> The solution some open source projects came up with was to just take components from Mouser and run their own radiation tests on it then choose the ones that fared good enough to be used in space. That way they can make satellite boards for way cheaper.
Isn't there a requirement for all cube-sats to pass radiation tests / shock tests or whatever for them to be accepted for launch?
From what I've read researching this stuff, the sats themselves aren't necessarily difficult or expensive to build, but its because of this testing / component requirement that makes them expensive.
E.g., see the first comment on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8TSiKHZbC8
> I work in this industry and yes these things are seriously expensive but also the cost isn't necessarily due to the hardware being expensive. The cost comes from testing and verification. Most integrators and launch providers want detailed information concerning vibration testing, material certifications for outgassing, vacuum testing and burn in. A lot of the players in the sat industry can't really afford to mess this up so they want to make sure the one shot they do have works. All of this additional engineering and testing costs are what kills the affordability. Even if you can get away with doing this all yourself, either academically or otherwise, no launch provider is going to let you on a ride share without this work, which requires specific testing hardware and a lot of man hours... which coincidentally costs a lot of money.