Can the word "orbital" mean expensive/high?

As Bjorn points out, "orbital" is phonetically similar to "exorbitant". Indeed, they share the same etymological root.

In addition to the similarity of sound, I suspect that someone might think of the fact that objects in orbit are very high up, or that getting an object into orbit requires accelerating it to a very high speed ("orbital speeds"). So if someone thought they heard "orbital fees" they could reasonably infer a metaphorical use that could fit in the context.

It's obviously a bit of hyperbole.

A satellite requires a certain combination of altitude and velocity to orbit around the earth.

As Wikipedia notes:

The minimum altitude for a stable orbit around Earth (that is, one without significant atmospheric drag) is around 350 kilometres (220 mi) above sea level.

This is very high indeed; by contrast, Mt Everest is a mere 8840 meters (5.5 mi) high.

So orbital fees are more than sky-high; after all, NASA considers anyone who travels above 80 km (50 mi) an astronaut.

The more common altitude-related idiom for "sky high" is stratospheric. I've never heard "orbital" used in this way, and it seems wrong - the primary characteristic of something which is orbital is that it orbits something, not that it is high above the surface.