Satellite operators could face increasing difficulties securing affordable rocket launches as SpaceX redirects its attention from the Falcon 9 programme towards its larger Starship rocket.
An industry assessment by a former chief technology officer of satellite operator SES highlights concerns about limited Falcon 9 availability, rising launch costs and the lack of alternative rockets capable of handling increasing demand.
The former SES executive, who previously supervised six Falcon 9 launches, said most remaining launch slots through approximately 2030 have already been booked.
The situation raises questions about how satellite companies planning future missions will secure access to space, particularly those that depend on relatively inexpensive shared launches.
SES Previously Became the First Commercial Customer to Reuse a Falcon 9 Booster
In 2016, SES agreed to launch one of its communications satellites using a Falcon 9 booster that SpaceX had previously flown.
At the time, no commercial customer had undertaken such an arrangement.
As SES’s chief technology officer, the executive oversaw the technical work conducted by engineers from both companies, including inspections and testing of the rocket’s engines and electronic systems before its second flight.
The satellite was successfully launched in March 2017 using the previously flown booster.
The executive subsequently oversaw six Falcon 9 launches during his time at SES.
However, his assessment of the launch market has changed since becoming an investor in growth-stage space companies, particularly as SpaceX increasingly prioritises Starship development.
Satellite Companies Face Risks When Launch Bookings Are Delayed
Companies that secured Falcon 9 launch reservations well in advance are better positioned to access available capacity before 2030.
K2 Space, one of the executive’s investment portfolio companies, announced in October 2025 that it had booked a Falcon 9 launch for 2027 to deploy three satellites. The reservation was secured more than a year earlier.
However, having a confirmed booking does not eliminate the possibility of delays.
A technical problem involving a supplier or component could force a satellite operator to postpone its launch, even if its engineers require only a few additional days to resolve the issue.
Because multiple customers share the same rocket, a delay affecting one payload can complicate scheduling for other operators.
Under SpaceX’s rideshare conditions, customers can transfer payments towards another flight, subject to a rebooking fee of between 5% and 10%.
However, the arrangement does not guarantee when the replacement launch will take place, potentially leaving satellite operators uncertain about when their investments will begin generating revenue.
Small Satellite Operators Could Face Higher Launch Costs After 2030
Companies developing satellites weighing 100 kilograms or less could be particularly affected by reduced access to affordable rideshare launches.
SpaceX’s Transporter programme allows multiple customers to share a rocket, with each operator paying according to the weight of its payload.
For a shared orbital mission passing near both poles, SpaceX advertises a starting price of $350,000 for the first 50 kilograms, with an additional $7,000 charged for every kilogram beyond that weight.
Under this pricing structure, launching a 100-kilogram satellite would cost approximately $700,000.
The assessment suggests that comparable launch arrangements could become difficult to secure after 2030 if SpaceX continues shifting its resources towards Starship.
K2 Space Demonstrates the Economics of Larger Satellites
K2 Space provides an example of how satellite manufacturers could potentially manage higher launch expenses through lower spacecraft production costs.
In March, the company launched its two-tonne Gravitas satellite aboard a Falcon 9 rocket.
K2 co-founder Karan Kunjur has argued that the economics of building the spacecraft make its launch cost of approximately $7.2 million financially viable.
He compared this with an estimated $600,000 launch cost if Starship eventually delivers its projected cost reductions.
However, the assessment notes that K2’s business model is unusual, as most satellite operators may struggle to offset higher launch expenses through comparable savings in spacecraft manufacturing.
ICEYE Explores European Launch Alternative Through Ariane 6
Satellite operator ICEYE is also examining alternatives to SpaceX for some of its European government-related missions.
In September, the company signed a memorandum of understanding with Arianespace to explore future launches using Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket.
Neither company announced a launch date as part of the agreement.
ICEYE continues to use SpaceX for its existing missions. In October, the company deployed four radar satellites on one SpaceX flight before launching another four satellites just 19 days later.
The discussions with Arianespace form part of its exploration of additional launch options.
New Rocket Providers May Not Immediately Resolve Capacity Constraints
Other launch providers could offer alternatives if SpaceX delays or limits access to Falcon 9 missions.
Rocket Lab’s Neutron and Relativity Space’s Terran R are among the rockets expected to provide additional launch capacity.
However, postponements involving these vehicles could leave satellite operators facing similar scheduling problems.
Companies waiting for a launch must continue paying engineering and operational expenses while their spacecraft remain on the ground. They also cannot begin selling satellite-based services until their payloads reach orbit.
Blue Origin’s New Glenn could provide another option, depending on its available launch capacity and whether it can accommodate replacement bookings.
However, the assessment argues that even after a new rocket completes its first flight, manufacturers may require several years to establish regular launch operations.
The former SES executive estimates that Rocket Lab and Relativity Space could take until 2033 or 2034 to reach that stage with Neutron and Terran R, respectively.
Satellite Investors Urged to Examine Launch Agreements and Backup Plans
The changing launch market has raised questions about how satellite companies manage their deployment schedules and financial commitments.
Drawing on his experience at SES and subsequent investment activities, the former executive identified three issues that satellite company management teams should address: which launch they have booked, how much they have agreed to pay and what arrangements they have made if they lose their scheduled place.
He also said customers relying on satellite services should establish whether their providers have secured launch arrangements capable of supporting their promised deployment dates.
The availability of rockets, launch pricing and contingency arrangements are becoming important considerations for companies planning to deploy commercial satellites over the coming years.
