sign in sign up
<<
Home , Titan (rocket family), Titan IV, Zenit (satellite)

SSC00-XI-3

Universal Small Payload Interface – An Assessment of US Piggyback Launch Capability

Shahed Aziz AeroAstro, Inc. 327 A Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02210 (617) 451-8630 [email protected]

Paul Gloyer AeroAstro, Inc. Bldg 8201, Room 209 Stennis Space Center, MS 39529 (228) 688-2790 [email protected]

Joel Pedlikin AeroAstro, Inc. 327 A Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02210 (617) 451-8630 [email protected]

Kimberly Kohlhepp AeroAstro, Inc. 327 A Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02210 (617) 451-8630 [email protected]

Abstract. Small satellites are becoming the solution of choice for planners trying to reduce space mission costs and shorten schedules. Secondary launches are a quick, frequent, low-cost, reliable solution for small satellites. Most international small spacecraft are launched as secondary piggyback payloads, aboard larger more efficient . However, piggyback accommodations in the US are rare, done only on a case-by-case basis, and far from low cost. AeroAstro is presently developing the Universal Small Payload Interface (USPI), a standardized template for integrating and launching small spacecraft. It is designed so that mission developers can design to its requirements in order to be compatible on demand with a number of different secondary slots. The ‘Phase A’ USPI, based exclusively on existing secondary opportunities, will be complete by August 2000. Phases B and C, based on potential modifications of existing launch vehicles, will be complete by the end of the year. Missions will be quickly designed to a common interface standard, decreasing their dependence on a specific launch. When the spacecraft is ready, the next USPI launch available will be used, bringing ‘launch on-demand’ closer to reality.

Introduction assessment is a part of the Universal Small Payload Interface (USPI) project sponsored by This paper discusses an assessment of US the US National Reconnaissance Office capability to launch small or micro-satellites (NRO) Office of Space Launch (OSL). using secondary or "piggyback" launches on large commercial or military launch systems. The motivation for the USPI project is to Secondary launches are payloads that foster US small satellite development by constitute less than 40% of the overall payload allowing cheaper access to space for small, being launched into dependent upon the micro, and pico-satellites. Per-kilogram of the larger – primary – payload. The launch costs for small launchers are roughly

Shahed Aziz 1 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites three times higher than for large capacity piggyback payloads tend to skew the launchers, while the larger launchers tend to piggyback launch data, they are considered have unused payload mass at launch. shared or co-manifested payloads. Multiple Therefore, exploiting that extra mass capacity payload launches (like Iridium and Orbcomm) for small satellites with standard piggyback also are not considered, as they control the payload adapters would allow cheaper access insertion orbit and are basically treated as to space for these satellites. Anecdotal primary payloads. evidence suggests that US government policy – as the major launch systems customer – has Piggyback capabilities can be assessed by: not fostered piggyback launches for small · The launcher’s historical record of satellites in the US. This paper examines that piggyback launches issue with historical data on piggyback · The consistency of the launcher’s launches and current and future piggyback piggyback payload attachment (i.e. is there accommodations. The assessment used the a standard attachment interface) European 4 launcher and its ASAP 4 · The provider’s policy regarding piggyback adapter as a benchmark to highlight the payloads opportunities available for small satellites with · The transparency and ease of the process standard piggyback payload adapters and for getting a piggyback payload on a proactive launch policies. launcher

The following section describes the criteria Assessments should not be made in isolation, used in the assessment of US piggyback so US piggyback launch capabilities need to launch capabilities. Following the assessment be assessed vis-à-vis the strongest competition criteria is the assessment of historical, present, – a benchmark. Historically, the and planned US piggyback capabilities and a – and now – has been the US’ major discussion of the conclusions based on the competitor in space. However, the assessment. geopolitical competition between the two powers has always overshadowed and strongly Assessment Criteria influenced their competition in space. On the other hand, the launcher, A launcher’s ability to launch small secondary commercially offered as a launch service by payloads with a much larger primary payload Arianespace SA, has become the dominant is the primary criterion of assessment. commercial satellite launch system over the last two decades. The Ariane 4 – with the To qualify as a piggyback, a payload has to: Ariane Structure for Auxiliary Payloads · Be less than 100 kg (ASAP 4) – is also the major adapter for · Be launched with a much larger payload – piggyback launches to (LEO) the piggyback payload should be less than and Geo-stationary Transfer Orbit (GTO). 40% of the total mass launched on that Therefore, Ariane has been chosen as the particular mission benchmark for US piggyback capability · Be listed as an auxiliary payload on the assessment. ASAP 4 has proven the technical launch manifest data and commercial viability of piggyback payloads. It has also demonstrated the For some small launch vehicles (most notably viability of the European Space Agency Pegasus XL), 100 kg payloads are a large (ESA) policy of nurturing small satellite fraction of available capacity. Since these development by supporting standard

Shahed Aziz 2 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites piggyback accommodations on Ariane 4 has also forced the majority of Ariane 4 launches. For these reasons, Ariane 4 is the launches to GTO, reducing its share of most appropriate benchmark for assessing US piggyback launches (since GTO does not piggyback capability. seem very attractive for small spacecraft users/ designers). The higher proportion of Ariane 4 piggyback launches therefore reflects Historical Piggyback Capability a much weaker historical US position vis-à-vis piggyback payloads. The major reason for Figure 1 shows piggyback payloads as this discrepency between the two sets of data percentages of all payloads launched through is that ESA policy has effectively forced 1999. The raw data are skewed by the launch Arianespace to offer piggyback of Russian and US (Orbcomm) satellite accommodations whenever possible. clusters. These data show small/piggyback payloads accounting for 6% of the global total Figure 3 shows the global distribution of and 8% of the US (i.e., the US piggyback piggyback payloads by mass with the majority payload launch rate is on par with the global in the 40-80 kg ranges. Soviet/Russian rate in overall percentages). However, the US payloads dominated the 60-80 kg range while should have launched more piggyback the only range with predominantly US satellites compared to the benchmark Ariane payloads is the 40-60 kg range. Russian 4, because they had more launches with the predominance in the 60-80 kg range is same or better payload mass margin available. primarily a historical artifact (although there have been a significant number of Figure 2 shows piggyback payloads as a Soviet/former Soviet piggyback launches, a percentage of all payloads launched by each large number of launches in the early years of active US launch vehicle (the high percentage the space age were below 100 kg because of of Pegasus small payloads are co-manifested lesser payload capacities). Ignoring the launches, mostly for the Orbcomm Russian data, there is again a very strong constellation). US vehicles have launched a representation by Ariane piggyback payloads smaller percentage of piggyback payloads across the mass ranges. This highlights ASAP than Ariane 4. Ariane 4’s dominance of the 4’s capability of handling a wide variety of commercial communications satellite market payloads with the standard piggyback adapter.

100-200kg 100-200kg under 2% 2% 100kg under 4% 100kg 6%

over 200kg over 200kg 94% World Payloads 92% U.S. Payloads

Figure 1. Piggyback Payloads Launched Through 19991

Shahed Aziz 3 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites U.S. Payloads by Launch Vehicle 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Ariane Pegasus Shuttle Taurus (ref.) Total under 100kg 25 0 0 10 29 9 4 4 Total 100-200kg 3 1 0 0 11 3 0 0 Payloads over 200 kg 177 4 107 183 12 182 4 84 Figure 2. Piggyback Payload Launches by Launch Vehicle for US Vehicles1 The majority of payloads under 100 kg are actually co-manifests – mostly for the Orbcomm constellation.. Ariane data provided for reference.

225

200

175 Worldwide Small Payloads 150

125

100

75

50

25

0 0-20 kg 20-40kg 40-60kg 60-80kg 80-100kg 100- 120- 140- 160- 180- 120kg 140kg 160kg 180kg 200kg US Vehicles 5 4 32 13 2 5 2 1 1 6 4 13 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 Russian 4 6 16 201 1 2 0 0 0 0 Other 4 4 8 4 3 7 3 7 1 4 Figure 3. Distribution of Small Payloads According to Size1 The majority of US piggybacks (45%) are in the 40-60 kg range. Ignoring the Russian payloads in the 60-80 kg range, Ariane piggybacks are generally across the range.

Shahed Aziz 4 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Payloads by Orbit Piggyback Payloads by Orbit

300 313 60 59 250 208 50 200 177 40 150 30 100 57 20 18 10 10 8 0 50 Total U.S. 24 Total U.S. 0 2 0 Ariane GTO GTO Polar Polar LEO LEO

Figure 4. Distribution of Payloads According to Orbit Type1 Some of the small payload data is skewed by small US payloads launched as primaries. Note no US piggyback launches to GTO.

Figure 4 shows all payloads launched by orbit commercial satellites that would be excellent type. The balanced mix of US scientific/ candidates for piggyback launches have had to military and government/commercial pay for dedicated launches or wait for lack of communications payloads accounts for the inexpensive access. The US has generally distribution between LEO and GTO. Polar failed to use its strong position in launch and sun-synchronous orbits tend to be for systems to foster small, cost-effective earth observation and reconnaissance satellites by offering launch payload margin as satellites, again borne out by more US accommodations for secondary/piggyback launches in the group. On the payloads. other hand, the predominance of GEO for communications satellites accounts for the Three major standard adapters are available Ariane 4 launch data. for piggyback payloads: · The US STS systems controlled by the Piggyback payload data by orbits show the Hitchhiker Customer Accommodations majority of US small satellite launches went to and Requirements Specifications (CARS) LEO, but the data are skewed by Pegasus and 740-SPEC-008: older vehicles launching smaller primary - Hitchhiker Ejection System (HES) payloads. Most remarkable is the large - Payload Ejection System (PES) percentage of Ariane piggyback payloads. - Shuttle Hitchhiker Experiment Even the least desirable GTO orbit (piggyback Launch System (SHELS) satellites tend to go mostly to LEO – low · The Delta II secondary payload facility inclination or polar/sun-synchronous) has · The Ariane Structure for Auxiliary 4.5% Ariane piggyback launches, contrasting Payloads (ASAP) 4 – now being updated with 0% (of 208 total) for US launchers. Two to ASAP 5 of the three total Ariane 4 LEO launches and 75% of Ariane 4 launches to polar and sun- STS piggyback launches are exclusively for synchronous orbits have had piggyback US Government payloads, and its unstable payloads. This contrasts with less than 18% manifest often adversely affects piggyback for US polar and sun-synchronous launches. launch schedules. The Delta II secondary requirements and accommodations are This data contrasts with the fact that a unstable because the primary payload considerable number of US scientific and variation and customized secondary payload

Shahed Aziz 5 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites accommodations complicate piggyback have been included in current piggyback payload design. The ASAP 4 standard is capability assessment. †† easier to use than Hitchhiker CARS and Delta II because it has precise and clear piggyback Ariane 4 payload design and integration requirements. If an ASAP 4 ring is carried on a mission, the The Ariane 4 has been operational since 1988, piggyback customers have stable requirements with a 96% launch success rate. It is now they can design to. Piggyback launches– being phased out in favor of the . especially for US organizations – have been There are 20 commercial Ariane 4 launches literally or nominally free. But that does not manifested to 2004.3 reflect the hidden costs for qualifying and integrating the payloads.* Piggyback payload Multiple small payloads can be mounted on customers on Ariane 4 pay for the service. the ASAP 4 structure installed around the The fee possibly reflects less the actual ASAP primary payload adapter. Each piggyback 4 costs and more an active ESA policy to payload must be less than 50 kg with a encourage small and auxiliary payload combined piggyback mass no more than 200 launches. Consequently, piggyback kg. Each payload has to fit in a 0.45m x customers, given a choice between paying for 0.45m x 0.45m cube. the convenience of ASAP 4 piggyback launches to limited orbits and on limited No published costs are available, but costs per launches, or free US piggyback launches to piggyback are estimated at $1–$3 million. more orbits on more launches on sufferance Piggyback slots are allotted through a from the primary payload, have opted for the commercial application. No published data former. are available on the piggyback manifest. The last ASAP 4 piggyback launch was in 1997.

Current Piggyback Capability Delta II

Current piggyback capability assessment The Delta II has been operational since 1990, involved all operational launchers with a 94.5% overall success rate. There are commercially available worldwide as well as 16 Delta II launches manifested to 2002.3 US launchers used solely for government Piggyback payloads can be attached to the launches.** Most operational launch systems† sides of the second-stage avionics section, can carry piggyback payloads but only a few between the second stage and the payload have standardized accommodations for them. fairing. The available space is a slice of a Therefore only the following five launchers toroidal section 0.33m thick and 0.78m tall.

Piggyback payloads are paid for by NASA,

USAF, or the payload user. Piggyback slots * Essentially, the pricing (free) is driven by policy directives (patron of science) that do not necessarily are awarded ad hoc based on government coincide with NASA policy directives for the safest manifests with available space. It is possible possible STS mission. to examine the published manifest, confer ** For example, the US Titan II-23G and Titan IV systems were examined but not discussed because they do not offer piggyback accommodations. †† Piggyback carriage on OSP/ is not yet † Most Soviet launchers have carried piggyback standardized but the stated policy for this launcher to payloads but published data suggest they have no carry small secondary payloads for the standard piggyback accommodations. scientific/government community merits inclusion.

Shahed Aziz 6 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites with the prime payload customer to discover OSC is also capable of launching piggyback available space and payload margin and payloads on the Taurus launcher using the convince NASA to allow a piggyback payload DPAF attachment. The accommodations for on that launch. The process is somewhat piggyback are similar, so the information for opaque and piggyback launches are not Pegasus XL is also applicable for Taurus. The guaranteed. No published data are available Pegasus XL is the commercially available on the piggyback manifest. The last version, and there are 62 Pegasus XL launches piggyback launch was in 1999.* forecasted to 2008.3

OSP/Minotaur Pegasus XL piggyback payloads are really co- manifested payloads. Co-manifests can be The Minotaur is a refurbished LGM-30F load-bearing custom or non-load-bearing Minuteman II ICBM, primarily for configurations using the Dual Payload Attach government sponsored sub-orbital or orbital Fitting (DPAF). DPAF payloads have a payloads. It has been operational since 0.22m tall, 0.26m diameter allowable volume. January 2000. The Teal Group3 forecasts an Co-manifest masses are defined by the overall average of 2 launches per year, with 450 mission payload capability available. Minuteman II missiles in storage and available for conversion. Pegasus costs $18 million per launch, and co- manifests share the cost. The Orbital Sciences Piggyback payloads can be co-manifested or Corporation (OSC) creates co-manifests shared with other payloads with all piggyback through commercial application for use. masses, volumes, and facilities determined by the primary payload. Payloads can be – STS depending on available volume – stacked, installed in load carrying structures, or carried The (STS) is the world’s only in multiple payload dispensers.2 The payload reusable and the only manned US launch carriage design is still very fluid and there is system. The four operational orbiters are each no discernible standard. designed for 100 flights, so the fleet is good for about 300 more missions. Current flight Piggyback launches are government rate for the fleet is about 8-10 missions per subsidized,** and there is no established year. 3 procedure for getting piggyback payloads on a Minotaur launch. The only Minotaur launch Piggyback payloads use the Shuttle Hitchhiker thus far – in January 2000 – was a piggyback Ejection System (HES) in the STS main launch of ten satellites.† payload bay. The HES system can be enclosed or open to the payload bay and can Pegasus eject the payload with a given velocity. The payload mass can be up to 68 kg and must Pegasus has been commercially operational have a 0.48 m diameter and 0.52 m height. 1 since 1992, with an 80% overall success rate. The number of piggyback payloads carried on a given STS mission depends on payload bay * Two 64 kg payloads – one Danish and one South availability.7 African – to sun-synchronous orbits ** The government agency sponsoring a payload has to pay up to $11-$13 million per launch Table 1 summarizes the piggyback capabilities † JAWsat, ASUsat, OPAL – carrying 6 picosats, OCSE of the launchers mentioned above. for AFRL, and Falconsat

Shahed Aziz 7 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Table 1. Summary of Piggyback Capabilities for Selected Launchers

Launchers Mass (kg) Space (m) Piggyback Orbits Commercial Cost/ Procedure payload ($) Ariane 4 50 kg 0.45m X Transparent. LEO, Yes $1-$3 0.45m X Application for GTO million per 0.45 m use slot Delta II Open Open Fluid. NASA LEO, Commercial Nominally application GTO or Govt. free sponsored Pegasus Dependent 0.26m dia. Transparent. LEO Yes Sharing $18 XL on other 0.22m ht. Application for million per payload use launch OSP/ Dependent Dependen Open. LEO Govt. $11-$13 Minotaur on other t on other Not yet defined sponsorship million per payloads payloads reqd. launch STS 68 kg 0.48m dia. Opaque. LEO Govt. Nominally 0.52m ht. Ad hoc, secondary payloads free to manned mission only

Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) is the 4) Aggressive marketing of decommissioned only US provider actively pursuing piggyback Russian ICBM’s payloads for their launchers. Specifically, OSC is seeking piggback payloads for the The first two present a potential boost to US Pegasus/Taurus systems.4,5 The Delta II and piggyback launch opportunities while the STS piggyback application and mission latter two represent commercially available approval procedures remain opaque and cheap and reliable alternatives. subject to primary payload mission objectives. Although STS has well-established piggyback ESPA specifications, the integration and review procedures remain onerous. The The USAF Space Test Program (STP) and the OSP/Minotaur is a promising low-cost small Air Force Research Labs (AFRL) are satellite launcher, but it is not yet fully developing ESPA for the planned Evolved operational with well-defined piggyback Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). ESPA application procedures. is an annular ring above the Spacecraft Interface Plane (SIP) with the piggyback Projected Piggyback Capability payloads cantilevered out from it. ESPA can carry up to eight 180 kg piggyback payloads There are four major initiatives that could in a 0.61m x 0.61m x 0.97m volume. significantly affect US piggyback capabilities: 1) EELV Secondary Payload Attachment ESPA is scheduled for operation by 2003. Its (ESPA) major design limitation is the requirement to 2) Piggyback launch brokering fit the piggyback payloads above the SIP 3) ASAP 5 for Ariane 5, PSLV (The Polar without impinging on the primary payload now being volume. This has forced the piggyback marketed by the Antrix corporation for the payloads to be cantilevered out radially – Indian Space Research Organization), and making them more susceptible to launcher ST/Fregat axial vibration and constraining their available

Shahed Aziz 8 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites volume. According to STP analyses, typical that capacity. SOI solicits the customers, EELV missions may have more than 25% helps them design and qualify the payload, mass margins but piggyback payloads may not and integrates it with the primary payload. always be allowed. With the ESPA location SOI claims to have memoranda of above the SIP it is not entirely clear who has understanding with , Lockheed-Martin, ultimate responsibility for it – the payload or Kistler Aerospace, and Sealaunch. the launch vehicle side. The launch vehicle Partner/investor Ball Aerospace will probably providers do not consider it their provide the technical and integration responsibility and have yet to qualify it on expertise. their vehicles. SOI has an innovative idea to commercially If successful, ESPA could potentially launch a exploit excess capacity on launch manifests. significant number of US piggyback satellites. Launch service providers are interested in The USAF estimates that the operational selling excess payload margin for profit but EELV system would have 18-20 launches don’t want the overhead of finding a annually. Assuming half of those launches piggyback customer and helping them could carry 6 piggyback payloads each, 54-60 integrate with the launcher and primary piggyback payloads could be launched payload. The SOI initiative outsources annually. This rate would surpass the total piggyback marketing for the launch service number of US piggyback launches (see Figure providers. The exact business plan and 4) in less than two years! potential for profit or success is unclear, but this concept could potentially provide cheap ESPA is a good design effort to exploit excess piggyback payload access for US small EELV* capability, but it may be infeasible to satellite developers and users. SOI is standardize ESPA across other US platforms. hamstrung by ITAR and other US government Because the piggyback payloads are radially restrictions that considerably narrow their placed, the piggyback payloads are volume field by limiting them to US launchers. A constrained between the payload adapter side freer hand for SOI could potentially free up and fairing envelope. Furthermore, because of more piggyback opportunities for small the specialized piggyback payload interface satellite users. design, payloads designed for other launch systems cannot be changed over to ESPA. ASAP 5 Although that does insulate ESPA payloads from being "poached" by ASAP 5, it does ASAP 5 is the ASAP 4’s adaptation for the reduce US piggyback customers’ options. Ariane 5. Ariane 5 is now operational, although there has not been an ASAP 5 Launch Brokering mission to date. Two versions of ASAP 5 are available: The US firm Space Operations International 1) Carry up to 8 piggybacks with a maximum (SOI) has a commercial initiative to broker aggregate mass of 800 kg; allowable excess payload mass margin to small payload volume per payload is 0.6m x 0.6m x customers as piggyback opportunities. A US 0.8m; allowable mass per payload is 100 launch services provider with excess payload kg maximum margin on a launch engages SOI to market 2) Carry up to 4 piggybacks with maximum aggregate mass of 1,200 kg; allowable * Other launch vehicle designs, most notable the Kistler volume per payload is 1.5m diameter and K1, plan to use a variation of ESPA

Shahed Aziz 9 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites 1.5 m height; allowable mass per payload would have been more piggyback launches is 300 kg maximum if more Ariane 4’s had gone to LEO. This will no longer be an issue with ASAP 5. Ariane guarantees a piggyback launch – once · ASAP 5 will have more available contracted – on any one of three launchers: launches. Ariane 5 has 62 projected 1) Ariane 5 launches to 20073 and Soyuz ST/Fregat 2) The Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle has 5 launches planned per year.6 (PSLV) · Finally, the recent addition of the Eurockot 3) The Soyuz ST/Fregat vehicle marketed by launcher (see section below on "SALT" Starsem launchers)6 broadens Arianespace product coverage. The larger ASAP 5 can take a The PSLV is not yet commercially operational larger variety of piggyback payloads. If while the Soyuz ST/Fregat is the latest more capacity is required, a customer can iteration of the workhorse Soviet/Russian move up to the Eurockot. launcher. The Soyuz ST/Fregat version has an Ariane 4 type and is being There is as yet no concerted effort to counter marketed by Arianespace as its medium lift the ASAP 5 threat from any launch service vehicle for polar and sun-synchronous orbits providers, combination of commercial and for LEO constellations.6 Soyuz ST/Fregat organizations, or any other government will be operational by the second half of 2001. organization in the US. As is, Arianespace will further enhance experience in small ASAP 5 is a bigger threat to US piggyback satellite development at the expense of US launch efforts than ASAP 4 for a few reasons. small satellite developers limited by US · ASAP 5 allows larger piggyback payloads policies of exclusivity for US-sponsored with more mass. Small satellite makers projects and policy restrictions against using will be less constrained by mass and foreign launchers. The lack of a standardized volume than they were with ASAP 4. US piggyback launch adapter also does not · The larger mass allowance may let some allow US small satellite developers to design, piggyback customers add propulsion build, and use standard small and micro- modules* to optimize orbits. For example, satellites buses. Arianespace has an entered into an agreement with AeroAstro Inc. (authors of "SALT" Launchers this paper) for the SPORT™ – Small Payload Orbit Transfer – system. SPORT The SALT II treaty has decommissioned a will take a piggyback payload from GTO large number of ICBM’s from Russia, to LEO by reducing the apogee with drag Ukraine, and the US. The US has successfully and then circularizing at LEO. SPORT converted one LGM-30F Minuteman II to the will allow more piggyback payloads on OSP/Minotaur launcher and plans the same launches to GTO, reducing another with more of the 450 in storage.3 The weakness of the ASAP 4 system. Russians are marketing a number of their · The Ariane 5, PSLV, Soyuz ST/Fregat decommissioned ICBM’s, most successfully combination gives Arianespace better the Eurockot launcher. Table 2 summarizes coverage of orbits. Figure 4 suggests there the information about these launchers. “Start” in this case means “launch” in Russian. * Unlike US launchers, ASAP has been less stringent about pyrotechnics and propulsion on piggyback payloads

Shahed Aziz 10 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Table 2. Summary Information about "SALT" Launchers

Launcher Lineage Cost/Launch ($) Launch Comments SS18/Yuzhnoye $10 Million UoSAT 12, 1999 Silo launched above RS20 ground. Commercially marketed by Kosmotras and Technology Eurockot SS19 $5-12 Million Two Iridium (US), Silo launched above 1999 ground. Smallest Arianespace launcher Minotaur LGM-30F $11-13 Million Multiple microsats Managed by OSC. Not Minuteman II (US), 2000 commercially marketed Shtil R29RM SSN23 $100-300 K Two TUBsat, 1998 Submarine launched. Commercially marketed by Russian Navy Start & SS25/RT-2PM $9-10.5 Million Gerwin 1 (ISR), Commercially marketed Start 1 Topol Unamsat (MEX), by Puskovie Uslugi & Early Bird 1 (US) United Start

All the launchers in Table 2 have good considered its biggest competitor. Table 2 payload capability to LEO, in the Pegasus XL suggests the SALT launchers will compete and Taurus launchers’ range. They compete very strongly with those as well as the against piggyback launch by offering very piggybacks on larger launchers. cost effective launch services for satellites above the 200 kg range. The launch US payloads may not be allowed on the environments for all these launchers are very Russian SALT launchers,** but commercial robust, but they are reliable and have fast small payloads have no such restrictions. turnaround times. Surrey Satellite Limited of the UK is not under any such restrictions and has built an The Eurockot is the most commercially stable enviable experience base on most small and of the SALT launchers, it was previously piggyback launchers.† Therefore, non-US marketed by Daimler Chrysler Aerospace organizations are building a better experience (DASA) and is now a part of the Arianespace base launching small and micro-satellites line. The European Space Agency (ESA) using piggyback facilities unavailable to US officially considers the Eurockot its light users because of US government policies. launcher of choice.6 Government restrictions notwithstanding, two of the launchers – Policy Issues Eurockot and Start 1 – have launched US satellites and two – Dnepr and Start – are Launch vehicle providers do not see any marketed by US companies. technical hurdles to more piggyback launches. There is some overhead cost in dealing with Pegasus was conceived for small satellite piggyback customers and they would prefer launches but is now more expensive per * kilogram launched than large launchers. The ** The ITAR status of Eurockot is unclear. Iridium has Minotaur, as a recycled missile, was been launched on Eurockot. Ariane 4 and 5 launches are unrestricted for US payloads. US government- sponsored payloads still have to be launched on US * FAA price data suggests Pegasus/Taurus are nearly launchers. three times more expensive in $/kg terms than larger † Surrey has launched micro-satellites piggyback on launchers. FAA data is usually considered optimistic. ASAP 4, , Dnepr, Shtil, Tsiklon, and .

Shahed Aziz 11 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites someone else (like a broker) taking care of them. Overall, they don’t see an attractive 3. Government policy and the business case, enough business case for standard piggyback not technical challenges, are the significant accommodations on their launchers. They hindrances to more US piggyback launches. contend that the government – under constant budget pressure – would pay them less for the 4. US Government policy to restrict prime payload if they charged fees for government-sponsored payloads to US piggyback launches. There is insufficient launchers harms small/micro-satellite evidence to rebut that. Therefore, launch development by not allowing them more vehicle providers are not likely to be open to cheap missions to space. piggyback launches – or standardized adapters for them – until the government mandates they 5. Free piggyback payload launches are not do so or allows them to keep the resulting enough; transparent procedures for reliable profits. piggyback payload slots are also critical.

There is some government interest in 6. Decommissioned ICBM launches overseas piggyback launches. There is also some belief provide cheap, reliable access to space for that US launch vehicle providers are small satellites but US small satellite uninterested in piggyback launches because developers are restricted by US government USAF Material Command (AFMC) is not policy to US launchers. pushing them. AFMC does not have a formal operational requirement for small and 7. The NRO should push for an operational piggyback launches from USAF Space requirement for piggyback payload launches Command (SPC). SPC very probably agrees to encourage large launch vehicle contractors. with the piggyback launch concept and supports efforts like ESPA, but until small 8. ASAP 5 provides a single, standardized satellites and piggyback launches prove piggyback payload adapter that covers GTO operational capability for war-fighting – or and low inclination & polar LEO orbits with they are mandated by policy to do so – they three major launchers: Ariane 5, PSLV, and have no reason to issue a requirement. The Soyuz ST/Fregat. There is no comparable US timing might be right for a large government piggyback initiative. prime payload customer to push for such a requirement. 9. Ride brokering may give the US a competitive advantage but the business plan is unproven. Conclusions

1. Historical US piggyback launch rates are on par with global data but the US has not References exploited its payload margins as well as the competition. 1. Isakowitz, S.L., Hopkins, J.P. and Hopkins, J.B.: International Reference 2. The EELV Secondary Payload Adapter Guide to Launch Systems, AIAA, (ESPA) is a good design effort to exploit Virginia, 2000. EELV payload margins but it cannot be standardized for other US launchers.

Shahed Aziz 12 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites 2. OSC Launch Systems Group: OSP Space Launch Configuration. Payload Users Handbook, Orbital Launch Systems, 1998 (Provisional Draft).

3. Caceres, M., World Space Systems Briefing, Teal Group Corporation, Virginia, 2000.

4. Pao, C., Director Business Development OSC, Conversation with author, 2000.

5. Access to Space (ATS) website, NASA Goddard-NRO, 2000.

6. Taverna, M. A., “Soyuz, Rockot Join Ariane Production Line.” Aviation Week and Space Technology, McGraw-Hill, NY, May 1, 2000.

7. Shuttle Small Payloads Project Office: Hitchhiker Customer Accommodations & Requirements Specifications, 740.SPEC- 008, NASA, 1999.

Shahed Aziz 13 14th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites