Evaluating and purchasing a communications satellite system - Satellite and Launch Vehicle Costs
From INVESaTWIKI
Satellite and launch vehicle costs
The costs for the satellite and launch vehicle are major
and up-front. The satellite should be compatible with a
variety of launch vehicles. Particularly because the
worldwide launch providers are combining their
capabilities across continents for total mission
assurance and on-time schedules. Examples are Proton
(Russian) backing up Atlas (USA), and Arianespace
(French) securing back up from Sea Launch (USA/
Russian) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japanese).
Operators may choose a ‘delivery in orbit’ proposal, or
purchase the satellite and negotiate their own launch
and insurance package. Either way, the satellite
specifications, mass and dimensions have a significant impact on the choice, price and insurability of the
selected launch vehicle. Total mission assurance by the
launch providers has been shown to have a beneficial
effect on the insurance industry.
The initial purchase price is the largest factor (70 to 80
percent) in the TCO a business buyer faces in selecting
a satellite platform.
What is not always obvious is the relationship between
the initial costs of the satellite relative to its projected
lifetime cost. For example, building in superior margins
for critical subsystems may result in higher upfront
costs, but can result in a significantly lower TCO. Other
factors such as insurance, customer support and
lifetime reliability also affect the total system cost.
Major in-orbit anomalies are unpredictable, but by
researching all satellite models, operators can identify
those with records for the fewest and least expensive
anomalies.
Bus anomalies have occurred in the satellites of all
manufacturers. They have been attributed to faulty
design and most frequently to faulty manufacturing of
components. At the time of the evaluation of the design, the manufacturer’s current performance on the
satellite he is offering should be key in the evaluation.
Operators should evaluate the anticipated system costs
from an overall performance perspective, balancing
subsystem power margins against the expected life of
the satellite. For instance, if a solar array design starts
life with a power margin of 25 to 20 percent, it is less
likely to have problems fulfilling lifetime performance if
the spacecraft is built with a power margin of 25 to 30
percent. The same concept applies to many subsystems, such as batteries, radiation resistance, etc.
The additional power margin may cost more up front,
but can add years to the life of the spacecraft and
generate additional revenues over mission life. [1]
References
[1] Satmagazine.com - January 2004
Satellite System Acquisition: A Fresh Approach to Evaluating and Purchasing a Communications Satellite System
