Analysis of the Earth-to-Orbit Launch Market for Nano and Microsatellites

Transcription

1 Analysis of the Earth-to-Orbit Launch Market for Nano and Microsatellites Dominic DePasquale 1, and A.C. Charania 2 SpaceWorks Commercial, Washington, DC, and Hideki Kanayama 3 CSP Japan, Inc., Tokyo Japan and Seiji Matsuda 4 IHI Aerospace Co., Ltd., Tomioka, Gunma Japan Global interest in nano and microsatellites (< 100kg) is increasing. Many nanosatellites (<10 kg) are used for educational purposes, and within the past few years nanosatellite applications have expanded to on-orbit technology demonstration/experimentation, telecommunications, and earth observation. This paper discusses results from a preliminary market assessment of small satellite launch demand, specifically for 1-50 kg orbital payloads, and suborbital payloads. The authors have developed an international small satellite launch database that provides a comprehensive compilation of satellites less than 500 kilograms (kg) mass launched since The current database consists of over 270 attempted and successful small satellites launches. The database is broken down by year into various payload categories, and includes detailed development, launch, and orbit information on each satellite. Over the past decade, there has been a general upward growth in small satellites. This trend is particularly evident over the past five years. Further insight is obtained from stratification of this data in terms of market segment (civil, military, etc.) and various other parameters (orbit inclination, country of origin, etc.). Nomenclature COTS = Commercial-Off-The-Shelf CSP-J = CSP-Japan FALCON = Force Application and Launch From Continental United States IA = IHI-Aerospace Co., Ltd. LEO = Low Earth Orbit OPAL = Orbiting Picosatellite Automated Launcher ORS = Operationally Responsive Space PSLV = Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle RASCAL = Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch SEI = SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. USEF = Institute for Unmanned Experiment Free Flyer 1 Director of Washington D.C. Operations, SpaceWorks Commercial, 1701 K Street NW - Ste. 750, AIAA Member. 2 President, SpaceWorks Commercial, 1701 K Street NW - Ste. 750, AIAA Senior Member. 3 Director, Aerospace Policy and Industry, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku 4 Defense and Space Integrated System Department, 900 Fujiki. 1

2 I. Introduction VIDENCE indicates that more and more organizations globally are getting involved with small satellite Eprojects. Efforts have been ongoing to standardize systems and develop Plug and Play components. Many universities have adopted some of these standards to help their students develop actual space hardware. Governments continue to invest in small satellite technology development, creating new possibilities for scientific research and other applications of small satellites. This environment generates demand for small satellite launches, as evidenced by the last ten years of launch activity. This paper attempts to examine this growth and reveal details of such developments, specifically from the perspective of an orbital launch vehicle service. A. Terminology In this paper, the term small satellite is used on multiple occasions, and the authors use of this term refers to satellites with mass less than 50 kg. Unofficial definitions within the small satellite community define picosatellites as those whose overall mass is under 1 kg, nanosatellites as those whose overall mass is between 1-10 kg, and microsatellites as those whose overall mass is between kg. This set of definitions is generally followed here. B. Brief History and Evidence of Growth At 83.6 kg, the first satellite to successfully achieve orbit, Sputnik 1, would be termed a microsatellite by modern classification. The United States first satellite, Explorer 1 was also a microsatellite with a mass of 14.0 kg. Vanguard 1, the fourth satellite launched to orbit and still orbiting today, has a mass of 1.7 kg, making it the first ever nanosatellite. A large number of low technology small satellites were launched in the 1950s as launch vehicle delivery capabilities matured. In the 1960s, small satellite launch rates remained high with recognized value for space environment characterization, technology demonstration, and passive communications relay. Small satellite launches began decreasing in the 1970s and remained low throughout the early 1980s with the exception of the Soviet Romb passive radar calibration satellites that were carried by larger spacecraft and deployed over time. 1 Small satellite launch rates rose again in the late 1980s and mid 1990s due to advances in electronics miniaturization and re-emphasis on the scientific value of small spacecraft. The successful Orbiting Picosatellite Automated Launcher (OPAL) microsatellite in 2000 demonstrated the capability to deploy multiple pico and nanosized satellites by one deployment mechanism. The CubeSat Project at the California Polytechnic State University in 1999 helped to define the new era of smaller satellites, those under 10 kg in overall mass. This project helped standardize nanosatellites into a 10 x 10 x 10-cm. cube, in many cases employing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components. The first launch of a CubeSat occurred in June The last ten years have seen continued growth in launches of high-technology small satellites (under 500 kg), as will be explored in more depth in this paper. This increase is not a spike within a certain year but continued yearover-year growth. One can observe the upward trend in the under 50 kg class, and also in the microsatellite range. Anecdotal evidence also supports growth in the small satellite market such as the increasing popularity of CubeSats in the academic and amateur communities. Government attention has also increased for small satellites and responsive small launch vehicles. This is demonstrated by multiple U.S. government initiatives over the years, ranging from DARPA RASCAL (Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch), DARPA FALCON (Force Application and Launch from Continental United States), secondary payload rideshare investments such as the ESPA ring, and other efforts by the Air Force Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. C. Global Small Satellite Launch Database The market demand for orbital payloads described in this report reflects an assessment of historical demand from 2000 to The focus of the market demand assessment is on micro and nanosatellites, specifically for those satellites under 50 kg with even more specific emphasis on those satellites under 10 kg. There is also some preliminary assessment of the suborbital payload launch market, but more emphasis is placed upon the orbital market. In order to understand such a market, SpaceWorks Commercial has developed its Global Small Satellite Launch Database to provide a comprehensive compilation of satellites less than 500 kilograms (kg) in mass that have been launched since The current database consists of over 270 attempted and successful small satellites launches, as well as over 85 current and planned nanosatellite programs and projects for the upcoming years (from ). In addition to the satellite mass, the database also includes other types of information for each satellite, including: the country of satellite production origin, contractor, user (civil, government, commercial, military), orbital location (apogee, perigee, eccentricity and inclination), launch year, launch date, launch location, and launch vehicle used. Most analysis herein that refers to launch mass was based on the gross mass of the satellite at the time of launch. 2

3 The database contains all attempted launches, including failures. Unless otherwise indicated, all data points mentioned below refer to attempted launches. It should also be noted that the number of satellites launched may not equal the number of rocket launches in any given year since many satellites are multiple-manifested (i.e. more than one satellite on a particular launch). Many times in this paper, the term launch or launches may refer to the number of satellites launched (even though they may be multiple-manifested). Picosatellites, often defined as those satellites with a mass of less than 1 kg, will generally be included as part of the nanosatellite category unless otherwise indicated. For the current database, hosted payloads or add-on hardware to upperstages or rockets such as the IRIS (Inflatable and Rigidizable Structure), a technology demonstrator for inflatable and rigidizable structures jointly developed by NPO Lavochkin and EADS Astrium for the Fregat upperstage, is not included. II. Historical Small Satellite Launch Market Size A. Global Small Satellite Orbital Launches ( ) Over the past decade, there has been a general upward growth in the number of small satellites developed and launched. This has been even more prevalent over the past five years. As shown in Figures 1a and 1b, the number of launches at end of the first decade of the 21 st century was more positive than at the beginning (in terms of overall launches for nanosatellites). As shown in Figure 1b there has been an increase in the number of small satellites launched in the less than 10 kg mass range. One of the major factors contributing to this could be the standardization of satellite buses, specifically the CubeSat phenomena. Continuing improvements in CubeSat technology in recent years have encouraged growth of projects in academia and radio amateur satellite communities. (a) Number of Attempted Small Satellites Launches: for kg Satellite Class (b) Yearly Launch History: for the 1-50 Kg Satellite Class Figure 1. Orbital Small Satellite Launch History ( ) From calendar years there have been a mean of 14 satellites launched per year in the 1-50 kg payload class. Additionally, there has been an average of 6.3 satellites launched in the 0-10 kg payload. Calendar year 2006 reflected a spike in attempted nanosatellite launches due to an unsuccessful Dnepr-1 launch of 16 satellites (15 of which were in the 1-50 kg range). Similarly in calendar year 2008, India s PSLV CA launch vehicle was successful in launching 10 satellites, of which 8 of the satellites were in the 1-50 kg mass class. B. Global Suborbital Launches ( ) The authors have also developed a Global Suborbital Launch Database to provide a comprehensive compilation of payloads launched between 2000 and This database currently contains over 850 suborbital launches from 16 countries. Similar to the orbital database, information was gathered on specific payload parameters including date of launch, country of launch, launch vehicle, and payload (just to name some of the top level parameters). Since many suborbital launches are for military customers, it was decided to separate the suborbital launch data into two classes, military and non-military. As shown in Figure 2 from , of an approximate 850+ globally, identified launches, more than 450 were non-military missions. Military launches constitute such a substantial share of total suborbital activity because of missile research and development. A spike in suborbital flights occurred throughout 2001 and 2002, 3

4 attributable to scientific missions conducted in Norway (falling sphere measurements) and above average military/scientific activity in the U.S. Figure 2. Number of Attempted Global Suborbital Launches: Preliminary Roughly half of all suborbital missions between 2000 and 2009 were launched from the United States, approximately evenly split between military and non-military missions. The number of U.S. suborbital launches has fluctuated over the past ten years, but a relatively constant minimum level of activity is seen throughout. The pattern of U.S. launches follows very closely the global estimate given earlier, no doubt due to the large influence of the U.S. on global demand. It is difficult to further stratify the suborbital launch market on the basis of mission. The services offered by suborbital launch providers vary to meet a broad range of mission requirements such as altitude, payload capability, acceleration, and custom trajectories. III. Orbital Destination and Nanosatellite Mass A. Orbital Destination In terms of destinations, many of the satellites in the 1-50 kg mass range have tended to be located in polar Sunand non-sun synchronous orbits. For this mass range, as shown in Figure 3a, orbital apogee in low earth orbit (LEO) ranges from around km with many inclinations around 100 degrees. This may be due less to a desire for this particular orbital location versus the desire of the primary payload for such an orbit (desirable orbits for imaging and remote sensing). Specifically, the apogee range for 1-50 kg mass satellites varied from 333 km to 4,500 km with the average apogee for a 1-50kg satellite to be 689 km (this average does not include eight satellites with extremely high apogees, from 1,014 km to 4,500 km). While the apogee range for 1-10 kg mass satellites in the database varied from 351 km to 1,800 km, most nanosatellites in this range had apogees within km. The average apogee for launched nanosatellites was 690 km (excluding two high apogee cases, at 1,015 and 1,800 km). As shown in Figure 3b, most of the satellites in the 1-50 kg mass range have been launched into high inclination orbits, typically degrees inclination. The average inclination for satellites between 1-50 kg in mass was 87.5 degrees. The average inclination for historical nanosatellites is 86.5 degrees. It should be noted that all the satellites in this range have launched as secondary payloads or in piggyback configurations, and thus generally are not able to select their orbit. 4

5 Number of Orbital Satellites ( ) Orbit Apogee (km) Orbital Inclination (Degrees) kg 1-10 kg kg 1-10 kg Calendar Year Note: Does not include 8 satellites with apogee between km (a) Orbit Apogee: for 1-50 kg Satellite Class Calendar Year (b) Orbit Inclination: for 1-50 kg Satellite Class Figure 3. Nanosatellite Distribution of Orbital Characteristics ( ) B. Mass of Nanosatellites Delivered Examining the mass of nanosatellites launched from 2000 to 2009, as shown in Figure 4, the popularity of the 1 kg CubeSat is apparent. In the nanosatellite class, CubeSats have emerged as a popular and affordable means of satellite development, aided by California Polytechnic University efforts to standardize CubeSats and CubeSat payload integration, use of COTS technology, and an academic interest in CubeSats as educational tools. The mass of satellites shown in Figure 4 refers to the satellite gross mass and does not account for mass of the deployment mechanism. In cases where multiple CubeSats were deployed from a single deployment mechanism, each of the satellites was counted individually Mass (kg) Figure 4. Distribution of Orbital Satellite Mass: for 0-10 kg Satellite Class IV. Launch Vehicles and Satellite Owner/Operators A. Launch Sites and Vehicles Historically the Ukrainian Dnepr-1 and Indian PSLV have been the most popular launch vehicles for satellites less than 50 kg. The popularity of these vehicles is most likely due to their early acceptance of small piggyback payloads and their relatively inexpensive price. As shown in Figure 5a, from 2000 to 2009 the Dneper-1 rocket launched 40% of satellites with masses between 1 and 50 kg. The PSLV and the Space Shuttle were the only other launch systems to carry a double digit number of satellites. Figure 5b depicts launch vehicle utilized for a subset of the satellites in Figure 5a, those 10 kg or less in mass. The rank order is about the same considering only the 1 to 10 kg (nanosatellite) range, demonstrating no historical preference in launch vehicle for nanosatellite versus microsatellite piggyback payloads. 5

6 (a) Launch Vehicles: for 1-50 kg Satellite Class (b) Launch Vehicles: for 1-10 kg Satellite Class Figure 5. Launch Vehicles: Due to nationalized launch vehicle programs, the launch location (nation-state) of small satellite launches generally corresponds to the launch vehicle used. As shown in Figure 6a, in the past decade Kazakhstan and the United States have been the most prevalent nations for launching satellites in the 1-50 kg range, at 41% and 26%, respectively. India is third with 13% of the total small satellites launched. In terms of specific launch complexes, it can be seen in Figure 6b that the Baikonur Cosmodrome (Kazakhstan) and Satish Dhawan Space Center (India) are the most prevalent complexes, with 41% and 13% of the satellites between 1-50 kg launched from those spaceports respectively. The difference in the runner-up between popular launching states versus complexes is due to the fact that the United States has multiple launch complexes that are frequently used for microsatellite launches. All Indian small satellite launches to date have been as piggyback payloads on the PSLV from the Satish Dhawan Space Center. France 2% Japan 7% Russia 9% Kazakhstan 41% India 13% USA 26% (a) Countries Where Launched: for 1-50 kg Satellite Class (b) Launch Complexes Utilized: for 1-50 kg Satellite Class Figure 6. Countries and Launch Complexes Utilized ( ) 6

7 B. Satellite Owner/Operators To gain further insight into the makeup of organizations that have owned and operated nanosatellites and microsatellites in the past, the SpaceWorks Commercial Global Small Satellite Launch Database was stratified against user type. Four user types were identified: civil, government, military, and commercial. Civil users include academic universities and research institutes. Government users are those government non-military organizations like JAXA and NASA. Figure 7a depicts the breakdown of nanosatellites and microsatellites launched between 2000 and 2009 in each of the four user type categories. Comparing the nanosatellite breakdown to the microsatellite breakdown, the differences between the two are likely reflective of the greater use of nanosatellites for experimental and teaching purposes. Civil users make up the majority of both the nanosatellite and microsatellite user types, but make up a larger portion of nanosatellite users. Commercial, on the other hand, makes up a larger portion of microsatellites, reflecting the fact that commercial applications for nanosatellites is still nascent. The large percentage of civil users in the 1-10 kg class is reflective of the popularity of the CubeSat in academic communities. In this respect, the user types in Figure 7b are consistent with the large number of 1 kg nanosatellites in Figure 4 as there is a high correlation between civil users and CubeSats. (a) 1-50 kg Satellite Class V. Dedicated NanoLauncher Service Dedicated launch options currently do not exist for satellites less than 50 kg. Instead, satellite payloads in this mass range are manifested as secondary or piggyback payloads to the large primary payload. Nanosatellites are often multi-manifested as piggyback payloads to be launched together. In the past fifteen years, the smallest satellite delivered by a dedicated launch was the 110 kg SCD 2 (Satelites de Coleta de Dados), launched aboard Orbital Science Corporation s Pegasus launch vehicle in Oftentimes their position as the secondary payload prevents nanosatellites from reaching a preferred orbital location. The nanosatellite owner makes this compromise of orbital location in exchange for a launch opportunity. New launch options would be a valuable service to the ever increasing global community of nano-satellite developers. The review of small satellite launches over the last decade presented in this paper suggests that the market for launch of satellites under 50 kg is growing. The authors have also developed proprietary demand forecasts based upon historical trends and actual known future demand that predict growth in this market. The suborbital launch market appears to at least be remaining constant. These factors suggest a positive environment for a dedicated small satellite launch service. To address the perceived market need for small satellite launch services, the authors have proposed the NanoLauncher launch vehicle with a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) payload capability of several to tens of kilograms. The NanoLauncher is an air-launch orbital/sub-orbital delivery service designed to use mostly existing solid rocket stages coupled with an existing aircraft. The research and development phase of the NanoLauncher project, including market/customer assessment and performance analysis, is a joint effort of international partners led by IHI Aerospace Co., Ltd. (IA), CSP Japan, Inc. (CSP-J), the Institute for Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer (USEF), and SpaceWorks Commercial. The team is currently examining both technical and programmatic options for this program. 2,3 More details on the NanoLauncher concept and performance aspects of current configurations under consideration is available in a companion paper from the AIAA Space 2010 Conference. 4 7 (b) 1-10 kg Satellite Class Figure 7. User Types: for 1-50 kg and 1-10 kg Satellite Classes

8 VI. Summary The Global Small Satellite Launch Database created by the authors provides comprehensive insight into the trends of the small satellite market over the last ten years. The data shows an apparent growth in orbital launches for nanosatellites and microsatellites less than 50 kg in mass. Suborbital launches remained relatively steady over the last ten years. Orbital small satellites have primarily launched to high inclination polar orbits, 600 to 850 km altitude, though it is unclear whether this is a result of desire for that destination or a function of the availability of piggyback launch opportunities to that orbit by comparison to limited dedicated launch opportunities. The popularity of CubeSats is evident from a lower level examination of the mass of nanosatellites launched. Consistent with this evidence of CubeSat popularity, the nanosatellite class is dominated by civil users. Civil users are also the majority for satellites under 50 kg but with a greater proportion of government and commercial users. Launch site and launch vehicle analysis shows predominance of the Russian/Ukranian Dnepr-1 and Indian PSLV, followed by a variety of US launch vehicles. A dedicated nanosatellite launch service is needed to address the needs of a growing market and needs of those nanosatellite users that desire to select their own orbital parameters. The authors and their organizations are currently engaged in an effort to develop the NanoLauncher system that will leverage existing solid rocket motors and existing high performance aircraft to provide such a service. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of colleagues at SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI). Specifically cited are SpaceWorks Commercial personnel including graduate student interns Ms. Stephanie Wan, Mr. William Olsen, and Mr. Jaisang Jung for assisting in the development of the Global Small Satellite Orbital Launch and Suborbital Launch Databases. References 1 Janson, S., Helvajian, H. ed., The History of Small Satellites: Small Satellites: Past Present, and Future, The Aerospace Press, AIAA, Reston, VA, Yagi, K., et al. "A Concept of International NanoLauncher," 23rd Utah Small Satellite Conference, SSC09-IX-8, August Matsuda, S., Yagi, K., Yokote, J., Charania, A., Kanayama, H., Fuji, T., Development of an Affordable and Dedicated Nano-Launcher, AIAA-RS , AIAA Responsive Space 8, Los Angeles, CA, March 8-11, DePasquale, D., Charania, A., Kanamaya, H., Matsuda, S., NanoLauncher: An Affordable and Dedicated Air-Launch Transportation Service for Nanosatellites, AIAA , AIAA Space 2010 Conference, Anaheim, CA, August 30- September 2,