Consider, page-52

I already explained all of this in my previous comments but I will elaborate again.

The ~70 million/year is for 4 years while the ~90 million/year is for 2 years.

My calculation is as follow:

Based on the following figures

1. 750k/pearls to build and launch as confirmed by Meir in what of his videos.
2. ~12 million/year or ~3 million/quarter of operational cost at very conservative estimate because no doubt cost will increase over time. Refer to released financial reports for confirmation.
3. Other costs that may include building groundstations among other things. The cost of which is uncertain.

Based on what SAS has announced publically, on their september 2018 presentation, the nanosats are only going to be operational for 5-7 years [No doubt because of exposure and orbital decay] at 700-750km low earth orbit. SAS latest plan is to launch in batches of 15-30. These are official figures based on company announcement.

Let us take an ~average figure and assume that SAS launch a single batch of 20 every single year. So the pearls themselves are going to cost [750k x 20 = 15 million] add [~12 million operating cost] becomes a total of at least 27 million. So then how long would it take SAS to complete the whole constellation of 200 pearls, and have that 200 at any given time, all the while undergoing intended replacement of satellites due to operational life limit at that rate of 20/year? 10 years? NO, the answer is never. The idea is to complete the whole constellation by 2020.

I will explain why I said never, it is VERY SIMPLE MATHEMATIC. Lets assume rate of 20 per year for the sake of an argument:

1st year batch, 2nd year batch...so on to 10th.

remember operational life of 5 to 7 years so lets assume 4 years and CONSERVATIVELY replacement at 5th year. Commercially this makes sense because SAS shouldn't take any chances of having dead satellites for long, uncertain periods.

So 1st batch, 20, 1st+2nd, 40, 1...3rd, 60, 1...4th, 80, 1...5th, 100 MINUS 20 FROM 1ST BATCH AT ITS CURRENT 5TH YEAR, 80 AND THEN IT WOULD BE STUCK AT 80 FOREVER.

The same logic applies if it the rate is instead 30 a year, 40 a year and so on....

Take 50 a year for example

50,100,150,200,200(150),200(150),200(150) at the point where I have written (150) that means at that year SAS will have uncertain fluctuations of between at least 150-200 at any given time as decayed pearls are replace with new ones, which no doubt would be unacceptable for commercial purposes.

So then SAS would need around 68/year, which would allow for redundancies and avoid fluctuations.

What people need to understand is that they actually need more than 200 at the end every year while taking advantage of 5 percent redundancies built into the constellation.

So at 68 a year we have,

68, 136, 204, 272, 272(204), 272(204) and so on stabilised by 5 percent redundancy system.

So we have 204 at all times and takes 4 years to complete.

So at 68/year then the pearls alone would cost [68x750k = 51 million] plus [~12 million VERY CONSERVATIVE operational cost] plus extra cost [7 million a year on average] becomes a total of 70 million/year for 4 years and thereforth.

As for 90 million/year calculation that is for 100 pearls a year. Which is the only viable way if SAS intend to complete the pearl constellation by 2020.

All basic mathematics...