The emerging nanosatellite market

One job of a satellite market analyst is to try to understand what types of satellites will drive the market in the future. In the past few years, it has been fairly obvious what these are, and making reasonable five-year projections has not been very difficult.

In the early 1990s, it was clear to us that small LEO commercial communications satellites weighing less than 1,000 kg were going to be a big driver, because mobile communications systems such as Motorola’s Iridium, Loral’s Globalstar, and Orbital Sciences’ Orbcomm were under development.

By the mid-1990s, it was becoming evident that the next big driver would likely be commercial broadband multimedia communications sat-ellites such as Hughes Electronics’ Spaceway, Lockheed Martin’s Astro-link, Craig McCaw’s Teledesic, and Alcatel’s SkyBridge—a mix of LEO, me-dium Earth orbit, and geostationary orbit (GEO) spacecraft.

The first "mobile wave" came and went during 1997-1999, with roughly 150 satellites built and launched by these programs. The satellites ranged in size from the 41.6-kg Orbcomms to the 689-kg Iridiums (the Globalstars weighed 450 kg each).

The first "broadband wave" will probably start to materialize around 2002-2004, with dozens of new satellites that generally are much larger than the mobiles. This wave will include the 1,000-kg SkyBridges, the 3,200-kg Astrolinks, and the Spaceways, which will probably weigh more than 4,500 kg each.

As the era of the broadbands approaches, there arises the logical question: "What’s next?" It is fine to be able to peek five years into the future, but the real challenge lies in looking beyond that—say, 10 or 20 years.

While a 20-year forecast requires some educated speculation, a little creative thinking, and a lot of luck, a 10-year forecast is actually quite doable. The key is being able to spot those "little trends" that have been occurring in the market and to identify some of the promising R&D work under way at companies, universities, and government agencies.

Nanosatellites in the 1990s
One of the most interesting little trends that has surfaced lately is the noticeable growth in the number of nanosatellites that are being built and launched. For purposes of this discussion and for the sake of distinguishing them from microsatellites and pico-satellites, nanosatellites will be defined as satellites with a launch mass of 20 kg and under.

There have been launches (or attempted launches) of approximately 24 nanosatellites into Earth orbit since 1990, for an average of 2.2 satellites a year. Every couple of years, there has been a noticeable spike (three or four satellites) in the number of nanosatellites launched, followed by a dry spell of about two years in which there are no nanosatellites.

Teal Group, for example, counts a total of five nanosatellites launched in 1990. These included the four Oscar-class spacecraft launched on January 22 by an Ariane 40 rocket. These 12-kg nanosatellites, built by Amsat-North America and Weber State University for the Amateur Radio Satellite organization, were for radio communications and also carried some Earth imaging capabilities. They were launched "piggyback" along with the mission’s primary payload, SPOT Image’s 1,870-kg SPOT 2 Earth imaging satellite.

The other nanosatellite lofted in 1990 was Japan’s 12-kg Hagoromo lunar subsatellite, built by NEC for Ja-pan’s Institute of Space and Astronautical Science. Hagoromo, which was launched with the 185-kg Hiten lunar orbiter by an M-3 rocket, was ejected by Hiten soon after reaching lunar orbit. Unfortunately, its transmitter failed before its planned lunar swingby.

In 1991, the sole nanosatellite was the 16.7-kg Orbcomm-X demonstration store-and-forward communications satellite, built by Orbital Sciences for its Orbcomm program. It was launched on July 17 aboard an Ariane 40, sharing payload fairing space with ESA’s 2,384-kg ERS-1 remote sensing spacecraft.

Three nanosatellites were orbited in 1993. The 14.5-kg Orbcomm CDS Pathfinder experimental mobile communications satellite, built by Orbital Sciences, was launched by a Pegasus booster on February 9. The 12.5-kg Eyesat 0 demonstration store-and-forward communications satellite, produced by Interferometrics for GE Americom, was launched on September 26 by an Ariane 40. A 12-kg Itamsat radio communications satellite, manufactured by Amsat-Italy for Amateur Radio Satellite, accompanied Eyesat 0 along with the mission’s primary payload, the 1,907-kg SPOT 3.

For 1995, we count two nano-satellites—the 12-kg UnAMSat-1 and the 20-kg GFZ-1. UnAMSat-1 was an experimental scientific satellite built by/for the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Its launch on March 28 of that year by a Start 1 ended in failure. It would have been orbited along with Moscow State University’s 200-kg EKA-2 scientific satellite, the primary payload. GFZ-1, produced by Kayser-Threde for the GFZ National Center of Germany, was launched on April 9 by a Soyuz U rocket.

In 1998 a Shtil rocket launched the Tubsat-N and Tubsat-N1 experimental scientific nanosatellites. Each weighed 10 kg and was manufactured by the Technical University of Berlin for the German Space Agency.

A sign of things to come?
There has been a vague feeling for the past decade or so that something has been trying to happen with regard to nanosatellites, but the numbers simply have not been firm enough to make any solid projections—at least, not until now.

We believe 2000 will go down as a milestone year for the nanosatellite market. At least 10 nanosatellites were launched. Eight were boosted on one rocket alone—a Minotaur—on January 26. They included Santa Clara University’s 0.5-kg Artemis JAK and Thelma & Louise, Arizona State University’s 5.5-kg ASUSat 1, DARPA’s 0.7-kg Picosat 1A and Picosat 1B, Amateur Radio Satellite’s 0.5-kg Hockeypuck and 0.2-kg Stensat, and Stanford University’s 13.5-kg OPAL.

There was also the 6.5-kg SNAP-1 Earth imaging satellite, built by the U.K.’s Surrey Satellite Technology for China’s Tsinghua University, and the 10-kg Unisat, produced by/for the University of Rome. SNAP-1 was launched aboard a Cosmos 3M rocket on June 28; a Dnepr rocket launched Unisat on August 25.

In short, the number of nanosatellites launched in 2000 alone was about 45% of all those launched, or attempted, since 1990. This might be purely coincidental, or it might be a sign that nanosatellites will more regularly be launched in significantly increasing numbers.

We know of at least 10 nanosatellites planned for launch this year. There are three 1-kg Bitsy satellites, manufactured by AeroAstro for the Air Force; Carnegie Mellon University’s 19-kg Solar Blade Heliogyro Nano-satellite; the Air Force Academy’s 15-kg Glacier Imager, Lightning, Phoenix, and Thunder satellites; the Barcelona Center for Microelectronics’ 19-kg Nanosat; and Sweden’s 5.5-kg Munin.

Other nanosatellites that could go up this year or next year include Boston University’s Constellation Path-finder; New Mexico State University/ University of Colorado-Boulder’s 3^ Sat; University of Utah/University of Washington/Virginia Polytechnic University’s ION-F; and the University of Washington’s UofW Nanosat.

	In 1990, Japan’s 12-kg Hagoromo lunar nanosatellite was launched with the 185-kg iten lunar orbiter by an M-3 rocket. Unfortunately, its transmitter failed before its planned lunar swingby.

	The Minotaur is one of several relatively inexpensive launch vehicles now available.

	JAWSAT was the host platform for the nanosatellites launched aboard the Minotaur in January 2000. OSSS has come up with a host platform called the Multiple-Payload Adaptor based on JAWSAT technology.

Often satellites are said to "ride piggyback" on a mission, meaning that they are a secondary rather than a primary payload. This expression can mean simply that they are stacked within a special compartmentalized structure for auxiliary satellites within the payload fairing. Think of it as traveling second class or coach.

Among the latest trends, however, is the attachment of lots of satellites to a host platform, which also happens to be a satellite itself. The idea of "subsatellites" is nothing new. What is new is the standardization of host platforms, so that they are compatible with a range of different launch vehicles, as well as their low cost and the multiple number of satellites they can accommodate.

The host platform for the nano-satellites launched aboard the Minotaur in January 2000 was the Joint Air Force Academy-Weber State University Satellite (JAWSAT). A company called One Stop Satellite Solutions (OSSS) has now been licensed to manufacture and market the JAWSAT technology developed by Weber State’s Center for Aerospace Technology. OSSS has come up with a host platform called the Multiple-Payload Adaptor (MPA).

On July 18, 2000, OSSS signed a memorandum of understanding with International Space Company Kosmotras of Moscow and Thiokol Propulsion to cooperate in small satellite integration management through 2007. OSSS will use its MPA to integrate multiple satellites weighing 23 kg or less into a single payload module. Kosmotras will allocate one launch a year to OSSS aboard Dnepr rockets through 2007. The first launch is scheduled for March 2001. Thiokol will provide organizational and legal support for the joint program as a marketing agent of Kosmotras.

Another company, AeroAstro, has come up with a more maneuverable host platform called SPORT (Small Payload Orbit Transfer). SPORT can do everything MPA can do and more. One of its added features is a propulsion system that allows it to move far away from the launch vehicle "drop-off point" and ferry its subsatellites to more precise orbital locations. This flexibility saves fuel for the subsatellites and, more important, expands the number of possible launch missions on which the host platform and its subs can hitch a ride. If SPORT and its subs want to go to LEO, they have the option of being launched aboard a rocket with a GEO destination.

Last November AeroAstro received its first contract, worth $3 million, for SPORT from Astronautic Technology Sdn. Bhd. (ATSB) of Malaysia. ATSB’s NeqO satellite would be carried by SPORT to a low equatorial orbit, or LeqO, following launch by an Ariane 5 to geostationary transfer orbit.

AeroAstro also maintains a cooperative agreement with Arianespace to make SPORT compatible with the Ariane 5’s ASAP, or Ariane Structure for Auxiliary Payloads, module, which contains stacked satellites.

We think that MPA and SPORT represent important steps in the development of the nanosatellite market. Having the ability to easily launch and deploy possibly dozens of nanosatellites on such a host platform will make it feasible (both logistically and economically) for launch services companies to seriously consider the builders and operators of these satellites as viable customers.

Without having something like MPA or SPORT, it is probably not worth launch providers’ time or effort to target customers interested in launching nano-satellites, given the relatively minuscule prices they can charge them for a ride into space. These could well be revolutionary types of technologies, in terms of the way they may expand both the number of satellites that could be launched and the number of players who compete in the satellite market. They could enable nanosatellite launches to increase from the current 10 or so satellites per year to hundreds. If this happens, nano-satellites, along with microsatellites and picosatellites, could be the next major driver of the satellite market, perhaps during 2005-2010.

A more mature nanosatellite market would be extremely good news for reusable launch vehicle programs that hope to field prototypes and initial operational models during the next 10 years. Under "conventional" satellite market forecasts, which largely do not account for nanosatellites, the number of satellites projected to be built and launched over the next 10 years is roughly 1,000, or an average of 100 satellites a year. With such low numbers, it is difficult to justify investing in costly and somewhat risky reusables.

With an energized micro-, pico-, and nanosatellite market, the number of satellites could conceivably grow exponentially and create the kind of launch volume needed to make RLVs both profitable and affordable.

The role of cheap launch vehicles
It is probably not a coincidence that the sudden jump in the number of nanosatellites being launched is occurring at a time when several new and relatively inexpensive ELVs have entered the market—rockets such as the Air Force’s Minotaur, Russia’s Shtil and Start 1, and the Ukraine’s Dnepr. Many of these vehicles, which are essentially converted ballistic missiles, can launch a half-dozen or more nanosatellites, plus a larger primary satellite, for a total mission cost of around $10 million.

This means that a ticket for orbiting a nanosatellite or group of nano-satellites can now more commonly be had for a few hundred thousand dollars or less. We believe the German space agency paid $138,000 to the Russian navy for the launch of its two Tubsats aboard the Shtil.

In addition to these new offerings, several traditional Russian launchers, such as the Cosmos 3M and Soyuz U, also are being aggressively marketed to the small-satellite-and-under market through joint ventures with Western companies.

The marriage of convenience between cheap foreign launchers (plus U.S.-government-subsidized rockets such as Minotaur) and the builders and operators of nanosatellites is evident. The former are desperately searching for launch customers, particularly in the current bear market. The latter are interested in bargain-basement launch prices.

Thus we expect that the nano-satellite manifests of the launch vehicles mentioned above, and perhaps a handful of other "Wal-Mart rockets," will continue to expand. This should particularly be true as orbital deployment mechanisms improve and allow growing numbers of nanosatellites to be carried within payload fairings and dropped off in diverse orbits.