Retrofitting and Redesigning ofConventional Launch Systems for SmallSatellites

Joseph N. Pelton and Scott Madry

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3The Changing Launch Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Global Competitive Commercial Launcher Market (Ibid., Space Launch MarketCompetition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 by Arianespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) . . . . . . . . . . 11JAXA HII, HIIA, and HIIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Long March 1 to Long March 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (Formerly Orbital ATK) (Antares, Cygnus Capsule,Minotaur, and Pegasus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Rokot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Soyuz Launch Vehicle (See also Vega) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15United Launch Alliance (ULA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Vega Small Launcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Innovative Launch Arrangements from the “Conventional” Launch Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Strategic and Risk Elements for the Space Launch Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

J. N. Pelton (*)Executive Board, International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety,Arlington, VA, USA

International Space University (ISU), Strasbourg, Francee-mail: joepelton@verizon.net

S. MadryThe Universirty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Chapel Hill, NC, USAe-mail: madrys@email.unc.edu

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019J. Pelton (ed.), Handbook of Small Satellites,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20707-6_20-1

1

AbstractThe small satellite revolution has dominated news in the space industry for thepast decade. This change in the space industry has been variously described as the“NewSpace” or “Space 2.0” revolution. Certainly a major aspect of this revolu-tion has come from the popularity that arose from the launch of hundreds of cubesatellites as well as other types of micro- and minisatellites. This new way oflooking at how to design satellites, miniaturize components, and use off-the-shelfcomponents and even new way to construct satellites on assembly lines and to testtheir reliability using type approvals has changed the satellite construction indus-try. Another key part of this Space 2.0 revolution has come in the space launchindustry. We have seen the development of new rocket launchers that representnew ways of designing, manufacturing, integrating, and testing of launch vehiclesas well. The conventional suppliers of rocket launchers have also reacted byreinventing themselves as well.

This Space 2.0 revolution with regard to launch vehicles has frequently led toinnovations as well – both for new entries in the launch industry and forestablished launch providers. We have seen such changes as use of new materials,new avionics and other subsystems, as well as new construction techniques andtesting systems. In some cases there have been efforts to create alternatives tolaunching from conventional launch facilities such as launching from carriervehicles or even balloons or air towing systems. This ongoing effort to createnew launchers to support the burgeoning market represented by “cubesats”on upto “microsats” and “minisats” for smallsat LEO constellations keeps expanding.In short all launch services providers – new and old – have seen the need forchange, innovation, cost reduction, and better performance.

This chapter focuses on how the “conventional suppliers” of launchers haveadapted to the changing space industry and have responded as effectively aspossible to the challenge represented by new and more entrepreneurial providersof new launch systems.

In short, this chapter focuses on the “conventional” or “established” launchproviders and explores some truly important changes that are now afoot. It is clearthat the established providers of rocket launchers intend on innovating andresponding to the competitive challenges that the “NewSpace” or “Space 2.0”revolution has brought to the launch services industry. Currently there is some“protection” to the “conventional” launch providers offered due to the fact thatnational launches, particularly those for strategic or defense-related missions, arerestricted to national flag industries.

There is now an effort around the world to innovate, to redesign, toreconfigure, and to adapt the space launch process. In some cases, it is a matterof changing existing launch vehicles or upgrading launch system adapters toaccommodate the growing need to launch these much smaller craft and to launchmany more smallsats at one time. The move is on to reduce costs, accommodatemore small satellite launches, and accommodate new types of commercial space

2 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

systems customers that are new to the world of space and have new types ofexpectations.

This chapter addresses these creative adaptations, redesigns, or totally newinnovations from the established space launcher industry. This creative adaptiveprocess is addressed in three different parts:

(i) The use of large-scale launcher system residual capacity to provide for apiggyback ride for space

(ii) The creation of new launch configurations to create a way to accommodatemultiple minisatellites such as smallsats of the 100–500 kg class

(iii) Other innovative launch configurations that range from getting payloads intospace via hosted payload systems, multiple smallsat carrier systems thataccommodate a number of “smallsats” or even small experiments that fly onboard the International Space Station as installed on the NanoRacks exper-imental station

In addition to the information provided in this chapter and the ones that followin this section, there is supplemental information on launch systems that can beused for deploying small satellites in Appendix E on Global Launch Systems.

KeywordsArianespace · Blue Origin · Chinese National Space Agency · Cubesats · ESA ·Falcon Launch Vehicle · Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) ·International Space Station · JAXA · Long March Launch Vehicle ·Microsatellites · Minisatellites · Nanosatellites · NASA · Rocket Labs ·Roscosmos · Soyuz · SpaceX · United Launch Alliance · Vega · Virgin Orbit ·Vector · Vulcan

Introduction

The “smallsat” revolution, as reported in the press, has been about much more thandesigning and building small satellites. This revolution, which is sometimes knownas “NewSpace” or “Space 2.0,” is really much broader in scope. It really representsthe idea of disruptive technologies that can replace conventional ways of doingthings and making things better in every aspect of the aerospace industry.

This can involve inventing new ways of doing things that are either faster; lowerin cost; more efficient; easier to design, build, and test for quality and safety; moreefficient to operate; or more environmentally sound or sustainable for the future.

The essence of “disruptive ideas” is to be really creative and not do things that are2% or 3% better, but 50% or even twice as good as before. It also involved doingthings in totally new and “outside the box” ways. The military-industrial complex,the defense department officials, and large-scale aerospace companies have fordecades been innovative and managed to incrementally improve technology anddesigns over time. The conventional approach to improvement in the aerospace

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 3

industry, however, has been in the form of gradual improvements and incrementalchange. “NewSpace” or “Space 2.0” has a drive to breakthrough innovation that isdisruptive to the status quo approach of doing things.

The thought process that came from Google, Amazon.com, Microsoft, and start-ups from the world of Silicon Valley and other innovators around the world that havecome from the computer industry has sought radical change. There has been a pushfor truly disruptive ways to change the way things are done. The entrepreneurs fromthe world of computers, IT systems, artificial intelligence, and robotics thought notabout small improvements but big changes. The “NewSpace” innovators havethought up ways to shrink satellites by a factor of ten to even a hundred times.They have sought to make them in new and more creative ways, using differentmaterials and production processes. And once this process started, it certainly did notstop there.

Suddenly there was a new breed of thinkers who were not only seeking toimprove how satellites were designed and built, but some of the “NewSpace”innovators were examining new and more efficient ways to launch satellites. Theyeven questioned whether rockets had to be launched from expensive ground-basedlaunch facilities. The precise start of “NewSpace” revolution is hard to fix in time,but the establishment of the Ansari X-Prize to create commercially a private spaceplane was a key milestone in the move to find new, better, faster, and lower-costways to launch things into space.

This challenge has now become abundantly clear to the conventional launchindustry and to the space agencies of the world. Yet even here the record of smallsatellite launches up until 2014 has been dominated by conventional launches andproven systems as shown in Fig. 1. It is only in the last 5 years that new launchoptions have begun to appear. Even in cases where national policy restricts launchesto national carriers, changes have occurred. New entrants such as SpaceX, BlueOrigin, and others are making inroads.

Thus space agencies such as NASA, ESA, JAXA, Roscosmos, the ChineseNational Space Agency, and ISRO, among others, recognized that the world ofrocket launchers was changing.Likewise, the large aerospace companies such asArianespace; the Airbus Group; Lockheed Martin; Boeing; the United LaunchAlliance (ULA); Northrop Grumman; BAE Systems; Khrunichev, the RussianProton rocket manufacturer; and the Chinese Long March company have all recog-nized that the twenty-first century market for rocket launches has significantlychanged and is not in their favor. There will be a significant shift from the launchof large spacecraft into GEO into a much more diversified need of many differenttypes of satellites into many different orbits. There will be a significant increase inthe launch of various types of small satellites ranging from femtosats, to picosats,to nanosats, to microsats, and to minisats. Meeting such diverse demand for“smallsats,” which ranges from under 100 g up to 500 kg, will be difficult. Thiswill be especially true if the demand is to support a very high volume of such smallsatellite launches. Further, this will be additionally complicated if a resupply ofsmall satellite constellations is required on the order of every 7 years or so. Change,adaptation, and new rocket development will be the name of the game.

4 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

New concerns with the sustainability of space, orbital debris removal, and cleanerfuels with less particulates will only complicate this adaptation process.

Of the existing set of commercial launchers, only the Indian Space ResearchOrganisation (ISRO) with its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) seemed to bewell positioned to respond to the competition posed by newer and more agile andperhaps significantly more cost-efficient commercial launch providers.

There have been many adjustments in the past decade to accommodate the needsof the changing launch market by the traditional providers of launch services. Thishas included adjustments in pricing, revamping of launch vehicles and new launchrockets designs, and reconfiguration of the launch and deployment options availableto those seeking to launch small satellites.

The Changing Launch Market

According to the US FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, the globalspace economy as of the end of 2018 was $245 billion, but global launch servicesrepresented only $5.5 billion or only about 2% of the total. It is perhaps even moreimportant to stress that only about one-third of this amount is globally competitivesince there are national guidelines and strategic concerns that restrict launch selec-tion to national launch providers. Thus this part of the global space economy is lessthan 1% of the total, yet this part of the international space launch marketisincreasingly subject to competition (FAA-AST). The last decade of this competitiveprofile is shown in Fig. 1. This shows that the Falcon 9 has ascended (not a pun),while Ariane 5 has lost its predominant role, and the Russian Proton has beenthe largest loser in this competitive process (Space Launch Market Competition)(See Fig. 2).

Fig. 1 The launch record forsmall satellite through 2014.(Graphic courtesy of theglobal commons)

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 5

The result is a rather chaotic market. The “conventional” launch providers areseeking to adjust, reengineer, and re-envision their launch systems to maintain theirdominant positions in the market. This is for at least two primary reasons. The firstreason is the new competition from the new launch providers such as SpaceX andtheir Falcon 9 and Big Falcon Rocket, Blue Horizon, New Glenn, Vector, RocketLabs, LauncherOne, and others are bringing to the competitive launch market. Thesenew entries are forcing a move to provide more cost-effective and responsive launchoptions. The second reason is that the market is changing and there is a new andexpanding market for both quite small satellites (i.e., cubesats, nanosats, and micro-sats) up to 50 kg in size and minisats in the 50–500 kg class. Both of these marketsare currently projected to rise sharply in the future.

Rocket Origin First launch

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Vega [c]

Europe 2012 N/A N/A 0[c] 1 1 2 2 4 2

Soyuz-2Russia

2006 1 5 4 5 8 6 5 5 5

PSLV [b]

India 2007[b] 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 3

Proton-MRussia

2001 8 7 11 8 8 7 3 3 0[a]

Others[d] - - 7 10 5 7 5 6 6 4 5

Falcon 9 USA 2010 0 0 0 2 4 5 8 12 16

Ariane 5Europe

1996 12 8 12 6 10 12 10 10 9

Total Market

29 32 34 31 37 41 37 40 41 40 40

(a) Two commercial launches planned in 2018, Eutelsat and Yamal, were pushed to 2019

(b) First launch of the competitive PSLV-CA and PSLV-XL versions (2007 and 2008)(c) Maiden flight of Vega was non-commercial

(d) Atlas + Delta excluding U.S. military missions and GPS Related Launches, Dnepr, Rokot, Zenit

Num

ber

of la

unch

es

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Ariane 5Falcon 9ProtonSoyuz-2OthersPSLVVega

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

16 Rocket

RuRR s

Europ

RuRR ssi

India

si

-

US

Fig. 2 The changing scene of launch providers in the global competitive market (Ibid., SpaceLaunch Market Competition). (Graphic courtesy of the FAA-AST)

6 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

Global Competitive Commercial Launcher Market (Ibid., SpaceLaunch Market Competition)

The market study conducted by SpaceWorks has charted the growth of the smallestsatellites in the 1–50 kg range, and they have found a healthy growth in this type of“smallsat,” but they are projecting a rise that will continue to expand and reachperhaps 700 a year in volume by 2024, if the higher end of the projections arecorrect. This would mean that some 2,600 such nanosats and microsats would belaunched between 2019 and 2024 (SpaceWorks) (See Fig. 3).

Studies by Northern Sky Research of minisatellites up to 500 kg in size show asimilar rapid increase. These projected launches of new constellations range from afew dozens of satellites on the low end up to SpaceX’s ambitious plans to launchmany thousands of satellites on the high end. These satellite constellations are to belaunched to support the establishment of large-scale constellations for telecommu-nications, networking, data collection and analysis, automatic identification services(AIS), remote sensing, and even frequency monitoring and strategic informationgathering. Other uses include technology demonstration and component testing,military monitoring and other strategic applications, and scientific experimentationnot only in Earth orbit but also in deep space. The Northern Sky Research studiesindicate that the theoretical total of satellites launched to support new constellationscould add up to 20,000; their more cautious projection is that some 7,000 or so willbe launched by 2027 and provide a breakdown for the various purposes for whichthese small satellites will be launched (See Fig. 4).

The Northern Sky Research study notes that more than a little amount of cautionshould be exercised in light of the current “effervescence” in the small satellite

Fig. 3 SpaceWork’s estimates of 2,600 nano-/microsats to be launched by YE 2024. (Graphiccourtesy of SpaceWorks)

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 7

market. The satellite market has seen similar enthusiasms in the 1980s when 17 newKa-band satellites were filed and only 2 were actually built. Also there weremultibillion dollar bankruptcies constellations in the late 1990s for the Iridium,Globalstar, Orbcomm, and Teledesic systems. The Northern Sky Research studystates their caution in the following manner in their report on small sat markets: “Inthe past decade, a vast number of new players have entered this space with diversebusiness models targeting a multitude of applications. Yet the question remains: hasthe growth in the small satellite market increased beyond sustainable businesscases?” (Small Satellite Markets).

Regardless of whether there are 20,000 satellites launched in the next 8 years or7,000, this is still an enormous number to contemplate. Currently there are onlyabout 1,500 operational satellites in the Earth’s orbit. What is sobering is that thereare also over 20,000 pieces of space debris larger than the size of a baseball thatmight potentially collide with all of these new smallsats. Further, almost all of thesenew satellites are to be deployed in the most congested areas between the altitudes of400 and 1200 km. Further LEO satellite networks must be resupplied about once inevery 7 years. This means we need to consider not only the new deployments butalso their replacement satellites as well.

This sharply rising demand to launch “smallsats” in the coming decade aheadvery likely means that this demand will be met by both revisions and innovations inconventional deployment systems by conventional launch providers plus new com-mercial entries into the launch services market as well. The changes that areoccurring with regard to the launch of small satellites will be addressed under thefour different types of deployment systems that are now evolving within what iscalled here the conventional commercial launcher companies and instrumentalities.

Fig. 4 Northern Sky Research projections of microsat and minisat launches. (Graphic courtesy ofNorthern Sky Research)

8 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

There is additional information provided in Part 13 on various types of launchvehicles currently available in the global launch vehicle market with regard toconventional launch services providers discussed in this chapter as well as newlaunch service providers. Also Part 4.3 provides information on new smallsat launchoptions for cubesats and the new Kaber system that can launch smallsats up to100 kg in size.

The Use of Large-Scale Launcher System Residual Capacity to Providefor a Piggyback Ride for SpaceOne of the key strategic issues facing the launch vehicle industry today is what is thebest strategy going forward in a rapidly changing market? Is the best way forward tocontinue to develop large but very cost-efficient launchers that are partially reusablebut with “adaptors” that allow a variety of different types and sizes of satellites to belaunched? Or should there be a fleet of different types and sizes of launchers that canbe more closely fitted to the needs and deadlines for launch for the customers seekingto deploy satellites – especially for large-scale constellations with hundreds orperhaps thousands of small satellites to be launched?

The Indian Space Research Organisation with their PSLV launch in mid-February2017 deployed a Cartosat-2D Remote Sensing Satellite for India satellites, plus 88 3-unit “cubesats” for Planet Labs, as well as 8 cubesats for SPIRE as well as for othercustomers. This record-setting launch put some 104 different free-flying satellitesinto LEO with one PSLV Mark 2 rocket, and it shows that a combination ofdispensing and adaptive structures can make larger-scaled rocket systems quiteresponsive to small satellite operator needs as well as those deploying largersatellites (Foust 2017) (See Fig. 5).

Clearly there are a growing number of “NewSpace” developers of truly smalllauncher companies such as Vector, Virgin Orbit, Rocket Labs, etc. that are tailoringtheir launchers to deploy small satellites. It seems likely that they can be much moregeared to providing customized services and flexibility of schedule while alsoproviding very cost-effective launch services. The question is whether their serviceswill be reliable, responsive, and truly cost-effective in the new launcher market.Further, there are new entries such as SpaceX and Blue Origin that seem to bank ontheir innovative designs and reusability of first-stage launchers to drive down costs.In short, the best way forward is not certain in today’s global launch industry evenamong established service providers who have been in this business for manydecades.

It is these types of questions that are central to the strategic thinking of many ofthe established rocket launching organizations. The remainder of this sectionaddresses some of the strategies that seem to be emerging from these carriers tothe extent that these approaches have become known. These are presented inalphabetic order and not in any order of importance or significance.

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 9

Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 by Arianespace

The Ariane 4 and Ariane 5 vehicles were for many years the predominant rocketlaunching system in the world and provided the majority of commercial launches,particularly for the launch of telecommunications satellites into GEO and for remotesensing satellites into polar orbits. The Ariane vehicles offered many options forsmaller satellite piggyback launches with its SPELDA adapter. The high cost of theAriane 5, currently in the $165 million to $220 million range, is no longer consideredcost competitive. The strategy of Arianespace until fairly recently was to develop anAriane ME launcher that would span the time until the new Ariane 6 could bedesigned and deployed. More recently it was decided to cancel the development ofthe Ariane ME and press ahead to develop the solid-fueled Ariane 6 more rapidly.Furthermore, the current focus seems to be to develop the Ariane 6 so that it more orless duplicates the launch capability of the Ariane 5 but to create a new launcher thatis significantly less costly to launch and operate so that launch services can beoffered at substantially lower cost.

The Ariane 6 will have two versions, the A62 and the A64. The A62 will havetwo solid boosters and will be capable of launching 5 metric tons to geosynchronoustransfer orbit. The larger A64 will have four rocket motors and will be capable oftransferring 11 metric tons to geosynchronous transfer orbit. These large boosterswill have adapters to accommodate a wide range of satellite sizes and missions(Ariane 6: The Next-Generation Launch Vehicle).

Fig. 5 The Indian PSLV Mark 2 launch in February 2017 with a record number of satellitesdeployed into LEO. (Graphic courtesy of ISRO)

10 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

One of the key Ariane 6 design feature is that it has adopted a modular config-uration. Thus the Ariane 6 has core stages that are powered by liquid propellantmodules. These core stages can be supplemented by either two strap-on solidboosters for the A62 or four strap-on solid boosters for the A64. The other featurethat has been used to reduce cost is to utilize what is called a “series production” forits rocket engines. This approach allows a technology-sharing approach for thesmaller new Vega C rocket that also uses the P120 engine. This is the same P120engine that will be used in Ariane 6’s solid strap-on rocket motors. This allows netsavings for the Vega C and the Ariane 6 series.

The Ariane User Manual that is currently online indicates that these vehicles canbe configured to launch into a variety of orbits that include LEO, highly ellipticalorbit (HEO), SSO, MEO, polar orbit, sub GTO, GTO, and escape orbits (Ariane 6User Manual).

The other key strategic move is that Arianespace has become one of the keyinvestors in the OneWeb constellation, which will perhaps be the first of the largeconstellations to market. Thus Ariane will be guaranteeing its launch manifest todeploy a large portion of the OneWeb satellites to orbit. The initial OneWeb launcheswill utilize the Soyuz launcher as arranged by Arianespace. These Soyuz vehicleswill utilize the French launch site in Guyana to deploy six of the OrbWeb satellites ata time. Later launches with utilize the Ariane 6 that will deploy a much largernumber of the OneWeb satellites with timing and numbers still to be determined.

Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Polar Satellite LaunchVehicle (PSLV)

One of the standout space agencies of the world in terms of developing new, reliable,and cost-efficient launching capacity that continues to be highly competitive withregard to “NewSpace” disruptive new launchers is that of the Indian Space ResearchOrganisation (ISRO) and their Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. This development of areliable launch vehicle has proceeded steadily by upgrading and enhancing the lift ofthis vehicle by addition of solid rocket engine boosters and other enhancements.

The first and smallest of the launchers, the PSLV-G, was first launched inSeptember 1993. The PSLV-CA was first launched in April 2007. The PSLV-XLwas launched initially in October 2008. Most recently the PSLV-DL was firstlaunched on January 24, 2019. This medium and upper medium launch vehiclerepresents one of the lowest cost launch options available to the commercial launchmarket with the price of the PSLV rockets ranging between $21 million and $31million as of 2019 (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle).

These PSLV rockets have launched spacecraft to the Moon and to Mars and havealso orbited some 50 spacecraft for India out of 43 successful missions with only twolaunch failures and one partial failure. They have deployed well over three-quartersof their total spacecraft since 1993 for overseas commercial customers. This includesthe record launch in February 2017 when they launched an Indian remote sensing

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 11

satellite and two other Indian small satellites and well over 100 cube satellites thatincluded 88 3-unit cubesats for Planet Labs and 8 3-unit cube satellites for Spire plussome others for overseas customers (India launches).

JAXA HII, HIIA, and HIIB

The International Space Station is a project of the United States, Russia, Europe, andJapan and involves a cooperative agreement between these countries space agencies,i.e., NASA, Roscosmos, the European Space Agency (ESA), the Canadian SpaceAgency (CSA), and JAXA, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. Japan hasplayed a number of key roles in the International Space Station program since theoriginal international agreement was signed in 1988. This participation has includedthe construction of the Japanese Experimental Module (JEM), known as Kibo,support to the station-keeping of the ISS, via the Japanese Data Relay Test Satellite,and the H Transfer Vehicle (HTV) (Kamigaichi, n.d.).

The most recent launch was the HTV-6 that was launched to the ISS on the HIIBlaunch vehicle in December 2016 to carry cargo to resupply the ISS. This HTVcapsule was the sixth mission to the ISS. This capsule can carry supplies, equipment,and also small satellites (i.e., cubesats and microsatellites) for redeployment via theJapanese Experiment Module, Kibo. With the new agreement to extend the lifetimeof the ISS to 2024, Japan has agreed to develop the upgraded HTV-X transfer vehiclethat may include a return capsule rather than being incinerated in the Earth’satmosphere (HTV-X Concept (JAXA) 1 (c)) (See Fig. 6).

The continuing problem that applies to Japanese launch vehicles is their high cost.One response that has been made to control costs has been the decision by JAXA andthe Japanese government to turn the operation and construction of the HII vehiclesover to the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company and to seek to control the cost ofthe solid fuel boosters provided by US supplier Northrop Grumman-Orbital ATK(China’s Long).

Long March 1 to Long March 9

Long March vehicles represent a wide range of capabilities from the smallest LongMarch 1 to the very heavy lift Long March 5, which is currently the largest of theChinese rocket systems. This vehicle currently serves a largely Chinese market. Themany launches associated with Chinese governmental programs are sufficientlylarge to support a very active domestic space program without major commerciallaunch services business.

The Chinese top heavy lift launcher, the LongMarch 5, has a diameter of 5 metersand a height of 57 meters. This vehicle is competitive to the launch capacity of theAriane 5, Atlas 5, Delta 4, Falcon High Thrust, and Soyuz vehicles.

The July 2017 launch failure of this heavy lift launch vehicle for China hasdelayed the construction of the Chinese space station and its Chang’e lunar missions.

12 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

Nevertheless, a redesign of this launch vehicle has been completed. This includes thenew liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen YF-77 engines, two of which power theLong March 5 first stage. This change is believed to be primarily aimed at correctingthe turbopump issue that was reported to be the cause of the 2017 failure. Chinaannounced early in 2019 via its “Blue Book of China Aerospace Science andTechnology Activities” that it would pursue perhaps the world’s most active nationalspace program. The ambitious objective was to launch 50 spacecraft through over 30launches including three Long March 5 missions (Jones).

In addition to the planned ambitious launch agenda for the Long March 5, Chinahas also now developed the Long March 6 and Long March 7 vehicles. These aresmaller than the LongMarch 5. The LongMarch 6 is optimized to support the launchof 1080 kg to sun-synchronous orbits at an altitude of 700 km that can particularlysupport remote sensing missions (Archive of Long March 6). The Chinese LongMarch 7 is designed to lift up to 13,500 kg to low Earth orbit (LEO) (Archives LongMarch 7 Launch Vehicle).

Finally, the Chinese Academy of Launch Technology has announced plans for thevery large capacity super heavy lift Long March 9 rocket as well as less specificplans for the Long March 8 that would be a partially reusable lift system thatwould recover the first stage and would be designed primarily for launch to sun-synchronous polar orbits.

The new Long March 9 rocket as currently announced would be more or lessequivalent in lift capacity to the Saturn Vused in the US Apollo program. This rocketwould also parallel the lift capacity of the new Space Launch System (SLS) of theUnited States currently being developed by NASA for planetary missions. The SLScurrently has an estimated first launch date around 2021 or 2022. This massive new

Fig. 6 The conceptual model for the Japanese HTV-X transfer vehicle

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 13

Chinese launch vehicle is expected to have a weight exceeding 4,000 metric tons andwould stand 93 meters high, which is the equivalent of a 30-story building.According to reports from the Chinese Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology(CALT), this rocket will be powered by newly developed 220 ton hydroxyl engines.It will reportedly have a lift capacity of 140 tons to low Earth orbit. With a suitabledispensing system, this type of super heavy lift system could deploy thousands ofminisatellites for a low Earth orbit (LEO) constellation with a single launch (Berger).

Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (Formerly Orbital ATK)(Antares, Cygnus Capsule, Minotaur, and Pegasus)

Northrop Grumman, through its subsidiary Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems(formerly Orbital ATK), provides a number of space launch vehicles that are capableof launching small, medium, as well as larger payloads to orbit. The smallest of theselaunchers is the Pegasus® rocket. This smaller rocket is very cost-efficientlylaunched from the company’s “Stargazer” L-1011 carrier aircraft. The Pegasus hasproven to be the industry’s small space launch workhorse, having conducted 43missions from six different locations worldwide since 1990. This launch vehiclelaunched one of the world’s first small satellite constellations, the Orbcomm systemfor global store-and-forward messaging. Northrop Grumman’s Antares space launchvehicle provides medium-class space launch for payloads weighing up to 8,000 kg.Omega™, Northrop Grumman’s newest rocket, is currently in development for theUS Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. This is a newclass of intermediate- and large-class launch vehicles.

The Minotaur® is a ground-launched rocket. This rocket combines Pegasus upperstages with larger decommissioned Peacekeeper first-stage rocket motors. TheMinotaur can be used to boost larger payloads to orbit. Currently active are theMinotaur IV, V, and VI rocket configurations that are available to provide increasedlifting capacity for government-sponsored payloads. Minotaur-C is a commercialMinotaur option for NASA and launch nongovernment-sponsored payloads (SpaceLaunch Vehicles). Minotaur II designs also provided stage elements for the Antareslauncher development.

The Taurus is yet another option from Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems,but this is being phased out of operation.

Rokot

Rokot is a Russian/USSR-developed rocket that derived from a USSR interconti-nental ballistic missile that was originally known as the UR-100N (or the S-19Stiletto). This launcher is marketed by the Eurockot Launch Services GmbH com-pany that is based in Bremen, Germany. This launch vehicle is manufactured at theKhrunichev Space Center. It typically launches a payload of some 1950 kg into200 km low Earth orbit (LEO).

14 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

There were three launches in 2019 of the Rokot (that translates as “Boom” inRussian) from the Plesetsk launch site. These launches were of communications andEarth observation satellites which were larger spacecraft, but the first of theselaunches of a Gonets-M satellite included piggyback launches of two small satellitesthat included an amateur radio satellite and an experimental small satellite forGeodesy measurements.

One of the more significant Eurockot launches was the Swarm of three smallsatellites for the European Space Agency (ESA) in September 2013. This Swarmnetwork is measuring theEarth’s magnetic field and the changes to the magneticpoles that may be currently beginning a reversal process. The cost of this launch wasapproximately $36 million or (27 million euros).

The status of the Rokot launch is currently under redefinition and will likely beredefined for any future missions (Eurokot).

Soyuz Launch Vehicle (See also Vega)

The Soyuz rocket system is manufactured by the Progress Rocket Space Center,which was formerly known as TsSKB-Progress. This is a Russian joint-stockcompany under the jurisdiction of Roscosmos State Corporation responsible forthe Russian government space program. It is the developer of the famous Soyuz-FGrocket used for manned space flight, as well as Soyuz-U used for launchingunmanned probes. Since 2013, both Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG are gradually beingreplaced by the modernized Soyuz-2 launch vehicle (Soyuz) (See Fig. 7).

Soyuz rockets are now the only vehicle being used to ferry crews to and from theInternational Space Station. In addition, there are now commercial launches beingoperated from the Arianespace Soyuz CSG launch facilities that have now beenconfigured at the Kourou launch center in French Guiana for Soyuz-2 commerciallaunches. There are also launch facilities at Kourou Launch Center for the new Vegavehicle. Figure 8 shows typical configurations for both Soyuz and Vega launches thatinclude possible ways to provide lift to orbit for various 200 kg small satellites(Soyuz at the Guiana Launch Site).

United Launch Alliance (ULA)

United Launch Alliance (ULA) is a US launch provider that largely represents a jointeffort of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, but other contractors now contribute to thisoverall effort. The Boeing-manufactured Delta 4 and Delta 4 Heavy are currentlybeing phased out of service due to high costs. Recently, the marketing of the Atlas 5has been transferred from Lockheed Martin to (ULA), and that is expected to helplower costs by having a single entity being responsible for marketing and launcharrangements. The main initiative to create a new heavy lift and cost-efficient launchvehicle is the development of the new Vulcan® rocket, with engines developed byBlue Origin, into service with the initial “trial launches” to be offered to commercial

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 15

Fig. 7 Soyuz launch vehicle.(Graphic courtesy of theglobal commons)

Fig. 8 Soyuz with largepayload and 3–200 Kgminisats and Vega with5–200 Kg minisats. (Graphiccourtesy of Soyuz)

16 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

customers at reduced rates as it is being flight qualified. This represents a case of“conventional” launch providers, i.e., Lockheed Martin, and new entry companies, i.e., Blue Origin, joining forces (Foust 2018).

One of the objectives of the new Vulcan and Vulcan Centaur is to create a newcost-efficient launch vehicle designed toaccommodate deployment of microsatellitesand minisatellites (typically in the 10–500 kg class).

Vega Small Launcher

Vega accommodates the launch of small satellites. Specifications related to mini-satellites (200–400 kg),microsatellites(50–200 kg),ornanosatellites (<50 kg)havebeen set forth intheAuxiliary Passengers User’s Manual for the Vega. There aremany different options now spelled out with regard to auxiliary or “piggyback”launch options. These include the so-called Small Spacecraft Mission System toaccommodate cubesats, nanosats, microsats, and minisats. The SSMS includes thePiggyBack HEXA 1, the PiggyBack HEXA 2, as well as other options.The ride-share table for Vega spells out at least six options. Vega C (consolidation) can sendup to 2,300 kilograms (5,070 lbs) to low Earth orbit (LEO) – 60% more than Vega.The object of a new Vega Lite that is under study would provide an even smallerlauncher. It would be designed to compete with Vector, Virgin Orbit, and RocketLabs. The Vega C and Vega E configuration is designed to compete with such launchoptions as Taurus and Taurus XLS, Minotaur IV, Minotaur-C, Rokot, and Soyuz-2-Iv (Elizabeth Howell).

Innovative Launch Arrangements from the “Conventional”Launch Industry

The “conventional” satellite industry has sought to respond to the challenge that“NewSpace” launch companies have posed to business models. The high-costsystems such as Delta 4 and Delta 4 Heavy are being phased out, as they cannotbe upgraded to make them competitive with SpaceX. Several launch service pro-viders have tried to exploit the cost advantages of proven military missile technol-ogies, such as the Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, formerly Orbital ATK,has done with the Minotaur and Taurus vehicles.

There have also been efforts to launch from aircraft rather than traditional launchcenters, adopting new avionics systems, attempts at more vertical integration, anddevelopment of reusable vehicles. There have also been many attempts to createlaunch configurations and small satellite dispensers. These range from the variousconfigurations discussed above with regard to Ariane, Soyuz, Vega, to the amazingIndian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle that in February 2017 put over 100 cubesatsinto LEO orbit. The Vulcan development by ULA even has simply adopted the BlueOrigin engines to seek a new competitive pathway forward.

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 17

The bottom line is that the small satellite revolution that has demanded new, morecreative, and lower-cost launch arrangements has forced the traditional launchcompanies to make changes by a wide range of innovations in launch design,manufacturing, components, and testing. Indeed, innovation has found ways to usethe International Space Station and the Japanese Experiment Module and theCanadarm as innovative ways to deploy cubesats and microsats.

There has also been cooperation and strategic shift involving complicated coop-erative arrangements with spacecraft manufacturers. The launch of constellations inLEO or larger satellites in MEO or GEO has now been planned to include hostedpayloads so that some of the “new smallsats” are actually piggyback payloads thatare riding inside of the satellites to be launched. In other cases, there have been newefforts to develop systems that operate in the stratosphere or what has been called“subspace” or the “protozone” to provide communications, remote sensing, or otherservices that do not require a launch into orbit at all.

The world of the space launch industry has changed, but not all of the innovationshave come from the new entries like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Orbit, RocketLabs, Virgin, or the 40 or so start-up companies that are seeking to create newlauncher capabilities for small satellites as addressed in a separate chapter in thishandbook.

Strategic and Risk Elements for the Space Launch Industry

And there is some risk in the space launch industry in becoming overly focused onthe immediate challenges of the day. There are creative minds at work to examinenew and even breakthrough ideas for the longer-term future. If there are majordiscontinuities with perhaps on the order of ten thousand small satellites to belaunched in a year and then a lull for 7 years, this is clearly a large corporatechallenge to face. But there is also the question of what disruptive technologiesmight come next.

It has been posited that in 50 years, the proposition that putting people andproducts and cargo on top of a controlled bomb may turn out to be consideredodd, foolish, environmentally unsound, or at least un-clever. There are scientists andengineers who are looking into what might be done with rail guns, mass drivers,tether lift systems, and even the so-called space elevators or space funiculars. Thereare other ideas that involve lighter than air craft and dark sky platforms from whichion engines could fly small satellite systems to orbit.

And the challenge is not just better ways to access orbit, but also there is a need todevelop new technologies to get space junk safely down from orbit. The current UNguideline for removal of spacecraft within 25 years of end of life of a satellite seemsbadly out of step with the idea of multiple mega-constellations of many thousands ofsatellites with an average lifetime of 7 years. The replenishment of the constellationsevery 7 years without removing the dead satellites creates untenable situation. The

18 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry

math simply does not work. Clearly, the launch industry of today that is busilyinnovating to cope with today’s challenges must look to longer-term challenges aswell.

Conclusions

The future of launch vehicle development seems divided into three types of markets.These are (i) launches of large satellites into GEO to support commercial video andglobal telecommunications and enterprise requirements; (ii) minisatellite constella-tions with masses typically in the 100–500 kg range for very large constellations inLEO and MEO orbits; and (iii) cube satellite (or nanosat) systems that are typicallyin the 1–10 kg range.

Exactly how the launch industry might best respond to these different needs isstill not clear. The next 5 years, however, should give much definition to what typesand range of sizes for launch vehicles will respond to these different needs in termsof launch schedules and types of spacecraft to launch.

The idea of very large high lift launchers that deploy hundreds or thousands ofminisatellites might represent one option. The other option could be smaller buthighly cost-efficient launchers that could be launched more nimbly. This is themarket that many of the new commercial “NewSpace” rockets seemed to be aimedat servicing. “NewSpace” or “Space 2.0” initiatives are forcing the global spacelaunch services industry to change and change quickly. Will the traditional launchproviders regroup and win out over the new competition? Or will the disruptivetechnologies of the newest launch providers that are deploying a wide range of newtechnologies and systems in a new and powerful ways win out? Or will there beforms of mutual accommodation and thus new ways whereby the new systems willmerge with the old? The move by the established United Launch Alliance tointegrate the rocket motors being developed by Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin into theirnew Vulcan rocket seems to be yet another example of the “new” now merging withthe “established” launch service providers. Another example is in the launch of theOneWeb system that is being deployed by a combination of Ariane 5, Soyuz, andLauncherOne vehicle by Virgin Orbit.

Cross-References

▶Blue Origin Launcher Innovations & Small Satellites▶New Launchers for Small Satellite Systems▶New Procedures for Licensing of Commercial Launches in the US▶Rocket Labs Launcher Innovations & Small Satellites▶Vector Launcher Innovations & Small Satellites

Retrofitting and Redesigning of Conventional Launch Systems for Small. . . 19

References

Archive of Long March 6 Launch Vehicle performance specification, https://archive.is/20150918112832/http://www.spaceflight101.com/long-march-6.html and at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_6. Last accessed as of 20 Mar 2019

Archives Long March 7 Launch Vehicle, http://sinodefence.com/cz-7/ and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_7. Last accessed 20 Mar 2019

Ariane 6 User Manual, http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Mua-6_Issue-1_Revision-0_March-2018.pdf. Last accessed March 2018

Ariane 6: The Next-Generation Launch Vehicle, http://www.arianespace.com/ariane-6/. Lastaccessed 15 Mar 15 2019

E. Berger, China appears to be accelerating development of a super heavy lift rocket, ArsTechnica.com, September 19, 2019. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/china-appears-to-be-accelerating-development-of-a-super-heavy-lift-rocket/

China’s Long March 5 heavy-lift rocket set for crucial July launch, GBTimes, January 30, 2019.https://gbtimes.com/chinas-long-march-5-heavy-lift-rocket-set-for-crucial-july-launch

Elizabeth Howell, Vega: Europe’s light launcher, Spaceflight, May 18, 2018. https://www.space.com/40602-vega-rocket.html

Eurokot, https://www.eurockot.com/. Last accessed 28 June 2019FAA-AST, The annual compendium of commercial space transportation: 2018. https://www.faa.

gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_Compendium.pdf. Lastaccessed on 15 Mar 2019

J. Foust, India sets record with launch of 104 satellites on a single rocket, Space News, February 15,2017. https://spacenews.com/india-sets-record-with-launch-of-104-satellites-on-a-single-rocket/

J. Foust, ULA to focus more attention on commercial launch market, Space News, March 14, 2018by Jeff Foust –March 14, 2018. https://spacenews.com/ula-to-focus-more-attention-on-commercial-launch-market/

HTV-X Concept (JAXA) 1 (c), https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-eyed-europe-japan-ula-spectacular-delta-heavy-launch/htv-x-concept-jaxa-1c/. Last Accessed 20 March 2019

India launches record 104 satellites in a single mission, BBC.Com News, February 15, 2017.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38977803

A. Jones, China will attempt 30-plus launches in 2019, including crucial Long March 5 missions.January 29, 2019. https://spacenews.com/china-will-attempt-30-plus-launches-in-2019-including-crucial-long-march-5-missions/

S. Kamigaichi, International Cooperation among ISS Partners among ISS Partners and Japan’scontribution and activities, June, 2012. http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/copuos2012/tech-18.pdf

Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, https://www.isro.gov.in/launchers/pslv. Last Accessed 20 Mar 2019Small Satellite Markets, 5th edn, Northern Sky Research, December 18, 2018. https://www.nsr.

com/research/small-satellite-markets-5th-edition/Soyuz, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Rocket_Space_Centre. Last accessed 28 June 2019Soyuz at the Guiana Launch Site, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_at_the_Guiana_Space_Centre.

Last accessed 28 June 2019Space Launch Market Competition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitionSpace Launch Vehicles, Northrop Grumman. http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/

SpaceLaunchVehicles/Pages/default.aspx. Last accessed 16 Mar 2019SpaceWorks announces release of 2018 nano/microsatellite market forecast, January 30, 2018.

https://spaceworkseng.com/spaceworks-announces-release-of-2018-nanomicrosatellite-market-forecast/

20 J. N. Pelton and S. Madry