Will the Reusable Falcon 9 Kill the Suborbital Launch Industry?

With SpaceX’s announcement this week that the company would not only develop a reusable first stage for its Falcon 9 family of rockets but would make a completely reusable rocket system (I will use Clark Lindsey’s nomenclature: "rF9" for reusable Falcon 9), I have been wondering about the future of the young NewSpace companies developing reusable suborbital rockets.  Will companies like Masten, Armadillo and to a lesser extent XCOR and Virgin Galactic, survive this incursion from a well-funded NewSpace Cousin?

(the youtube video via Clark Lindsey's youtube channel.)  

SpaceX has announced the company is developing the “Grasshopper,” a 100 foot-tall suborbital Falcon 9 first stage that SpaceX’s cadre of young, talented engineers will use to test this initial piece of the rF9.  SpaceX has NOT announced any intention to commercialize the Grasshopper.  But if Masten, XCOR, and Armadillo continue to delay bringing a product to market that can reach 100KM, and SpaceX continues to develop products in its typical rapid fashion, might customers ask to buy payload space on an upcoming Grasshopper test?  

Or would SpaceX be willing to sell Grasshoppers to operators who then provide a suborbital launch service to users using the Grasshopper all before Masten has reached 100KM?  Could the unmanned Grasshopper be modified to carry passengers and compete with Virgin and XCOR?  If an operator came with funding, wouldn’t SpaceX take their money to make the modifications to "manrate" Grasshopper?

But the big money is the orbital market.  Most of the suborbital companies have expressed interest in using their suborbital experience and even their suborbital vehicles to expand current offerings to include an orbital system.  XCOR has published this image of an orbital capability.  

Virgin Galactic even took investment money from the Middle East to jump start their orbital program.  Could an rF9 meet all market demand for both suborbital and ultimately orbital launches as well?  And if they do, are the current suborbital companies doomed? 

It all comes down to money.

How cheaply could SpaceX really launch their new rF9?  We don’t know.  SpaceX does not even know yet.  But we can make some interesting estimates.   The heart of these projected orbital price reductions stems from reusing the rF9 like Southwest reuses its 747’s (which can fly commercially for 30 years with proper maintenance).  How many reuses is SpaceX planning on? 

At this point, the best data I have is a nugget SpaceX's CEO, Elon Musk, said this last week that he is targeting $500K trips to Mars as a market for his reusable craft.  

Let’s make some assumptions so we can approximate SpaceX’s reusability assumptions:

1. A price for a Dragon/Falcon 9 trip to Mars will be equal to the price SpaceX is currently charging NASA for ISS visits ($130M per trip) - optimistic assumption
2. 5 paying passengers per Mars Trip - optimistic assumption
3. 10% profit per launch
4. All maintenance and between-flight costs are included in the launch price - optimistic assumption

SpaceX breaks even after 47 flights (but that is a lot of assumptions).  here is a table to help visualize the math:

 Assuming a 47-flight amortization, what could be SpaceX’s breakeven price per KG to LEO?  Or to say it another way, how low would the suborbital company’s prices have to be to beat SpaceX?  

Again, let’s make some assumptions:

1. A price for an rF9 to LEO is the same as current LEO Falcon 9
2. Falcon 9 payload to LEO is unchanged
3. 10% profit per launch
4. All maintenance and between flight costs are included in the launch price.
5. Propellant Cost per Launch = $200K
6. rF9 breaks even after 47 flights

Based on these assumptions, SpaceX's breakeven Price to LEO for rF9 is $130 per KG or ~$1.4M per flight.  Again, here is a table to summarize how I came to this conclusion.  At the end of this post is a link to an interactive spreadsheet where you can modify these assumptions to create your own analysis.

These SpaceX prices are surely the most optimistic for the near term:

1. What if the rF9 doesn’t get 47 flights per vehicle?
2. What if between-flight maintenance costs for the rF9 are significant?
3. What if payload capacity has to be significantly reduced to accommodate rF9’s reusability elements?
4. What if near term launch demand is not high enough to fly as often as they need?

Even with the identified risks, this analysis would indicate:

• Yes, rF9 could compete against suborbital companies for suborbital market share (especially if SpaceX sells the Grasshoppers to entrepreneur operators)
• Yes, rF9 could compete against suborbital companies for orbital market share through extraordinarily low prices

So how can XCOR and Masten compete?  

I continue to be bullish regarding the utility of Nanosat-class launch vehicles.  When suborbital companies start offering orbital services (a second generation service), their initial orbital offerings would probably be within this Nanosat class - broadly speaking, payload space significantly under 100kg.  Is there still a market for suborbital companies to offer this type of orbital service?  Even if SpaceX may be able to now match (or beat) them on price?  

Yes.  Here is why:

Sometimes smaller is better.  The smaller vehicles these suborbital companies will eventually offer on orbit should:

• Be easier to "fly full"– to get the $130/KG price on an rF9, you have to wait for the manifest to fill.  Not so with a smaller vehicle.  XCOR was talking about a payload of 12-20KG initially.
• Be easier (and cost less) to maintain.
• Be launched with less integration or preparation – this advantage is the BIG one.  XCOR talks about multiple flights on the same day, taking off and landing from existing airports.  Even if the rF9 could launch that often, it will be some time before regulations allow SpaceX to fly that often - especially if they are still flying from the Cape or Vandenberg where ops tempo is measured in "launches per month" not "launches per day".

Nanosat launchers are the future, but only if their ops tempo is fast enough to justify paying a premium for preferential launch windows.  

This advantage of the small won’t last forever.  SpaceX will keep improving its initial RLV offerings.  Spaceport operations will grow to allow for more airline-like ops tempos.  So Nanosat launch operators (today’s suborbital companies) will have to keep improving too.

But there is a market for Nanosats and it hinges now on ops tempo.  There is hope.

The bigger worry…

…is in the near term.  I mentioned earlier, I doubt SpaceX will pursue commercializing their Grasshopper suborbital vehicle.  But they may be open to selling this suborbital vehicle for others to operate.  Such a suborbital operator flying the Grasshopper would have tremendous suborbital market advantages and could be a major competitor to those suborbital companies focusing on suborbital research (Masten, Armadillo, etc.).

Suborbital companies should be worried, but not panicking.  If the reusable Falcon 9 hastens the development of viable Nanosat launchers, the industry will be doubly blessed – low launch costs from the rF9 and high ops tempo from Nanosat launchers.

Here is the interactive spreadsheet so you can build your own rF9 assumptions.

NLV Market Analysis

Garvey's Prospector 7C

In October of 2004, I attended the Space Frontier Foundation’s conference in Southern California on the Queen Mary. There, Masten Space Systems made a big splash announcing it was joining Armadillo Aerospace in developing Suborbital RLV’s.

I remember thinking at the time, how did Masten have enough market data to make that decision? Masten, Armadillo, XCOR, Virgin, Blue Origin – these guys & gals threw their hat in the ring long before there were significant studies confirming suborbital RLV’s made “market sense”. They had vision. They had guts. Or if the data did exist, at the time, I did not know how to find it.

And now, NASA is offering a prize for a Nano-satellite Launch Vehicle (NLV) – “launching very small things quite often”. And as candidate NLV teams consider throwing their hats in this ring, the market data is a little more available for an NLV service than there was for suborbital service almost a decade ago.

This post attempts to consolidate that NLV market analysis. Of course this will be incomplete, so I need your help. Add links to other NLV market data in the comments of this post to benefit the whole group. I will skip a discussion of NASA's NLV Challenge.  Here is NASA's NLV Challenge Page  for more details. 
I have broken the NLV market analysis down into the following categories:

• NLV Market Sources
• Market Overview
• NLV Market Differentiators 
• NLV Substitutes
• Interesting NLV Market Nuggets
• Potential Market Competitors
• Market Demand Graph
• NLV Pricing Discussion
• Market Impactors

NLV Market Sources.  The authors of these study deserve your business. Buy their papers. They are doing good work. Instead of at the end of this post, I wanted these links near the top!

• Foust, J. 2010. “Emerging Opportunities for Low-Cost Small Satellites in Civil and Commercial Space”
• Foust, J. 2008. “If you Build It, Who will Come? Identifying Markets for Low-Cost Small Satellites”
• Christensen, I, et al. 2010. “Market Characterization: Launch of Very-Small and Nano Sized Payloads Enabled By New Launch Vehicles.” This link will give you the first few pages, have to buy the full version.

Market Overview.  The NLV market can be dissected in at least two ways: (1) by payload size and (2) by payload type.

Payload Size. I have heard various naming conventions for small payload launch vehicles.  For this blog post, I will use “Nano”, “Micro”, “Small” as three payload sizes to consider.  However, I will group them all together and use the name NLV most of the time.

• Nano - Under 10kg
• Micro - 10-100 kg
• Small - 100-200 kg

NASA is focused on a 1kg payload for its NLV Challenge. The Army is interested in at least 20kg payloads. Even if first generation vehicles are only able to launch a few kg of payload, commercial NLV ventures would be wise to endeavor to grow to larger payload sizes over time. Current 200-400kg payloads launched currently on larger vehicles would surely be interested in "going on a diet" if an NLV launcher could carry 100-200Kg yet offer more frequent launches.

Payload Type. The second NLV market subdivision will be the option of (1) launching a functioning satellite or (2) delivering cargo to stations or depots. Of the two, cargo delivery may very well be the larger of the two sub-markets. It will take far less preparation to send the ISS an NLV-load of fresh apples than it would be to fund, develop, integrate, and launch a nanosat. Both satellite launches and cargo delivery will be sub-markets. Expect the satellite market to retain a diversified customer base. Expect the cargo delivery customer base to be dominated by station owners in the early days (ISS partners and Bigelow), but to expand to Space Station customers in the not so distant future (see: NanoRacks).

NLV Market Differentiators.  What makes an NLV unique? An NLV won’t be able to carry as much payload to orbit as its bigger cousins, why would any customers want to use an NLV?  Answer: Frequent launches, low integration time.

• Cost: Higher Cost per LB than larger launchers but lower Cost per launch
• Launch Frequency: Launch *much* more frequently than larger launchers (weekly? Daily?)
• Launch Lead Time: Integrate payloads in less time to take advantage of more frequent launches
• Payload Mass: a few kg (at first)
• Orbit Choice: Customers can choose since not a secondary payload
• Suborbit/LEO/GEO: Limited to LEO (at first) – Suborbital applications? Maybe.

NLV Substitutes.  Prices for NLV’s cannot be set independent of substitutes. Here’s a list of some big ones:

• Launch as secondary payload. Spaceflight Services (Andrews Space) offers a turnkey solution for your payload to fly on the BIG rockets as a secondary payload.
• Hosted payloads. Boeing just launched a new service to combine your payload with others on a single satellite bus thus reducing customer costs since they do not need to procure an entire satellite. Note: this would be a substitute only for satellite payloads, not for cargo payloads
• Commercial RLV suborbital spaceflight. Masten, Armadillo, and Blue Origin are stuck at 100km for now, but not for long. Watch as future generations of their vehicles climb higher and higher giving customers a greater flight-time, frequent launches, and very low costs.
• With COTS deliveries to ISS approaching, deliveries to station will be made by NASA several times per year with ISS partners also delivering cargo to station several times per year.

Interesting NLV Market Nuggets.

• Microcosm Inc, identified potential market-wide launch savings of more than $15B over a 12-year period, resulting from the development of a low-cost responsive launch vehicle focused on the SmallSat market (above 100Kg)
• In a 2008 presentation, Pete Worden said there were ~80 universities with active cubesat (nanosat) programs 
• A 2006 Futron Study identified over 30 markets in 6 principle areas for services provided by low-cost satellites in the 100-200 kilogram class
• The US Army is interested in Nano Launch and had put a price point of $1M per launch.
• My interview with the CEO of CubeSat component manufacturer Clyde Space revealed he thought $250K for a 3u is definitely too much for most customers.
• My interview with Professor Jordi Puig-Suari from Cal Poly and professors from MIT, and St. Louis University who are currently active in either university satellite development or active in space research of some kind show they are targeting a price point under $50K per CubeSat with $20K being preferred. Relooking at my notes from those interviews, at a $20K price point, these professors thought the US demand for CubeSat launches would grow to 50-100 each year. Interesting they thought the low flight opps of the current “secondary payload” system a bigger problem than the high cost. Prof Michael Swartwout said in my interview with him, he waits 5-7 years to secure a spot on a rocket to launch his CubeSats. This is longer than an undergrads college career – not too inspiring for young engineers!

Potential Market Competitors.  Non-exhaustive – From the Paper: "Market Characterization: Launch of Very-Small and Nano Sized Payloads" by Christsensen, et all. 2010.

Market Demand Graph:

This graph is incomplete but should convey the significant number of different areas where an NLV could gain market share. For an explanation of these categories I would encourage you to get a copy of the wonderful papers I list under the “sources” section of this post.

NLV Pricing Discussion.  A major portion of any market analysis is not just what the needs are but what are potential customers willing to pay to meet those needs. For the NLV market you have customers at different ends of a spectrum. Government customers like the Army have stated a willingness to pay $1M to place 20kg in LEO. Universities want to keep Cubesat costs (usually 1-3 kg) to under $20K per U.

Variable Pricing seems like the right answer, where Primary customers pay a premium to fly on their schedule to their orbit and others willing to fly “standby” get a much reduced price but operate on someone else’s schedule and flies to someone else’s orbit. Rather than rewrite the variable pricing details now, here is the post I wrote on variable NLV pricing a few months ago.

If you made me guess right now, I would assume the following prices per U would be acceptable by the market:

• Government: $50-200K per U (with discounts per U for larger payloads)
• Academia: $20K per U
• Commercial: ???, perhaps somewhere between

Market Impactors.  Any market has externalities to the market that can help or hurt the industry. Here are just a few:

• Of all of the substitutes available to the NLV market, the one that has most potential to steal market share is the second or third generation of suborbital RLV’s. As mentioned earlier in this post, a subset of the NLV market could be served with the extended micro-gravity offered by suborbital RLV’s flying to 500 or 1000 km. But the opposite is also true, a delay or accident affecting the un-manned portion of the suborbital RLV industry (primarily Masten, Armadillo, and Blue Origin) could make some customers consider launching on an NLV rather than waiting for the suborbital ride. 
• One of the two key sub-markets for NLV’s will be package delivery. More successful space stations, more package delivery. The proliferation of commercial space stations will be a major driver of this sub-market
• How the last mile problem gets solved will directly affect the viability of micro package delivery (one of my two submarkets). We need solutions for the last mile problem – the solution will be part technology, part policy, part management. If NLV packages can’t be routinely delivered to space stations, the NLV industry will be severely hampered and space stations will miss out on an enabling method to gain just-in-time deliveries.
• NLV’s only work as a market if they can launch frequently with low integration turnarounds. Even if low costs had to come later, the ability to launch frequently with streamlined payload integration will be the driving force behind early NLV success stories. The question operators will need to ask is, “How do I design and manage NLV operations in such a way to achieve the goals of frequent flight opps and low integration turnarounds?”
• Although depot development is still years down the road, the potential “match made in heaven” between depots need for frequent propellant deliveries and NLV’s ability to fly frequently should not be overlooked…but I would not build a business plan around depot assumptions just yet.

That is a good dataset to start.  I will add some commentary in future posts.  Here is the spreadsheet containing the tables used in this post. 

Now I welcome your additions.  Use the comments section to your links to even more NLV market data.

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.”

Interview with bloon's founder José Mariano Lopez Urdiales

There are two main customer categories for suborbital space flights:

1. Those that want “the experience” and
2. Those that want “the view”

Those seeking “the experience” could be adventure seekers valuing the high-g’s, motion sickness, and perceived danger; they could be floaters valuing the micro-gravity free-floating opportunities; or they could be scientists valuing some aspect of the flight profile.

Those seeking “the view” want to see the curvature of the earth, view earth landmarks, see the blackness of space, or take pictures of the stars. These people want an eye-witness account of what space looks like more than an account of what space feels like.

Although most potential customers in category one (“the experience” seekers) are also in category two (“the view” seekers). I doubt the reverse is true. In fact for Virgin Galactic and XCOR, which will be offering suborbital rides that include both both categories of experiences, these companies will sell tickets to "the view" seekers only if there is not a viable alternative for low-intensity, “view only” trips.

Enter an alternative: bloon.

bloon is the first product of Spanish startup, zero2infinity, offering customers “the view” of space while enduring a less intense balloon-based ascent instead of a rocket one. The images above are illustrations from the bloon website.

Here is a quick comparison between the two suborbital offerings - excuse the gross generalizations in the rocktet column:



Below is a video where zero2infinity flies the Spanish Soccer team’s red jersey to 33km highlighting the team's recent success at this year’s World Cup. After the video is my interview with zero2infinity’s founder, José Mariano Lopez Urdiales about his plan for the company.



And now my interview with zero2infinity’s founder, José Mariano Lopez Urdiales.

Project-related Questions:

Q: What is bloon? Can you give a summary of your company’s suborbital balloon experience?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: Seeing the curvature of the horizon, a black starry sky under a white hot sun and the Earth atmosphere as a blue thin layer protecting our planet from the harshness of the cosmos. It’s a visual experience that many people would like to enjoy. Well, bloon is my company’s solution to the problem of offering that view in a safe, sustainable and enjoyable manner.

Four flight participants lift off vertically in a pressurized piloted pod. The pod soars to near space with the aid of a helium sail. It spends two hours at a cruising altitude of about 36km. The choice of altitude is optimal in terms of experience and safety because it is high enough so that the human eye can appreciate all the visual cues of suborbital flight and not too high to complicate the return with a high-speed re-entry. Flight participants will be able to gaze at our planet through panoramic windows; this is possible because our speeds are always relatively low. Different customers will want to do different things while they are up there, listen to the explanations from the pilots, eat, pray, write a poem, it’s left to their imagination. Every bloon flight is a bespoke experience and privacy can be provided on board. The descent procedure starts and the pod lands on a predefined spot using a guided parafoil and vented airbags. We’ve selected textile-based decelerators because they’ve proven to be the most reliable and safe way of coming back into the atmosphere and landing. The Russian, Chinese, early American and most new American real spacecraft designers seem to agree.

Q: What are the remaining milestones between today and commercial operations?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: We are halfway through our fundraising and expect to be done by the end of 2010. The next major milestone is to fly a first human. That will be an experimental flight and could happen as early as late 2011. In 2012 will be mostly busy testing. Then we’ll go through the certification period, first with EASA and later on with the FAA. Certification is a complex issue, many steps have to be certified, the company, the vehicle, the operators, etc. We expect the first commercial operations to take place somewhere between 2013 and 2015.

Q: You mentioned on your website the potential for participants to experience one-third, one-sixth, or microgravity during a portion of the experience. Describe how this is achieved and how long that portion of the experience might last.

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: Once the pod separates from the balloon, it free-falls and a stabilizer parachute is deployed. The parachute can regulate how much it opens using a cord at its rim. A control system operates that cord using as data input the acceleration felt by the pod. This technique can reproduce different acceleration profiles. Typically lower acceleration levels can be sustained for shorter times. Thus microgravity can be felt for about 20s and lunar gravity could be about a minute and so on.

Q: What training would I need as a participant?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: Strictly speaking, with a half a day briefing on security procedures it should be enough. However many participants will likely enjoy other preparatory activities to make the most of their flight. These may include, space photography, basic astronomy, discussions with scientists providing scientific piggyback payloads, etc.

Q: And now a personal question from looking at the graphics on your website, does the bloon cabin include a drink bar and bathroom? With such a long experience(!), as a participant, I would probably appreciate both?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: bloon does include both as we want our clients to be as comfortable as possible and to really enjoy the experience. Food to the taste of the clients can also be provided.

Business-related Questions:

Q: What is your source of company funding (Grants, Friends/Family, Angels, VC’s, Bank Loans, etc.)?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: After a year funding it myself, I’ve been blessed with angels that have been able to propel the project beyond what I could achieve with my own resources.

Q: How much funding do you need to raise (and how much have you raised to date)?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: The whole project requires about €16M in capital. I cannot disclose the amount committed to date as we are in the middle of a funding round.

Q: Your price point of $100K per ticket is half of Virgin Galactic’s. Talk about your pricing strategy (why not $10K, why not $200K?).

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: You are correct about the ticket price. From our experience, there is another metric that is as important as the ticket, that is the price per minute of experience. Since the view from near space is the core of the experience (who would pay to fly on a windowless spacecraft?), our price is over an order of magnitude below rocket-based alternatives.

We have to cover our costs and make a profit and that sets a minimum, we could not do $10K with our current technology. We are also very keen to provide highly customized solutions such as taking off and landing from a part of the world, or flying into a solar eclipse, to customers willing and able to afford such extras.

Q: Do you see a market in scientific applications?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: Definitely. Just as suborbital reusable crewed rockets are an improvement over conventional sounding rockets, and specific programs like NASA’s CRuSR will support them, bloon signifies an improvement over conventional high altitude balloons. Regardless of the overall density of the means to reach near-space (heavier or lighter than air), having a human physically in the loop is an outstanding advantage for research. If it is valuable at labs at ground level and on orbit as well, I do not see why it would not be valuable for intermediate altitudes.

Q: What has been your greatest success to date with bloon?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: With so much to do I tend to move on and think of the next steps and challenges rather than reflect on any particulars events of success. If pressured I’d say: we’ve flown and successfully recovered a pressurized scaled prototype to near space altitudes.

Q: What has been your greatest disappointment (or challenge) with bloon, to date?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: I had this romantic idea of the venture capital firms as risk takers and out-of-the-box thinkers that, like free spirits, partner with entrepreneurs to change the world at a profit. Well, I have utterly failed to find any of that, and that was a disappointment. Fortunately, other ways of getting funded exist. And if there are any VCs reading that want to prove me wrong, I’d love to hear from you.

Q: What is your next big challenge to overcome?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: We are very much concentrated in our first piloted flight to near space.

Q: Your company is founded in Spain, talk about the experience of starting a space-related company in Spain, with its business and regulatory environment.

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: For some reason many of the brightest students in Spain tend to pick aerospace engineering as a career choice. From my experience in the USA, France and the Netherlands that is not the case there. Law, Computer Science or Biotech are much better magnets for talent there. Full labor costs (wages + insurances) in Spain are significantly lower than in most other advanced economies. Another huge advantage is the absence of ITAR restrictions. We will be able to fly passengers from any nationality, regardless of the embargo status of their home nation. This is an incredible advantage over firms developing in the USA. And the weather here is amazing, which is equally good for quality of life and test flying.

Q: You have attended the International Space University’s Summer Session. Talk about that experience and how it affected this project. Would you recommend ISU’s Summer Session to other budding Space Entrepreneurs?

José Mariano Lopez Urdiales: I would highly recommend the ISU experience; it really helps to get things to happen. I went to ISU in the Chilean winter of 2000 for their two months program. There I worked on two projects, one the creation of a Chilean Space Agency and the other one was titled Space Tourism: from dream to reality. I find remarkable that in 2001 the Agency was setup along the lines of the white paper we prepared at ISU and that very year the first so-called space tourist, Dennis Tito flew to the ISS. That report was the first time I wrote, and as far as I know anybody else, how balloons can offer the benefits that private space explorers desire.

The Power of Video to grow New Space

Do you remember the early updates Armadillo gave on their rocket development progress?  They were open about both their successes and failures.  First the updates were text based.  Then pictures were added.  And then, with flame in the machine shop, came Video.  And video. And Video.

We not only watched the Lunar Lander Challenge live via the web, but in the months leading up to the official attempts to win the prize, Masten and Armadillo both posted videos showcasing their progress.  These videos became bragging rights, milestones, marketing opportunities, insights into their technologies (you better believe Masten and Armadillo disected each other's videos looking for any advantage).  And even after the LLC, the videos continue (maybe not as many as we would like), but..

Armadillo to an altitude of 2,959 feet.  Video.
Masten first to do in-air restarts.  Video.
Armadillo second to do in-air restarts.  Video.
Armadillo first to use retractable landing gear. Video.

And the video is not poor quality.  These companies recognize the marketing power of these videos.
Multiple camera angles.  Video.
High Quality recordings.  Video.

Video has power.  Video connects a community in a way text and pictures cannot.  Below is a Ted Talk by Chris Anderson on the power of video to promote innovation in a community especially those communities whose finished product cannot be emailed to others (think software).  Chris's talk is 18 minutes.  Watch it and ask yourself, just like Masten and Armadillo, how can New Space use this medium to share more and push humanity out to LEO and beyond.  Thanks Chris.  Good stuff.

Altius Space Machines

I see today, Jonathan Goff announced the creation of the latest new space company, Altius Space Machines. Jon was one of the founding members of Masten Space Systems, winner of NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge and Masten’s lead propulsion engineer. Now Mr. Goff is leaving Masten to start his own aerospace company.  Masten’s blog highlights their new talent they hired both to replace recent departures and arm the company with the talent to climb to 100KM and beyond.


After reading of these developments, here are a few thoughts:

1. I can’t wait to read more details of what Jon Goff has planned for Altius Space Machines. Jon’s blog, Selenian Boondocks, has long been a source for innovative space commercialization ideas. I look forward to Jon implementing many of his innovative ideas at his new company.
2. I mentioned in a past post how much the new space industry, as a whole, gains by having an increase in the total number of firms. I have described how an increase in the number of new space firms should increase liquidity opportunities for new space investors. In Jon Goff and Altius Space Machines we see a second industry advantage for an increased number of firms – experience in the employee base for the industry. Those employees that were on Masten’s winning team – some are still with Masten (inspiring the next generation of engineers), some are now with Armadillo, and some are starting new firms - all have leveraged their LLC experience for the future benefit of the industry. I love it.

Good Luck Masten.  Good Luck ASM.

5 out of 100 - Deal with It!

If you invested in 100 start-up companies, how many would you expect to be “winners”?  A recent study by Right Side Capital Management consolidated seven recent Angel Investment reports to ask that very question. RSCM's consolidation shows interesting trends:

• Only 5-10% of a portfolio’s investments provided the majority of the returns (most of the remaining firms were a total loss) – 5% winners/95% losers.
• Average IRR (Internal Rate of Return) was 27% across the portfolios (in spite of the fact 95% of companies within the portfolio were losers)
• Portfolio size: at least 100 investments to mitigate risk.

What about space firms? So if you were managing a Space Angel Fund, could you find 100 quality space firms in which to invest? In an earlier post, I encouraged young space firms to develop their companies less like defense contractors and more like Silicon Valley startups by establishing separate companies for each product/service.

For example, New Space Ventures (NSV) invested $$ millions in their micro-launch vehicle system and a year ago also started work on low-cost TPS solutions. With the micro launcher now complete and flying successfully, NSV has attracted several interested buyers for the technology. NSV partitioned the firm into two separate companies, one continuing to pursue micro launch vehicles and one investing in TPS solutions. NSV eventually sold one company and used the proceeds to fund TPS research with additional cash in reserve.

This multi-company approach will grow investment/liquidity opportunities in the industry, but is such an approach really feasible for firms so heavily influenced by their contracting cousins?

Attractiveness:

• Liquidity events generate cash for the business selling allowing them to reinvest in future projects (providing an alternative to additional outside investments or loans).
• More frequent liquidity events are good for investors, and as such make the industry as a whole more attractive.
• More interest from investors encourages entrepreneurs to start companies within the industry further enhancing a virtuous cycle.

Challenges:

• This approach assumes firms have a second product/market they wish to pursue which they believe attractive enough to forfeit a cash payout to their investors and instead reinvest their funds in a subsequent effort (doubling down effectively)
• With many young space firms under-capitalized, they supplement their income through Government contracting. Such an income stream delays the development of even an initial product/service because through contracting you are largely developing the Government’s toys and not your own. 
• Do date, the value of young space companies is arguably the experience and knowledge base of its people and less in company products or IP. If this is true, buyers will want to keep the core team intact when making a purchase. Internet startups often begin this way. Many of Google’s acquisitions over the last few years are companies with an interesting technology demonstrator and a small core team of employees. Google bought the companies’ potential – the product potential and people potential. For example, if a suborbital provider like Masten or Armadillo were purchased right now by Boeing or Northrop Grumman, I assume these industry giants would want to purchase both the IP and the engineers behind the IP. Both firms have demonstrated interested technology, but their real value (since none has yet reached 100KM) is in the risk-taking innovators at both firms. I hope to see this “people-focus” change over the coming year as suborbital firms reach 100KM and begin the switch from R&D shop to operations. At this point, the IP becomes much more valuable as a stand-alone (and marketable) item.

To grow the industry, we need to help new space firms overcome these challenges:

• Guard against income streams too heavily polluted with Government contracting
• Cross-train to ensure the loss of a person to sale is not the loss of a company skill-set
• Develop more than one product line (perhaps not all at first) to prepare for the eventual sale of the company. 
• Start companies with the sale in mind (stop starting firms intending them to grow and prosper for a century!) – this is one of the top questions investors will ask: “where is my liquidity event?”

For the New Space Industry to grow, we need more firms in which to invest. Only 5-10% will be successful. Deal with it. And then start another company…

Suborbital Crashes and Oil Spills

Last week a Federal Judge in Louisiana struck down the Obama Administration’s six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling. The President wanted the ban to give time for a blue-ribbon panel to study ways to increase drilling safety. The logic the Federal judge used to overturn the drilling ban gave me hope the space tourism industry can survive the inevitable crash and death of space flight participants. In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman, said this:

"If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing.”

Although I have every confidence the Administration will appeal and may get the moratorium reinstated over the coming weeks, I was still impressed with the level-headed approach of Judge Feldman. If suborbital companies face legal battles due to tragic crashes, I hope their gavel man is another Judge Feldman.

Angel Funding Better than VCs?

The Kauffman Foundation’s Paul Kedrosky reviewed the Inc. 500, a list of the fastest growing companies. Over the last ten years, 800 hundred firms made that list. 645 firms were either bootstrapped or angel-backed. Only 155 firms took VC money. 81% of the fastest growing companies on the planet did not take VC money! 

I spoke with Jay Turo, the CEO of Growthink, a investment banking firm located in Southern California.  He shared the matrix below (again from the Kauffman Foundation) on the danger of taking Venture Capital. A big take away from this matrix: a firm achieves the highest financial return by NOT taking VC money.

The data was self-reported (this may bias the data, although I am not sure which direction). Also, this data set includes a lot of deals done in the 1998-2000 period which may influence the data also.

But what does this mean for the Space Entrepreneur? Let’s look at the Suborbital industry as an example. Most of these young suborbital companies are bootstrapped or Angel-funded. But over the coming years, the profile of the industry will rise through mission success, the potential for increased NASA-funded projects, and increased speed to market of derivative products/services. As industry awareness grows, VC interest in the industry will undoubtedly increase. But do these young space firms want money from venture capital sources? But if not from the VC's, then from where?  With young software/Internet firms: a few hundred $K, a good idea, and frugal management can get you to market. As a general rule, Space entrepreneurs will need more capital to bring a product to market. I envision scenarios where these companies demonstrate a significant milestone like a flight to XX altitude. To go higher and faster, they need more capital for additional equipment and personnel. Will Angel funding be large enough for the needs of these growing firms? If angel funding is insufficient to reach the next major company milestone, the siren call of VCs will be alluring. If VC funding can taint a company (for reasons I am not going to get into today), what can be done to insulated the New Space industry from that siren call of VC funding while still promoting Industry growth?

Here are some potential solutions:

1. For a generic list of suggestions, see my overview post on the Seven Signs of a Growth Industry.  Read below for some specifics.
2. Increase Angel Activity. Again, let me recommend Angelsoft and its tools both for deal analyzing and its Angel groups to consolidate and focus funding toward worthy entrepreneurs. Growing the power of Angels will allow them to participate in larger subsequent funding rounds.  Although Angelsoft is not exclusively focused on the space industry, there are Angel groups using Angelsoft that are space focused.
3. Increase Mergers and Acquisitions. Between 2001 and April 2010, Google acquired 57 companies. These firms developed a technology that Google wanted and sold their company to the giant search engine. They started their companies with a sale in mind! They planned the liquidity event from the beginning. Aerospace firms built on winning Government contracts shy away from this model because their name recognition and Past Performance are key elements in them winning future business. But suborbital firms (and most of New Space in general) are a part of a new generation of aerospace startups leveraging more than Government research grants to close their business case. I do not hear Armadillo, Masten, or others positioning themselves for sale upon reaching 100KM. I would like to see more space firms abandon the assumption they are building a company that will last 100 years. Once you develop a successful product, sell the company or spin off the technology and then sell the spin-off company. The cash generated both bounds a firm’s need for outside capital (dampening the allure of VC-backed capital) and can serve as the seed funding for the entrepreneur’s next venture. And young space/defense companies ARE being acquired within the space industry. From 2001 through April 2010, General Dynamics acquired 31 firms, Northrop Grumman, 14 firms; Boeing, 13 firms; Raytheon, 13 firms. One of Northrop’s acquisitions was Scaled Composites.  Look for large aerospace firms to duplicate Northrop Grumman’s strategy over the coming years – buying the innovations of the young and risk tolerant.

Venture Capital is like fire, a very powerful tool allowing some firms to achieve the impossible and change the world. But it is fire...I just hate singed eyebrows.

Suborbital Cargo Agent

With the Next-Generation Suborbital Researchers Conference (NSRC) next week in Boulder, CO, I wanted to share an idea for a “near-term”, “low-cost”, suborbital business venture.  The graph below shows price points for suborbital research payloads.  To achieve these price points while still offering a healthy profit for the business owner, demand needs to grow.  Here is a business concept that may both make money and grow demand. Let me explain...

The Problem: Suborbital companies are not prepared for customers – they don’t know retail. This is not an oversight on the part of these young companies. Launch operators have spent the last five years designing, building, and testing launch vehicles, why would they needed retail experience?  But with paying customers around the corner...this problem has to be solved.

• Suborbital firms launching people are solving this problem by hiring travel agencies to interface with customers and coordinate sales activities.
• Suborbital firms launching cargo have yet to solve this problem. Using existing travel agents will probably not be effective as the cargo customer base is focused on scientific research instead of human entertainment. Developing the sales/customer service talent in house is a possible solution, and although not fully avoidable, would be expensive and distracting from the firms' focus of flying rockets.

The Solution: Firms launching cargo need their own class of travel agent, their own outsourceable sales force – a Suborbital Cargo Agent (SCA). This agent would:

• Interface with the customers, 
• Integrate experiments into flight racks, and
• Deliver integrated flight racks to launch operators for flight. 
• After flight, the SCA would deliver payloads and data back to each customer.

Benefits to Customers:

• One customer-focused interface to address all questions and coordinate payload, launch logistics, flight payment, etc.
• More flight opportunities – by the SCA signing agreements with multiple launch operators, a crash, delay, or full manifest from one launch operator, would not delay flights as cargo could be switched to alternate providers as needed
• Perhaps lower cost if the SCA could leverage her buying power when purchasing flights from the launch operator.  These savings could be passed on to the customer.

Benefits to Launch Providers:

• Allow launch operators to focus on their core competency – launch operations. Outsourcing Sales and Customer service responsibilities and the associated costs both in time and money. Even if the operator chooses to develop a sales force of their own, an SCA would still allow an operator to increase demand at a lower cost.
• Increase flight rates. Since the variable cost for a suborbital flight is low, the key to success for an operator will be high flight rates.

I was intrigued as I considered the possibilities for a venture that addresses this need. My next step was to do a little primary research. I talked to three groups: University professors from Cal Poly, MIT, and St. Louis University currently active in either university satellite development or active in space research of some kind, Contacts at NASA’s Commercial Reuseable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program, and contacts at the Suborbital Applications Research Group (SARG) . Here is a brief summary of their comments about research payloads:

• Low Cost: current CubeSat-sized payloads cost a university $50-100K to orbit. This is too much for most college programs which is why you see many universities unable to sustain a program of launching even cubesat-sized payloads. Although a market will continue for orbital payloads, universities would welcome a cheaper alternative that would bring the cost down while offering many of the same benefits to a university Aerospace engineering department. A preferred price point would be under $20K since that would allow many universities to include the launch price in Govt grants and research applications.
• Frequent Launch Opportunities: according to one professor, his current wait time to launch a cubesat-sized payload 7 years. The students who developed that payload will have graduated many years before this payload ever flies.
• Inter-departmental Cooperation: To date, most university work on satellite and related Aerospace projects have originated from the Aerospace engineering department (or Physics department if a university lacks an Aerospace engineering department). For universities to gain maximum value from suborbital research programs, they would need to develop cross-disciplinary teams. Aerospace Engineering, Physics, and other disciplines (Biology, Medicine, etc.) would need to work together for the benefit of all departments. The professors admit this level of ongoing collaboration is not regularly seen between university departments and may be a challenge to maintain.
• Payload standardization in the form of CubeSats have been a great benefit to university engineering programs. The university participants would benefit from a similar standard for suborbital research.
• Multiple Sizes: The CubeSat size is too small for some larger experiments.  Multiple sizes would be welcome.
• Two forms of experimentation: Manned and Unmanned. Some research programs can be conducted remotely. This is great news for universities wanting the value of such a hands-on program at low cost since automated experiments avoid the weight and volume human tended experiments take up. But manned experiments will play a leading role as well for those focused on life sciences research or whose larger experiments cannot currently be automated. The professors I spoke with saw both types of experiments flourishing on suborbital vehicles.
• Advocates. The industry is new (heck, we are not even flying to 100km yet), but SARG’s Dr. Alan Stern estimates an “imminent” market of 1000 missions per year. Whether such a large market estimate is hyperbole for the sake of the sound-bite or an actual belief is up for debate. But such a claim is an interesting nugget of how bullish some are about suborbital opportunities.
• Suborbital experiments are a gateway to orbital experiments. Researchers may test their hardware and gain experience in suborbit and graduate to orbital efforts when the time is right.  Offering such a tier of services (suborbital and orbital) should grow both markets.

I have also been in contact with Jeffrey Manber and NanoRacks after I read of their plan to build a business transporting cubesat-sized standard experiments to the ISS. NanoRacks has developed a standard rack that plugs into an MDL on station. NanoRacks worked with Bob Twiggs (co-creater of the CubeSat) from Kentucky Aerospace to build a standard experiment module called the CubeLab. Still 10cm-cubed, and plugs into their rack via a standard USB port. Very plug-and play! I like this. NanoRacks and Kentucky Space intend to offer this CubeLab technology as open-source for the benefit of the industry. One important nugget: the CubeSat has already passed significant ITAR hurdles, and since the CubeLab is based on similar technology to the CubeSat, a business using this open-source technology should have a significantly easier time attracting and working with international customers.  NanoRacks goal is to offer Micro-gravity research opportunitis on the ISS, but I think the technology ports very well into the suborbital arena as well.

So with this background research, let’s build a business case ( or at least the fun spreadsheet stuff). Here is what I have in mind for such a venture:

• Focus exclusively on the automated cargo market. 
• Fly only CubeLabs.
• Work with Kentucky Space to develop a series of standard CubeLab sizes:
• CubeLab1: current 10x10x10cm bus (16 per rack)
• CubeLab4: 20x20x20cm bus (4 per rack)
• CubeLab8: 20x20x40cm bus (2 per rack)
• All compatible with the current NanoRack rack design
• Negotiate low costs per flights and preferred provider status from the available suborbital launch operators
• Consider partnering with Kentucky Space for integration services.

Provide the following services to customers:

• Educate: Suborbital Research Evangelist - how suborbital research can benefit you, the customer
• Book Flights
• Ongoing rebooking as schedules of experiments and launch vehicles slip
• Payload integration coordination
• Integrated Rack delivery to launch provider (two to sixteen experiments integrated into one "ready-to-launch rack" making it easy for launch operators to load the rack onboard their rockets)
• Payload return to customer
• Launch data download from rack to secure Internet site for customer

So now the numbers. I have prepared two extreme pro formas: one optimistic view of launch prices and market demand and one more pessimistic view. And let me admit this right now, I have NOT done my due diligence on these figures. Instead these are meant to establish the trade space and start the discussion. Feel free to download these spreadsheets adjusting the inputs as desired.

Optimistic:

Pessimistic:

Price Point Backup Data (from the graph at the start of this post):