Suboptimal Launch Cost Decisions
Definition
Cost models iterate vehicle size for 20M kg payload over 20 years; non-optimal choices raise cost/kg, with RLV refurb lower than ELV production but risky without precise allocation.[1][4]
Key Findings
- Financial Impact: AUD 10-20M program cost increase from non-optimal payload (e.g., >20,000 kg for low δ).[1]
- Frequency: Per program development cycle
- Root Cause: Lack of data on inert mass fraction (δ) and flights per vehicle (Nfpv) in allocation.
Why This Matters
The Pitch: Australian space tech companies waste AUD 7-20M per mission on flawed vehicle sizing. Automated allocation tools prevent decision errors in RLV vs ELV selection.
Affected Stakeholders
Systems Engineers, Financial Auditors, Procurement Leads
Deep Analysis (Premium)
Financial Impact
Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.
Current Workarounds
Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.
Get Solutions for This Problem
Full report with actionable solutions
- Solutions for this specific pain
- Solutions for all 15 industry pains
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
Methodology & Sources
Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.
Related Business Risks
Launch Vehicle Cost Allocation Overruns
Launch Operations Cost Inflation
Estimation Method Inaccuracies
Flight Hardware Inventory Chain Overheads
Equipment Idle in Payload Qualification
Inventory Shrinkage in Space Supply Chains
Request Deep Analysis
🇦🇺 Be first to access this market's intelligence