SpaceWorks Nanosat Market Study

SpaceWorks Commercial today released their latest nano/microsatellite market study.  You can download it here.  The study is quite bullish on the growth of Nanosatellites over the next decade with over 20% growth per year through 2014. 

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know I am a big advocate for Nanosats and Nanosat launchers .  But I do want to caution us that the authors of this analysis are also developing the Generation Orbit Nanosat launch vehicle.  Some may doubt how unbiased their nanosat market study can be when they are developing a vehcile to launch them.  However, the counter argument could also be, it was reviewing this same market data several months ago (now made public) that led som of the folks over at SpaceWorks to start Generation Orbit in the first place.

Here are a few highlights from the report.  Note many of these comments are direct quotes from the SpaceWorks study itself:

• 180 known future nano/microsatellites to launch by 2014
• Range of 100-142 nano/microsatellites (1-50kg) that will need launches globally in the year 2020 (verses 23 in 2011)
• 32 are estimated to be 11-50kg satellites
• 68 are estimated to be 1-10kg satellites
• 75% expected to be foreign or academic payloads
• Military growth accounts for the majority of the delta between the 100 launch estimate and the 142 launch estimate for 2020
• New Program list of Known NanoSats:
• QB50 – 50 Cubesats to be launched between 2013 and 2014
• NRO Colony I – 12 Cubesats to be launched over next few years
• NRO Colony II – 20-50 Cubesats to be launched following Colony I
• ALASA – 36 mirosatellites to be launched beginning in 2015
• The number satellites launched may not equal the  number of launches since many satellites are multiple-manifested
• 4.38% growth in Nano/microsatellite launch demand since 2000
• 22.5% growth (!) in Nano/microsatellite launch demand expected from 2011-2014
• Market saturation point was set at 150 launches per year (the projected 2030 value) (however SpaceWorks admits that some estimates project CubeSat launches at over 600 per year – well above their 150 launch ceiling)
• For a fee, Customers can license SpaceWorks more detailed database of nano/microsatellites

Additionally, the SpaceWorks estimates in this market study are based on growth in popularity of Nanosatellites and Microsatellites on existing launch vehicles (with the possible exception of the launches connected with ALASA).  As soon as you CAN launch every week or day on board a new generation of quick response Nanosat launchers, many new uses will be found for this class of satellite.  And many new customers, yet to be identified, will be taking advantage of such frequent access to space.

Designing RLVs with the Lowest Life-Cycle Cost

This was the Space Shuttle we wanted:

The Shuttle parked in the hanger.  Integration for the next mission was supposed to be comparable to Southwest Airlines loading my luggage (maybe I exaggerate a little).  This is the Space Shuttle we got:

The Shuttle requires between 200,000 and 400,000 human maintenance hours between each flight! You can barely see the shuttle in the picture above because of the scaffolding surrounding and incasing the vehicle.

Shuttle experts can (and have) elaborated more eloquently than I could on the reasons why the Space Shuttle reusability goals fell so short. But as we prepare for suborbital RLV operations (and hopefully orbital operations) in the not so distant future, I wanted to discuss the implications of an interesting paper by SpaceWorks Engineering (Michael J. Kelly, et al) and its implications for the costs of RLV design & operations.

The paper is called, What’s Cheaper to Fly: Rocket or TBCC? Why?  In it, SpaceWorks compares two hypothetical RLV designs (one rocket-based and one turbine-based) and discusses the expected operational costs of both systems. Both designs made the following RLV performance assumptions:

• Fleet of three unmanned RLV vehicles
• Fleet flies monthly (12/yr)
• Every 10 flights, RLVs spend 6-mo in offsite heavy maintenance facility
• 100 nautical mile LEO orbit
• Payload 20K lb.

What I found interesting was what ratio the paper’s authors leveraged from the Space Shuttle program to include in their analysis.  The Shuttle utilizes seven support personnel for every one technician in their maintenance and integration efforts. For every one technician preparing the Space Shuttle for its next mission, there are seven individuals supporting that technician. This support staff consists of mission specialists, engineering support personnel, etc. Using this 7:1 ratio, the SpaceWorks paper estimated the need for RLV technicians and then extrapolated the number of support personnel needed.

Using the SpaceWorks rocket-based RLV as an example, below are the costs associated with preparing the rocket for its second flight:

Ignore the exact dollars but pay attention to the percentage. 91% of all “between flight” costs is labor using the 7:1 assumption. Stop worrying about fuel cost – start creating low-maintenance designs.  Of course there are other costs that go into the price of an RLV launch: range costs, fixed cost amortization, development cost amortization, etc. But you can see how critical life-cycle costs become in RLV design discussions.

Quoting the paper, “Any program that can do better than 7:1 will probably save significant money over a program that cannot.” And “In addition to considering operational impacts when selecting engines and TPS materials, vehicle designers should strive to eliminate the need for centralized hydraulics, and for auxiliary power units.”

For example, here is what maintenance and integration costs could look like at various improvements to the Shuttle’s 7:1 support personnel to technicians ratio (all other assumptions unchanged):

I end this post with a quote from Byron Ellis, Executive Director of the Jethro Project, on life-cycle cost and Government Acquisition (just as applicable for RLV designers as Government acquisition agents):

“Executive Order 13123 requires government agencies to use life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to minimize the government’s cost of ownership. Unfortunately, many stakeholders do not understand the concept of cost and proceed to minimize project acquisition (first) cost, rather than total project cost. However, over the life of the project, facility management cost is often two to three times higher than acquisition costs. Therefore, it is essential to design for minimum facility management cost.”