Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers (typically $100k for 1U).
It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as Educational establishments to defray costs.
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Friday, 1 August 2014, 16:45, Bill Ress bill@hsmicrowave.com wrote:
Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
Regards...Bill - N6GHz _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
The last time I saw this site, they did list prices for 1U and 2U CubeSats. Wonder why they don't anymore.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:16 PM, M5AKA m5aka@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers (typically $100k for 1U).
It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as Educational establishments to defray costs.
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Friday, 1 August 2014, 16:45, Bill Ress bill@hsmicrowave.com wrote:
Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
Regards...Bill - N6GHz _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi Paul,
Good question about the 1U and 2U.
I found the $650 mil for a 3U to "GTO" interesting. As Trevor says, launch costs might not be out of reach if we can find some deep pocket "university" partners. That would fall in line with the AMSAT strategy of supporting the CMD/COMM side of a joint venture.
Bill - N6GHz
On 8/1/2014 9:27 AM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
The last time I saw this site, they did list prices for 1U and 2U CubeSats. Wonder why they don't anymore.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:16 PM, M5AKA m5aka@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers (typically $100k for 1U).
It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as Educational establishments to defray costs.
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Friday, 1 August 2014, 16:45, Bill Ress bill@hsmicrowave.com wrote:
Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
Regards...Bill - N6GHz _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On 8/1/14, M5AKA m5aka@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers (typically $100k for 1U).
It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as Educational establishments to defray costs.
<snip>
On the other hand, that company does have a proven launch record. By comparison, I know of a start-up that would air launch a cubesat for a 7-figure price, but it hasn't had a flight yet. At the other end of the scale, one group could do it for something like $60,000--but it doesn't have a rocket ready to go, either.
Let's not forget that one gets what one pays for.
73s
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats? I just dont get it.
John
Well John, right now they are the cheapest to build and launch...Bill - N6GHz
On 8/1/2014 10:01 AM, John Becker wrote:
Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats? I just dont get it.
John _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
The Wikipedia article on CubeSats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat) has a very nice summary of why they are the present and future of the small satellite industry:
"The CubeSat specification accomplishes several high-level goals. Simplification of the satellite's infrastructure makes it possible to design and produce a workable satellite at low cost. Encapsulation of the launcher–payload interface takes away the prohibitive amount of managerial work that would previously be required for mating a piggyback satellite with its launcher. Unification among payloads and launchers enables quick exchanges of payloads and utilization of launch opportunities on short notice."
I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM, John Becker w0jab@big-river.net wrote:
Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats? I just dont get it.
John
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On 8/1/14, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
The Wikipedia article on CubeSats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat) has a very nice summary of why they are the present and future of the small satellite industry:
"The CubeSat specification accomplishes several high-level goals. Simplification of the satellite's infrastructure makes it possible to design and produce a workable satellite at low cost. Encapsulation of the launcher–payload interface takes away the prohibitive amount of managerial work that would previously be required for mating a piggyback satellite with its launcher. Unification among payloads and launchers enables quick exchanges of payloads and utilization of launch opportunities on short notice."
I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
<snip>
I think part of the opposition from the amateur radio community comes from an attitude of certain cubesat users that they have a right to use spectrum which is specifically allocated for amateur use. All they do is claim that they're "amateurs" (by not being affiliated with government or industry) and the law appears to let them get away with it. If hams have objections to it, they're told to get lost by those same users, almost as if hams have no right to those frequencies.
Then again, what do you expect from a segment of the population that regards amateur radio as an anachronism?
73s
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
True. That is a problem, though it's certainly a separate issue from the design and construction of the satellite.
The best the amateur satellite community can do is cultivate relationships with those who wish to use our frequencies and hopefully receive some benefit. For example, several CubeSats have been launched using the ISIS TRXUV Transceiver as their communication system. That transceiver has the capability of being used in loopback mode that provides an FM-to-DSB single channel transponder. Perhaps if we ask nicely, we can get use of one or two of those when the organization that built and launched them are done with them.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM, B J va6bmj@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/14, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
The Wikipedia article on CubeSats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat) has a very nice summary of why they are the present and future of the small satellite industry:
"The CubeSat specification accomplishes several high-level goals. Simplification of the satellite's infrastructure makes it possible to design and produce a workable satellite at low cost. Encapsulation of the launcher–payload interface takes away the prohibitive amount of managerial work that would previously be required for mating a piggyback satellite with its launcher. Unification among payloads and launchers enables quick exchanges of payloads and utilization of launch opportunities on short notice."
I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
<snip>
I think part of the opposition from the amateur radio community comes from an attitude of certain cubesat users that they have a right to use spectrum which is specifically allocated for amateur use. All they do is claim that they're "amateurs" (by not being affiliated with government or industry) and the law appears to let them get away with it. If hams have objections to it, they're told to get lost by those same users, almost as if hams have no right to those frequencies.
Then again, what do you expect from a segment of the population that regards amateur radio as an anachronism?
73s
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and simply the mass of silicon they can contain.
Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at work. Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd be amazed what you could do with the small of a space to pack electronics into.
Bryce
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus gus@8p6sm.net wrote:
On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and simply the mass of silicon they can contain.
Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
-- Gus 8P6SM The Easternmost Isle
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Absolutely! Micro-miniaturization!
But some things are difficult to miniaturize -- like a 144 MHz yagi.
On 08/01/2014 09:20 PM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at work. Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd be amazed what you could do with the small of a space to pack electronics into.
Bryce
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus <gus@8p6sm.net mailto:gus@8p6sm.net> wrote:
On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote: I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite. Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and simply the mass of silicon they can contain. Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature? -- Gus 8P6SM The Easternmost Isle _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB@amsat.org>. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Gus,
We're not going to see another satellite with a 144 MHz yagi. The "Mode B HEO" ship has long since sailed unless someone can come up with the $15-$20 million or more to finish and launch Phase 3E. However, given how rapidly technology has advanced, I'm not going to count out a large CubeSat (the specification covers up to 27U) getting us back to HEO some day, but it will definitely be microwave band only.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Gus gus@8p6sm.net wrote:
Absolutely! Micro-miniaturization!
But some things are difficult to miniaturize -- like a 144 MHz yagi.
On 08/01/2014 09:20 PM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at work. Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd be amazed what you could do with the small of a space to pack electronics into.
Bryce
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus <gus@8p6sm.net mailto:gus@8p6sm.net> wrote:
On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote: I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite. Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and simply the mass of silicon they can contain. Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature? -- Gus 8P6SM The Easternmost Isle _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB@amsat.org>. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb-- Gus 8P6SM The Easternmost Isle
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
We're not going to see another satellite with a 144 MHz yagi.
The"Mode B HEO" ship has long since sailed
Paul,
The problem is there aren't any global primary Amateur-Satellite microwave bands below 24 GHz. While our allocations at 29 MHz and 144 MHz may be primary world-wide the other VHF/UHF/uW bands are not.
We have seen 2400 MHz rendered useless in urban areas due to WiFi with 5840 MHz likely to go the same way. There's a 3400 MHz allocation in Regions 2 and 3 but it's not available in Region 1. 1260 MHz is now being used by the Galileo GPS system, already a German 23cm repeater has been shut down because it "interfered with a Galileo GPS receiver". We might expect further restrictions on 1260 as use of the new system spreads. http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
In the UK the top half of the 10 GHz satellite allocation has already been allocated to high power commercial stations.
Clearly deploying some form of directional 144 MHz antenna on a 3U CubeSat will be challenging, but not necessarily impossible.
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Saturday, 2 August 2014, 3:16, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
Gus,
We're not going to see another satellite with a 144 MHz yagi. The "Mode B HEO" ship has long since sailed unless someone can come up with the $15-$20 million or more to finish and launch Phase 3E. However, given how rapidly technology has advanced, I'm not going to count out a large CubeSat (the specification covers up to 27U) getting us back to HEO some day, but it will definitely be microwave band only.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Gus gus@8p6sm.net wrote:
Absolutely! Micro-miniaturization!
But some things are difficult to miniaturize -- like a 144 MHz yagi.
On 08/01/2014 09:20 PM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at work. Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd be amazed what you could do with the small of a space to pack electronics into.
Bryce
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus <gus@8p6sm.net mailto:gus@8p6sm.net> wrote:
On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and simply the mass of silicon they can contain.
Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
-- Gus 8P6SM The Easternmost Isle
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org mailto:AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions
expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
-- Gus 8P6SM The Easternmost Isle
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats? I just dont get it.
Standardization! But the real payoff from standardization is REDUCED RISK to the launch provider. Instead of having to micromanage every detail of satellite design so that the launch provider can GURARANTEE the safety to the main payload ($100,000,000) due to secondary small sats, the CUBESAT spec defines all the restraints and details. Thus, orders of magnitudes worth of fussy details necessary to assure absolute safety of the primary payload do not have to be done for each and every secondary small sat, just ONE standard.
Then, all the small sats have to do is comply with the spec.
This is why we are starting to see large numbers of cubesats, because now the LAUNCH providers only have to deal with ONE set of issues (cubesat spec) and not sixty different payloads, organizations, and 60 different unique risks.
Bob, WB4APR
Nailed it
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats? I just dont get it.
Standardization! But the real payoff from standardization is REDUCED RISK to the launch provider. Instead of having to micromanage every detail of satellite design so that the launch provider can GURARANTEE the safety to the main payload ($100,000,000) due to secondary small sats, the CUBESAT spec defines all the restraints and details. Thus, orders of magnitudes worth of fussy details necessary to assure absolute safety of the primary payload do not have to be done for each and every secondary small sat, just ONE standard.
Then, all the small sats have to do is comply with the spec.
This is why we are starting to see large numbers of cubesats, because now the LAUNCH providers only have to deal with ONE set of issues (cubesat spec) and not sixty different payloads, organizations, and 60 different unique risks.
Bob, WB4APR _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
They're cheap.
On 08/01/2014 01:01 PM, John Becker wrote:
Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats? I just dont get it.
John _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (8)
-
B J -
Bill Ress -
Bryce Salmi -
Gus -
John Becker -
M5AKA -
Paul Stoetzer -
Robert Bruninga