a markup, and this accumulates to very significant amount after a few layers. The alternative is of course vertical integration, but that would require a large upfront investment. Maybe one stop shop like Redwire can reduce this somewhat, but maybe one just has to accept non-vertically integrated satellite remains relatively expensive.

Another thing they mentioned is that unlike the components contracted out, Starlink doesn't test every components produced by themselves, they have a large batch and only test a few of them to save cost. They accept the risk of some components failing due to not being tested, but subcontractor won't be able to take this risk.

[DanClemmensen]

Another thing they mentioned is that unlike the components contracted out, Starlink doesn't test every components produced by themselves, they have a large batch and only test a few of them to save cost. They accept the risk of some components failing due to not being tested, but subcontractor won't be able to take this risk.

This is a consequence of vertical integration at the system level, but it only works for constellations, where the cost of losing a small percentage of the satellites is relatively small. A typical one-off satellite needs to be much more reliable.

[Coastal Ron]

I have not yet listened to it, but the current episode Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast is entitled "Why do satellites still cost so much?".

I listened to this a few days ago, one thing they mentioned is that each layer of subcontractor will add a markup, and this accumulates to very significant amount after a few layers. The alternative is of course vertical integration, but that would require a large upfront investment.

Not necessarily so, but the real key is whether there is enough demand for what you are bringing in-house. Does you no good to hire a bunch of people if you are only going to use them 3 months out of the year. THAT is why companies use subcontractors, the lack of overall demand in-house for doing it themselves.

Another thing they mentioned is that unlike the components contracted out, Starlink doesn't test every components produced by themselves, they have a large batch and only test a few of them to save cost. They accept the risk of some components failing due to not being tested, but subcontractor won't be able to take this risk.

This is related to the earlier point that Robotbeat made about the auto industry, and it is related. However with cars if there is a failure you can have your local service center fix the problem, but in space you just write off that capability or that particular satellite.

The other thing too is that in order for this to truly pay off - the risk/reward calculation - you have your QA and engineering teams focus on your suppliers so that THEY build a quality product that doesn't need to be 100% tested or inspected when received at SpaceX. This is actually what the auto industry does, so that they can bring in car components and not have to inspect 100%. Plenty of other industries do this too, so not unique.

This topic is really about volume though. If you have enough volume, then you can implement initiatives that can significantly lower the per unit price. Prior to Starlink there were satellite busses that were in serial production, but certainly not what anyone would call "high volume" production. But then again those legacy satellites usually went to MEO or GEO and were required to have long lives, whereas Starlink has a service life of about 5 years, and there is plenty of service overlap in case of failures.

[Proponent]

I have not yet listened to it, but the current episode Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast is entitled "Why do satellites still cost so much?".

Now I've listened to the podcast. Two key factors raising the costs of satellites are identified. The first is a lack a vertical integration, which causes profit margins to accumulate exponentially. If a fully vertically-integrated supplier makes a 10% margin, then the customer pays 1,10 the actual cost of production. If, on the other hand, a chain of 10 suppliers each making 10% is involved, then the final customer pays 1.10¹⁰ = 2.60 times the cost. The problem with vertical integration is the huge capital outlay it requires, but it does appear to be a big part of SpaceX's success.

The other point made was the cumulative cost of repeated tests, where a component is vibration-tested and thermally cycled by its manufacturer before being sold to the builder of subsystem, who vibes and cycles again, before delivering to a system builder, etc. Not only do costs accumulate, but the repeated testing is potentially a hazard to reliability.

[Coastal Ron]

I have not yet listened to it, but the current episode Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast is entitled "Why do satellites still cost so much?".

Now I've listened to the podcast. ...
The problem with vertical integration is the huge capital outlay it requires, but it does appear to be a big part of SpaceX's success.

I've mentioned this before in that vertical integration only works if you have full time need for the things you are going to make. Or at least full time employment for the team that you brought on to build the components for vertical integration.

If you were building 10 units per year before vertical integration, and 10 units per year afterward, then it probably didn't make sense to do that because of the vast amount of skills and equipment you had to bring onboard to do vertical integration.

You NEED additional demand to support the cost and overhead of vertical integration.

The other point made was the cumulative cost of repeated tests, where a component is vibration-tested and thermally cycled by its manufacturer before being sold to the builder of subsystem, who vibes and cycles again, before delivering to a system builder, etc. Not only do costs accumulate, but the repeated testing is potentially a hazard to reliability.

I'm a little leery about this claim, since doing component testing once you have already integrated the components into their final assembly (like a circuit board) risks having to perform rework of the board to R&R the failed component. Plus, the test environment of the component may be harsher than the test environment of the assembly.

As to vibration, won't this be mitigated by moving away from launchers like Atlas V and Vulcan, which use solid rocket motor boosters?

For instance, I would think the ride on a Starship to space would be far more benign from a vibration standpoint than on a Vulcan. Any data on this?

[InterestedEngineer]

Hear from a CEO of as company who is working to make stuff cheap.

Lots of interesting things to say why things are not currently cheap.

https://x.com/ti_morse/status/1980736116727972120

[Proponent]

I have not yet listened to it, but the current episode Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast is entitled "Why do satellites still cost so much?".

Now I've listened to the podcast. ...
The problem with vertical integration is the huge capital outlay it requires, but it does appear to be a big part of SpaceX's success.

I've mentioned this before in that vertical integration only works if you have full time need for the things you are going to make. Or at least full time employment for the team that you brought on to build the components for vertical integration.

If you were building 10 units per year before vertical integration, and 10 units per year afterward, then it probably didn't make sense to do that because of the vast amount of skills and equipment you had to bring onboard to do vertical integration.

You NEED additional demand to support the cost and overhead of vertical integration.

I think we implicitly agree -- it won't be worth the capital investment unless you have the scale to make efficient use of it (and can raise the capital in the first place).

The other point made was the cumulative cost of repeated tests, where a component is vibration-tested and thermally cycled by its manufacturer before being sold to the builder of subsystem, who vibes and cycles again, before delivering to a system builder, etc. Not only do costs accumulate, but the repeated testing is potentially a hazard to reliability.

I'm a little leery about this claim, since doing component testing once you have already integrated the components into their final assembly (like a circuit board) risks having to perform rework of the board to R&R the failed component. Plus, the test environment of the component may be harsher than the test environment of the assembly.

I'm sure you know more about it than I, but I would think cost and reliability would be optimized by finding a happy optimal testing rate short of testing every component. Balance the high cost of failed systems tests against the cost of redundant tests of components and the cost of operational failures due to excessive cycling.

As to vibration, won't this be mitigated by moving away from launchers like Atlas V and Vulcan, which use solid rocket motor boosters?

For instance, I would think the ride on a Starship to space would be far more benign from a vibration standpoint than on a Vulcan. Any data on this?

All-liquid launch vehicles tend to vibrate less, but every payload user's guide exhibits the vibration environment in detail. A couple of the recent Starship failures were due in significant part to vibration.

[Coastal Ron]

The other point made was the cumulative cost of repeated tests, where a component is vibration-tested and thermally cycled by its manufacturer before being sold to the builder of subsystem, who vibes and cycles again, before delivering to a system builder, etc. Not only do costs accumulate, but the repeated testing is potentially a hazard to reliability.

I'm a little leery about this claim, since doing component testing once you have already integrated the components into their final assembly (like a circuit board) risks having to perform rework of the board to R&R the failed component. Plus, the test environment of the component may be harsher than the test environment of the assembly.

I'm sure you know more about it than I, but I would think cost and reliability would be optimized by finding a happy optimal testing rate short of testing every component.

Quite a while ago, when I was still early in my career as a Operations Program Manager, to speed up getting product through the various tests that military electronics of the time had to go through, I would drive production units to the local vibration test facility (usually in town, but sometimes 2 hours away). Sometimes I had time to chat up the test guys and watch the vibration tests. They were used to listening for loose stuff and stopping tests before too much damage happened. 

But that was a military hardware that had to survive in battle conditions, and I would imagine other than launch that space electronics don't have to worry about vibration, just temperature and radiation. This is a good example too of where we didn't have the volume of product to merit doing such testing in-house.

To your point, I think yes, that you are looking for happy mediums, and...

Balance the high cost of failed systems tests against the cost of redundant tests of components and the cost of operational failures due to excessive cycling.

There are two good examples that SpaceX has provided us about using commodity electronic components:

1. Dragon spacecraft - they use commodity processors to run the Dragon spacecraft, and they handle radiation related concerns with redundancy. Great article about this from 2012.

2. Plan for loss of vehicle with redundancy - which for satellites is what Starlink does (amongst other things too). If a Starlink satellite fails, for whatever reason, the constellation is able to continue to operate at a degraded level that still meets their customer service goals.

Building things in higher volume is certainly one way to lower costs, so commoditizing space hardware can help with that.

I guess one way to look at what SpaceX has done with Starlink is that they have redesigned the "system" of how electronic signals are bounced around the world. Instead of sending signals from Earth out to GEO, they only send them to LEO, where transportation costs are far less, the operating environment is more moderate, and the customer gets the advantage of quicker response rates. So the combination of more moderate operating environment and lower launch costs allows for a higher tolerance of failure from less optimized components.

[spacenut]

The new Starlinks are larger and probably can last longer than 5 years with more propellant, solar panels and thrusters.  I just bought a Starlink mobile.  Easy to set up and speeds over 200-250 downloading.  Streams movies without a hickup as well as high def TV.  Starlink has increased it's speed by 50% since this past January with more satellites in orbit.  Even more are coming.  Well worth it for traveling and in remote areas where no cable exists.  Very small notebook size and very light weight. 

Now, with mass production, 3D printing, and more robotics yes any space hardware would be cheaper. 

[DanClemmensen]

The new Starlinks are larger and probably can last longer than 5 years with more propellant, solar panels and thrusters.  I just bought a Starlink mobile.  Easy to set up and speeds over 200-250 downloading.  Streams movies without a hickup as well as high def TV.  Starlink has increased it's speed by 50% since this past January with more satellites in orbit.  Even more are coming.  Well worth it for traveling and in remote areas where no cable exists.  Very small notebook size and very light weight. 

Now, with mass production, 3D printing, and more robotics yes any space hardware would be cheaper.

If satellite technology continues to advance, satellites will continue to become technologically obsolete after a five-year lifetime. My personal guesstimate is that this will continue for at least another ten years (two satellite generations) and maybe more. If the cost of launch continues to drop, it makes sense to replace old satellites with much higher-bandwidth satellites on a regular schedule. It becomes a continuous process instead of a periodic cycle of launch campaigns.

[DanClemmensen]

Now, with mass production, 3D printing, and more robotics yes any space hardware would be cheaper.

In the 1990's, various visionaries (or nutcases, or whatever) such as Ray Kurzweil and Eric Drexler thought that three synergistic advancements would lead to a Singularity. They were fusion, superintelligence, and nanotechnology. We are still waiting. Of the three, nanotech is no longer getting much attention, but it may get a new kick from AGI, which is on the "superintelligence" leg of the trilogy. Among other things, full-up nanotech is the ultimate 3D printer and it drives the cost of hardware down to the cost of dirt plus the cost of the energy it needs.

Incidentally, these ideas finally came to the attention of Bill Joy in 2000 (Why the Future Doesn't Need Us), which may in turn have caught the attention of Elon and driven his Mars Sanctuary efforts.

[Vultur]

I am skeptical whether the really optimistic versions of nanotechnology are really physically possible. When you get down to the real nanometer scale, you're working with chemical systems rather than 'mechanical' systems. Viruses are tens of nanometers, and they can't really fit in enough stuff to be independently self-replicating. Ribosomes by themselves are on the same scale (~20 - 30 nm).

So you'd probably have the same limits as biochemistry - needing a liquid medium and therefore a relatively limited temperature range (between freezing and boiling of your liquid medium), relatively limited energy use (to avoid damaging the molecules), etc. - but maybe with extremely advanced SF tech you could use a supercritical fluid medium and relax the temperature limits somewhat?

Anyway, even if there are ways around those limits, I was more thinking of using current-tech mass manufacturing practices to make space hardware much cheaper, enabled by cheaper launch costs. If you assume near-Singularity nanotech manufacturing that makes anything from dirt+ energy*, the whole nature of the world's economy is completely upended anyway. So I'd rather stick to more or less current tech.

*Another reason I'm skeptical of that is that random dirt may not have the right elements to make many high tech components.

[DanClemmensen]

I am skeptical whether the really optimistic versions of nanotechnology are really physically possible. When you get down to the real nanometer scale, you're working with chemical systems rather than 'mechanical' systems. Viruses are tens of nanometers, and they can't really fit in enough stuff to be independently self-replicating. Ribosomes by themselves are on the same scale (~20 - 30 nm).

So you'd probably have the same limits as biochemistry - needing a liquid medium and therefore a relatively limited temperature range (between freezing and boiling of your liquid medium), relatively limited energy use (to avoid damaging the molecules), etc. - but maybe with extremely advanced SF tech you could use a supercritical fluid medium and relax the temperature limits somewhat?

Discussion of nanotech is getting close to off-topic here, but it really is the limiting case for "how cheap". I felt back then that Drexler's diamondoid nanotech was achievable, but we had not figured out the intervening levels of "assemblers" needed to get from micron scale down to atomic scale. The hope was that it did not violate the laws of physics, so eventually a smart enough intelligence would be able to achieve it: a brilliant human, or a very lucky research group, or an advanced AI. That's where the synergy comes in: advanced AI builds advanced production which builds the advanced computing needed for more advanced AI. Also making fusion possible, by any of  several routes that depend on the extreme precision provided by the advanced nanotech. Singularity.

If there is some damping effect in the actual real world, then Singularity may not end humanity but limit this advance at a more human level. If so, that nanotech may still be available to drive the cost of all material goods to near zero.

If we wish to continue this "how cheap" discussion here, we will need to set some ground rules on timescale and which technologies we are discussing.

[redneck]

It may become a situation where "how cheap?" becomes "how effective?". Say some form of microgravity manufacturing is required to create almost nanotech for medical issues. Like teensy critters that could clear the crud from the arteries including the smallest ones and various organs. I'd be willing to pay something above cheap for that.

If it's multi-ton orbital contraptions required to develop the tech, then cost is critical. 100 tons at $5k per pound is a billion. At $50.00 a pound it's 10 million. High risk development will depend on lower costs.

[Vultur]

I am skeptical whether the really optimistic versions of nanotechnology are really physically possible. When you get down to the real nanometer scale, you're working with chemical systems rather than 'mechanical' systems. Viruses are tens of nanometers, and they can't really fit in enough stuff to be independently self-replicating. Ribosomes by themselves are on the same scale (~20 - 30 nm).

So you'd probably have the same limits as biochemistry - needing a liquid medium and therefore a relatively limited temperature range (between freezing and boiling of your liquid medium), relatively limited energy use (to avoid damaging the molecules), etc. - but maybe with extremely advanced SF tech you could use a supercritical fluid medium and relax the temperature limits somewhat?

Discussion of nanotech is getting close to off-topic here, but it really is the limiting case for "how cheap". I felt back then that Drexler's diamondoid nanotech was achievable, but we had not figured out the intervening levels of "assemblers" needed to get from micron scale down to atomic scale. The hope was that it did not violate the laws of physics, so eventually a smart enough intelligence would be able to achieve it: a brilliant human, or a very lucky research group, or an advanced AI. That's where the synergy comes in: advanced AI builds advanced production which builds the advanced computing needed for more advanced AI. Also making fusion possible, by any of  several routes that depend on the extreme precision provided by the advanced nanotech. Singularity.

The thing is, I'm far from convinced that the laws of physics (or chemistry) do allow it. I mean, it's not prima facie impossible in the perpetual-motion-machine sense, but building the structures needed at the desired size scales may not be possible with any form of matter that actually exists.

Fusion is certainly physically possible but questionably practical for most purposes. We don't have fusion in any form that could power a commercial power plant today, and even 5-10 years from now* it will IMO be very hard for anything to compete with solar + batteries for new power generation. Fusion power would have been game changing in the 80s or 90s, but will likely be niche by the time we actually get it.

*Exact timeline probably highly dependent on how long the current datacenter building boom & it's power demand lasts.

If there is some damping effect in the actual real world, then Singularity may not end humanity but limit this advance at a more human level. If so, that nanotech may still be available to drive the cost of all material goods to near zero.

I'm much more skeptical than that. Advanced manufacturing techniques will probably improve cost a lot for certain low demand/high precision products, but I think a lot of high mass/high demand/low precision products will be really hard to see dramatic improvements in.

If we wish to continue this "how cheap" discussion here, we will need to set some ground rules on timescale and which technologies we are discussing.

Ok, makes sense. I would say next 20-25 years timeline (say 10-15 years for launch to become super cheap then 10 years for satellite / payload manufacturers to adjust how they do things to take advantage of the super cheap launch) and only technologies that have been demonstrated (at least at small/lab scale).

If it's multi-ton orbital contraptions required to develop the tech, then cost is critical. 100 tons at $5k per pound is a billion. At $50.00 a pound it's 10 million. High risk development will depend on lower costs.

$50/pound is $110/kg, which is at the far upper end of what we're discussing in this thread.

F9 launching with a pretty full payload is already cheaper than $5k/pound. 22000 kg for $70M is about $3200/kg or $1450/pound.

[StraumliBlight]

If it's multi-ton orbital contraptions required to develop the tech, then cost is critical. 100 tons at $5k per pound is a billion. At $50.00 a pound it's 10 million. High risk development will depend on lower costs.

$50/pound is $110/kg, which is at the far upper end of what we're discussing in this thread.

F9 launching with a pretty full payload is already cheaper than $5k/pound. 22000 kg for $70M is about $3200/kg or $1450/pound.

In the Longshot interview they state that below $10/kg to orbit is feasible for a future version of their gun.

[edzieba]

Looking in the other direction from the nanotech side to the larger scale question:

What metric of 'cheap' are you optimising for?

Is that 'cheap' in currency cost? Energy cost? Raw material cost? Is that cheap only relative to the cost of manufacture Earthside (and which country)? If you're manufacturing in space, whose currency are you using? Do launch costs and orbit-to-orbit transfer costs factor in? And if so is that financial or energy costs? etc.

These seem like 'obvious' questions because the answers are simple today, because "manufacture on Earth and pay for it in local currency" is the only option available. Once more options are available, things get less simple.

[Asteroza]

Looking in the other direction from the nanotech side to the larger scale question:

What metric of 'cheap' are you optimising for?

Is that 'cheap' in currency cost? Energy cost? Raw material cost? Is that cheap only relative to the cost of manufacture Earthside (and which country)? If you're manufacturing in space, whose currency are you using? Do launch costs and orbit-to-orbit transfer costs factor in? And if so is that financial or energy costs? etc.

These seem like 'obvious' questions because the answers are simple today, because "manufacture on Earth and pay for it in local currency" is the only option available. Once more options are available, things get less simple.

Time opportunity cost turns into a vector equation, as your value is a function of relative orbit, mass, and THEN the functional value of the item itself. Having statites in mercury orbit ready to drop cargo outbound sounds like an amazon model.

[InterestedEngineer]

here's a great example from another thread that shows how disregarding mass will save a ton of development time and customization. "scope, schedule, cost, pick any two, preferrably one"

I believe the Depot and Starship Tanker should have pumps to pressurize the gas in the providing tanks and draw excess gas from the receiving tanks. This only needs to be about 1/2 bar differential. This way fuel transfer can be done with no loss. A Howden Roots Tri-RAM Model 409 would be a good choice. It's rather heavy at 152kg and that does not include the electric motor to drive it. A customized version could be built with lighter weight materials and save about 40%.  https://www.pdblowers.com/product/roots-tri-ram-model-409/?srsltid=AfmBOopLFBhBcK3PKg3Gjc1eRBZbF3fLMquL_FQVAbf8B3N0U2NNNak0

in old space, they'd try to save the 40% mass which would increase the cost of the component by 1000x.  In new space they'd just pick the heavy off the shelf part.

[Twark_Main]

Looking in the other direction from the nanotech side to the larger scale question:

What metric of 'cheap' are you optimising for?

Is that 'cheap' in currency cost? Energy cost? Raw material cost? Is that cheap only relative to the cost of manufacture Earthside (and which country)? If you're manufacturing in space, whose currency are you using? Do launch costs and orbit-to-orbit transfer costs factor in? And if so is that financial or energy costs? etc.

These seem like 'obvious' questions because the answers are simple today, because "manufacture on Earth and pay for it in local currency" is the only option available. Once more options are available, things get less simple.

Time opportunity cost turns into a vector equation, as your value is a function of relative orbit, mass, and THEN the functional value of the item itself. Having statites in mercury orbit ready to drop cargo outbound sounds like an amazon model.

I'm no economist, but I don't see it as being that big a theoretical upheaval.

It's "just" shipping costs and comparative advantage, as far as I can tell. There's no need for a revolution in how economics measures value.

[VSECOTSPE]

Loral Aquarius SLV, $600/kg (2002 dollars)

American sea-launched orbital launch vehicle. Proposed expendable, water launch, single-stage-to-orbit, liquid oxygen/hydrogen, low-cost launch vehicle designed to carry small bulk payloads to low earth orbit. A unique attribute was that low reliability was accepted in order to achieve low cost.
Status: Study 1998-2006. Payload: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). Thrust: 818.00 kN (183,893 lbf). Gross mass: 130,000 kg (280,000 lb). Height: 43.00 m (141.00 ft). Diameter: 4.00 m (13.10 ft). Span: 4.00 m (13.10 ft). Apogee: 370 km (220 mi).

The Aquarius Concept was launch of low-cost supplies on a low-cost vehicle. These would be low-cost, easily-replaced consumables such as water, fuel, food, and air as needed by the International Space Station and military spacecraft. Launch failures would be acceptable since the intrinsic value of the replaceable consumables was low. About one-third of the launches were expected to fail.

The lowest-cost vehicle was a single-string, single-stage, single-engine low-margin vehicle built using non-white-glove labor and facilities. Low margins were consistent with a one-third failure. The loss-tolerant payload and vehicle required an appropriate supporting infrastructure. An ocean-based floating launch infrastructure was low-cost and tolerated failures.

Orbital retrieval of the payload would be by a space-tug (e.g. the ASTRO vehicle then being developed by the DARPA Orbital Express program, or other vehicles being studied under the NASA Alternate Access to Station study. Practical vehicle sizing led to a ~1 metric ton palletized payload to 200 km circular orbit with 52 deg inclination (Space Station). The cost target: $600K per launch at ~100 launches per year.

http://www.astronautix.com/a/aquarius.html