This issue of the Satellite Applications Catapult’s quarterly Small Satellite Market Intelligence report provides an update of the small satellites launched in Q4 2018 (1st October to 31st December 2018). This edition also includes a closer look at the future of in-orbit servicing.

Q4

2018

SMALL SATELLITE MARKET INTELLIGENCEREPORT

02SMALL SATELLITES LAUNCHED IN Q4 2018

OVERVIEW

This quarter saw 189 small satellites launched, the highest volume of any quarter in history. These were spread across 15 launches, the largest of which was the SpaceX Spaceflight SSO-A SmallSat Express mission, carrying 67 small satellites. This has more than doubled the number of satellites launched in 2018, bringing the year to a close with 307 small satellites launched, just below 2017 with 326.

Note: The mathematical model line in the graph above (simulating an accelerating market uptake followed by a levelling off) provides a general trend and not a prediction per year.

The sudden increase in small satellites launched towards the end of the year highlights the continued randomness of small satellite launches, which are mostly dependent on large volume rideshare opportunities.

2018 was not dominated by any one operator, with Planet and Spire only accounting for 20% of satellites launched, compared to 52% in 2017. This has meant 2018 saw the pathfinder flights of many satellite constellation startups, including Hiber, Capella Space, Aistech, Hawkeye 360, and Audacy.

2019 will see the launch of the first six OneWeb satellites. Due to better than expected performance in ground based testing, OneWeb say they may only need 600 satellites for global coverage, down from the expected 900, for their first generation broadband constellation.

03

APPLICATIONS

Applications are defined by the primary objective of the mission as categorised below:

• Communications: the objective of the mission is to transmit or receive signals to/from a user terminal or gateway; • Technology/ Scientific: the objective of the mission is to gather knowledge to better understand physical phenomena

or to test the functionality of the payload or equipment; • Earth observation/ Remote sensing: the objective of the mission is to provide imagery or data relating to the Earth

or its atmosphere.

This quarter saw the launch of 80 technology demonstration satellites, largely driven by large numbers of academic missions on the SpaceX SSO-A and Electron launches. Just over half of the satellites launched this quarter were classed as commercial, meaning that they are revenue generating or pathfinder missions by commercial companies. Within the technology category last quarter were two art missions: Orbital Reflector is a 3U CubeSat with an inflatable reflective structure, owned by the Nevada Museum of Art. Enoch is a 3U CubeSat containing a 24 Karat gold jar topped with a bust of the first African American astronaut, Robert Henry Lawrence Jr., owned by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

The reduction in the proportion of Earth Observation/ Remote Sensing satellites is due to the reduced impact of Planet/Spire launches in 2018 compared to 2017.In Q1 2019, ALE-1, a microsatellite containing hundreds of pellets to create artificial meteor showers, will launch. Japanese start-up Astro Live Experiences has created the satellite for event entertainment and upper atmosphere research.

04

SIZE AND MASS

Satellite classification Satellite subclassification Associated wet mass range

Small Satellite < 500 kg Mini-satellite 100 kg - 500 kg Micro-satellite 10 kg – 100 kg Nano-satellite 1 kg – 10 kg Pico-satellite 0.1 kg – 1 kg

Three quarters of the small satellites launched in 2018 were nanosatellites. Q4 saw a slight increase in the proportion of microsatellites partly due to the six Chinese Yunhai satellites and three Hawkeye 360 pathfinders.

Whilst the Virginia Space ThinSats did not launch last quarter, their launch in 2019 along with several Alba Orbital PocketQubes should see an increase in the number picosatellites launched.

05

SIZE AND MASS

The 42 micro and mini satellites launched last quarter increased the total mass launched to just under 12 tonnes, the largest mass of small satellites launched in a year to date, despite fewer satellites than 2017. This has highlighted 2017 as an anomalous year due to the large numbers of low mass Planet and Spire CubeSats launched that year.

Despite this, 2018 continued the trend towards lower mass satellites, with over 64 3U CubeSats launched in Q4.

06

ORBITS

Note: Launch failure includes orbit failures whereby the satellites significantly missed their intended orbit to the detriment of the mission.

This quarter saw small satellites primarily launched into Sun-Synchronous Orbits (SSO), accounting for 79% of launches. Three launches to SSO (Soyuz, PSLV and SpaceX) accounted for 125 satellites in this category.

Over the past few years we can see a gentle decline in the proportion of ISS launches, against an increase in SSO launches. This may be due to an increase in SSO demand by commercial operators due to the global coverage offered, limited availability of ISS launches and large volume dedicated rideshare launches to polar orbits offered by the PSLV and SpaceX Falcon 9.

07

LAUNCH

This quarter saw the much delayed first commercial launch of the RocketLab Electron, carrying seven small satellites, followed a month later by a second launch carrying 14. RocketLab have another launch scheduled for Q1 2019 as they now aim to increase their launch cadence to increase responsiveness.

Virgin Orbit’s first launch has been further delayed, now expected sometime in 2019. In Q4 they performed hot fire engine tests and captive carry tests of the LauncherOne Rocket.

The Falcon Heavy’s first commercial launch was also delayed and is now expected in summer 2019. The race to be the first private Chinese company to launch saw some action as the first launch of the LandSpace ZhuQue-1 rocket failed. The third stage did not perform as expected and did not reach the intended orbit. It was carrying an Earth Observation microsatellite for China Central Television (CCTV). OneSpace are aiming for the first orbital launch of their OS-M rocket in the first half of 2019, along with iSpace with their Hyperbola-1 rocket.

Astra Space, a stealthy US start-up developing a small launch vehicle, had a second launch failure in late November from the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Alaska.

08

THE FUTURE OF IN-ORBIT SERVICING

INTRODUCTION

Satellites are expensive investments. Thousands of hours of design, management, and testing go into every system we launch skywards. Yet at the end of the satellite’s life, out of fuel or damaged, most are left floating; an expensive investment to write down. In-orbit servicing aims to mitigate this: refuelling, repairing, upgrading or deorbiting satellites to maximise the return on investment for every spacecraft.

Satellite servicing is not new. Since the first in-orbit docking mission in 1966, we have had the capability for satellites to meet in space. In 1984, the Space Shuttle met with the Solar Maximum satellite and astronauts repaired it in-orbit. Since then, we have been repairing satellites and constructing space stations using astronauts conducting Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVAs). For example, the Hubble Space Telescope has seen five EVA servicing missions since its launch in 19901.

In-orbit servicing has seen a renewed interest in recent years with a range of missions and ventures aiming to capitalise on this emerging market. This report will examine what it is, why now and what to expect over the next decade.

TYPES OF SERVICING

There are various types of missions that fall under in-orbit servicing; missions may aim to achieve one or more of the following:

Life Extension: In geostationary communications satellites, the payload transponders often remain functioning even when the satellite is out of fuel or control systems fail. Life extension missions aim to keep the satellite usable after the expected lifetime or after a failure, usually by docking with the satellite and taking control of altitude and orbit control systems.

Refuelling: A more advanced form of life extension, a refuelling mission will transport fuel to a satellite, dock with it and then transfer the fuel to the target. This is also proposed as a solution for more fuel demanding or massive space missions: by launching the satellite empty and fuelling it in orbit, more mass can be launched or more fuel is available when it is in its operational orbit.

Satellite repair and upgrade: Satellite systems, such as gyros, solar panels and entire subsystems can malfunction or be damaged by debris, in turn jeopardising the mission. Repair missions involve replacing or fixing damaged systems. Future missions may see satellite systems upgraded to newer technologies or the addition of extra payloads.

Active Debris Removal: To preserve the sustainability of earth orbit, defunct satellites, rocket upper stages and fragments of space junk will need to be removed. This is particularly important for satellite constellations, where failures in orbit could disrupt operations. Active debris removal involves sending spacecraft to remove space debris from orbit.

MARKET DRIVERS

Whilst satellite servicing is not a new concept, a recent confluence of factors has led to a renewed potential for in-orbit servicing. Northern Sky Research predicts this emerging market could be worth $3bn over the next 10 years, driven primarily by life extension services2.

1 NASA: Hubble Servicing Missions Overview, 2018 2 NSR: In-Orbit Servicing Markets, 2018

09

5 Goldman Sachs (2017) Space: The Next Investment Frontier p.126 NASA: STS-49 Press Kit, issued 19927 SpaceNews: Intelsat Decommissions Shuttle-rescued Satellite, 2015

Retirement of the Space ShuttleFor 30 years and 135 launches, the Space Shuttle was a primary vehicle for accessing space. It deployed, repaired and retrieved satellites, and was instrumental in constructing the International Space Station. Since its retirement in 2011, the world has been left without the capability of servicing satellites in-orbit.

Geostationary telecommunication satellite uncertaintyGeostationary satellite telecommunications operators are in a difficult period. A steady increase in transponder capacity in orbit has driven down the price of connectivity, and the emergence of non-geosynchronous communications constellations threatens to erode market share. Geostationary satellite orders have reduced as operators delay the decision to invest in new capacity. This has meant that operators may see value in spending a few million pounds on a mission to extend the life of their existing fleets, rather than many hundreds of millions on a replacement.

Constellation operationsDesigns for constellations of satellites predict very large volumes of satellites placed in specific orbits. To avoid excessive conjunction avoidance manoeuvres, operators need to be sure that those orbits are cleared of debris if a satellite fails, and that a deorbiting capability is available at the end of the satellite’s life.

RegulationsTo acquire licences to operate, satellite operators need to demonstrate sufficient attention has been given to end-of-life disposal, particularly for constellations. The FCC are currently reviewing their orbital debris mitigation rules to account for these emerging constellations3. For example, SpaceX’s first-generation constellation’s approval by the FCC is conditional on further study of the company’s orbital debris mitigation plan4. For those satellites in higher orbits, especially above 600km where the satellite would not deorbit naturally, active debris removal will be essential in case propulsion or deorbit systems fail.

NewSpace With the proliferation of small satellites and large investments looking to capitalise on the decreased barriers of access to space, ventures have found their way into every part of the value chain with the hope of creating value for customers. Some are more far-fetched than others, and many will not succeed or pivot to alternate services, but new ventures have the potential to solve problems too risky for larger, more risk averse organisations.

ISSUES

Despite the potential utility of robotic satellite servicing missions, they have been slow to materialise for various reasons.

The technology for most basic servicing has existed for decades and been utilised in rendezvous and docking procedures. However, recent advances in guidance, navigation and control have increased the capability of autonomous robotics. Using inputs from multiple sensors, including optical cameras, lidar, and radar, more complex flight dynamics can be modelled, allowing rendezvous with non-cooperative and tumbling satellites.Historically, potential in-orbit servicing missions have lacked a business case. The Hubble Space Telescope was repaired out of necessity and upgraded at great cost; the same capital is not available for commercial satellites. Whilst launch costs have reduced over the last couple of decades, the cost of launching is still a large proportion of the total mission cost5 and often launching a new satellite, with the latest technology, is preferable. There are some cases where in-orbit servicing is more financially appealing. In 1990, Intelsat 603, a communications satellite, was launched. Failing to separate from the Titan rocket’s upper stage, it was stranded in low Earth orbit. Intelsat commissioned NASA to replace the motor and in 1992 Space Shuttle Endeavour was sent on its first mission to repair the satellite6. Once repaired in a three astronaut EVA, the satellite earnt revenues for 23 years before being decommissioned in 20157.

10

The international law surrounding the liability of damage caused by space activities, contained in the 1972 Liability Convention8 , places the liability of the damage with the state at fault. Servicing missions must have clear agreements with target operators and insurers; missions which go wrong could potentially see both the target satellite and servicing satellite destroyed. International law also hampers active debris removal missions as permissions to affect space objects must be granted by the nation that launched the object, even if it is debris. This adds to the regulatory and commercial complexity behind servicing missions.

A further issue is that technology created to rendezvous with and fix satellites can just as easily be used to intentionally damage satellites. Whilst space warfare could more easily be conducted by other means, such as kinetic-kill missiles or electronics jamming, the development of potential weapons could heighten international tensions. This is noteworthy but unlikely to impact any short-term plans for in-orbit servicing.

FUTURE MISSIONS

SpaceLogistics, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, have developed the Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV). Its concept of operation involves rendezvousing with the target satellite before connecting itself via a grapple inserted into the satellite engine nozzle. Once connected it can provide station keeping, repositioning, or deorbiting of the target satellite. The MEV has a mass of over 2000 kg, so is not small, but is likely to be the first robotic servicing mission when it launches, scheduled to service an Intelsat satellite later this year. Once this has been demonstrated, SpaceLogistics plan to test their Mission Robotic Vehicle (MRV), which contains a dozen Mission Extension Pods (MEPs), which are essentially smaller and less powerful MEVs, for satellites with attitude control. The MRV will also have a robotic arm, allowing it to install the MEPs and potentially perform repairs of target satellites9.

The NASA Restore-L mission is a robotic spacecraft designed to demonstrate servicing technologies for satellite life extension. The satellite has two robotic arms as well as a propellant transfer system for refuelling and is aiming to refuel a low Earth orbit US government satellite, Landsat 7, in 202010.

DARPA, in a public private partnership with SSL, are developing a mission called Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS), which will demonstrate inspection, mechanical repairs, orbital manoeuvres and installation of additional payloads11. Geosynchronous satellites sit in very similar orbits, allowing a single servicing satellite to visit several satellites in a single mission. However, the communications delay to GEO means many tasks will have to be conducted autonomously. Following the demonstration mission, the spacecraft will move on to commercial operations 12.In Europe, the ESA mission e.Deorbit was initially conceived in 2013 for active debris removal, grabbing onto the 8 tonne tumbling LEO satellite Envisat to drag it down from orbit. However, the high cost and lack of a business case meant traction among ESA members was limited, and the mission is now pivoting to more general in-orbit servicing13.

These large, part or wholly government funded missions are essential to de-risk robotic servicing missions and prove that technically they are possible. In addition, new space companies are aiming to complete similar feats for a much lower cost.

London-based start-up Effective Space are developing ‘Space Drones’ spacecraft, small (400 kg) satellites that dock with target satellites for life extension services. They plan to achieve this at a much lower costs than SpaceLogistics, with their first launch planned for 2020.

Similarly, Singapore/UK based Infinite Orbits are aiming to target the geostationary communications satellite market, offering life extension and spectrum bring into use services to operators.

8 UNOOSA: Liability Convention 1972 9 Northrop Grumman: Mission Robotic Vehicle (MRV) Factsheet, 201810 NASA: Restore-L 11 DARPA: RSGS Press Release and Fact Sheet, 2017 12 Note that since this article was written, SSL have terminated their involvement in the RSGS programme (SpaceNews, 2019)13 ESA Clean Space Blog: e.Deorbit, 2018

11

Astroscale, founded in 2013, are focussing on active debris removal, aiming to remove critical debris from earth orbit. Their second mission, ELSA-d, will be launched in 2020 and will demonstrate a rendezvous of a chaser satellite with a target satellite equipped with a magnetic plate.

US start-up Orbit Fab are developing the capability for in-orbit ‘gas stations’. Their first mission, launched in December 2018, saw two small flexible tanks, one filled with water, sent to the International Space Station. Over the next few months this will test the ability to transfer propellants, a difficult feat due to the behaviour of fluids in microgravity14. Orbit Fab eventually aim to have depots containing different fuels in a range of orbits for use by operational satellites and servicing satellites.

OPPORTUNITY

The Satellite Applications Catapult sees this emerging market as an area of growth over the next decade and is aiming to create an environment favourable to the success of in-orbit servicing companies. It is doing this through the In-Orbit Demonstration (IOD) programme as well as early collaboration with Astroscale for their operations capability for the ELSA-d mission as part of wider work into in-orbit servicing.

CONCLUSION

A range of factors have meant that in-orbit servicing is an emerging market opportunity over the next decade for both established manufacturers and forward-looking start-ups. Of the various different types of in-orbit servicing, life extension will be the most likely to generate early revenues, but satellite repair, refuel, and debris removal will ensure an economically and environmentally sustainable space ecosystem in the longer term.

14 NASA: Residual Momentum and Tank Dynamics in Microgravity Environment (Furphy), 2019

012

Disclaimer: whilst every effort has been made to provide accurate and up to date information, we recognise that this might not always be the case. If any reader would like to contribute edits or suggestions to our reports, kindly email the team and we will make the amendments.

Q4

2018

ContactThe Small Satellite Market Intelligence report is designed as a free data source to share information that is easy to access and use. We welcome feedback on other data points that would be of value to include. You can contact us at:

E: MarketIntelligence@sa.catapult.org.ukT: +44 (0) 1235 567999W: sa.catapult.org.uk/small-sats-market-intel

Copyright © Satellite Applications Catapult Limited 2019 All rights are reserved. You may reuse reasonable portions of this document provided that such reproductions are properly attributed to us with: ‘Copyright © Satellite Applications Catapult Limited 2019’.Whilst we strive to ensure that the information is correct and up to date, it has been provided for general information only and as such we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, as to its accuracy or completeness.