This section defines a “Starship-class” LiDAR Earth-observation satellite: a ~2,000 kg, high-power platform designed around the emerging Starlink V3-style, long-and-flat form factor and deployed in volume by Starship. The purpose is to establish a credible reference architecture that pushes beyond Falcon 9 rideshare constraints, especially optics aperture, orbit-average power, and very-low-orbit operations. As outlined in the following pages, this unlocks a revolution for dense, 1m structural LiDAR at global scale.
Starship is explicitly intended to deliver payloads with much larger volume and mass capacity than Falcon-class vehicles, lowering marginal cost per delivered kg and enabling designs that are “too big” or awkward for standard rideshare envelopes.
SpaceX’s own Starlink roadmap provides a concrete example: Starlink V3 satellites are described as ~2,000 kg-class, intended for launch on Starship, with per-satellite throughput far beyond prior generations.
This matters for LiDAR because the major “pain points” of a Falcon-class instrument - receiver aperture, orbit-average electrical power, and orbit altitude - are both fundamentally mass/area-limited.

Source: https://ringwatchers.com/article/ship-pez-dispenser
The key architectural feature is the long, flat body optimized for dense stacking and deployment from Starship’s internal dispenser (“PEZ dispenser”). Analyses referencing SpaceX and FCC documentation describe Starship-variant Starlink satellites as roughly ~6.4 m long × ~2.7 m wide (order-of-magnitude geometry) and explicitly connect that geometry to high-capacity deployment mechanisms.
Implication for LiDAR packaging:
A central advantage of this class is the ability to operate in very low Earth orbit (VLEO) (e.g., ~300 km). VLEO improves LiDAR link budget because range losses decrease strongly with altitude, reducing required pulse energy for the same detected signal.
However, VLEO is not “free.” At these altitudes, atmospheric drag increases sharply, and propulsion is typically required for drag compensation / orbit maintenance. This is well established in VLEO literature and reviews. Strong attitude control systems are also required to offset atmospheric perturbation, though we assume this can be achieved within this much larger satellite size.
Starship-class implication: the additional mass and power margin can be allocated to:
Baseline assumption: a ~1 m-class receiver aperture (circular or rectangular equivalent). This is a step-function upgrade over Falcon-class apertures and directly improves link budget via receiver area $A$ (and therefore required pulse energy and/or achievable swath in the Hancock-style framework).
Given the aforementioned desire to minimise frontal area, we need to incorporate a fold mirror to bend the optical axis from the nadir axis to the spacecraft’s longitudinal axis. This greatly increases the potential size of the receiver optics.

The distinguishing feature of the Starship-class architecture is high orbit-average payload power, enabled by:
Unlike Falcon-class, which tends to be constrained to burst firing (duty-cycled) because of limited orbit-average power, the Starship-class concept can support:
A 1m-class telescope drives:
The flat form factor is beneficial for packaging large optics and radiators but increases structural design complexity (panel stiffness and alignment).
Higher performance is required than for imaging-only payloads:
High duty-cycle lasers and power electronics require:
Even with smart duty cycling, a high-duty LiDAR can generate very large data volumes. The Starship-class platform can allocate more mass/power to:
We estimate that a 2000kg EO LiDAR mission can be executed for <$160M recurring cost, excluding R&D and non-recurring engineering. This is a simple extrapolation for the cost of the 250kg Falcon-class satellite against the increased mass of the spacecraft. That said, a more detailed estimate is provided below, with the same assumptions as the Falcon-class satellite. This finds a detailed approximate cost of $75.7M recurring.
| Subsystem | Cost (USD) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Structure, panels, mechanisms | $4.5M | Larger bus, higher stiffness, more interfaces; limited deployables beyond arrays |
| ADCS (star trackers, IMU, reaction wheels/CMGs, desaturation, GPS, jitter control) | $6.0M | Precision pointing + jitter control; higher-class wheels, sensors, isolation/mounting |
| EPS + deployable solar arrays + batteries | $6.5M | Much larger array area + PCDU; batteries sized for peak payload + eclipse |
| Electric propulsion (thrusters + PPUs + tanks/feed + prop load) | $8.5M | Continuous VLEO drag make-up + orbit control + deorbit; multi-thruster redundancy |
| Avionics (OBC, mass memory, interfaces, timing, payload data handling) | $2.0M | Higher-throughput payload chain, more rad-tolerant compute |
| Communications (X/Ka-band, antennas, RF chain) | $2.8M | Higher downlink, higher duty cycle; still “lean” single payload downlink chain where possible |
| Thermal (MLI, radiators, heaters, payload thermal stability hardware) | $3.0M | Larger waste heat rejection + tighter stability for optics/laser |
| LiDAR payload (unit recurring) | $14.0M | Larger telescope/optics, laser chain, timing/detectors, scan/pointing mechanisms, cal hardware |
| Spacecraft hardware subtotal | $47.3M |
| Item | Cost | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Assembly & integration labour | $2.5 M | Larger spacecraft, more harnessing, more alignment/metrology |
| Environmental testing (protoflight) | $3.5 M | TVAC + vibe; larger chamber time, longer thermal balance; still streamlined |
| QA / workmanship / screening | $1.5 M | More screening for EP/payload, cleanliness controls for optics |
| AIT subtotal | $7.5 M |
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Launch on Starship, reduced cost vs Falcon 9 rideshare | $7.0 M |
| Integration, separation system, logistics | $1.0 M |
| Launch subtotal | $8.0 M |
| Item | Cost | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Ground station services | $1.8 M | More downlink volume + more passes; still using shared network |
| Mission ops staff | $2.4 M | ~2 FTE equivalent (bus + payload ops/calibration) |
| Flight dynamics & conjunction handling | $0.8 M | VLEO requires tighter orbit maintenance planning + conjunction work |
| Data processing & cloud compute | $1.5 M | Larger data volume; more calibration/QA; onboard preprocessing helps |
| Ops subtotal (3 yrs) | $6.5 M |
| --- | --- |
| --- | --- | --- |
