DOCSLIB.ORG

Small Satellite Market Intelligence Report Provides an Update of the Small Satellites Launched in Q2 2021 (1St April to 30Th June 2021)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Small Satellite Market Intelligence Report Provides an Update of the Small Satellites Launched in Q2 2021 (1St April to 30Th June 2021) SMALL SATELLITE MARKET 2021 INTELLIGENCE REPORT This issue of the Satellite Applications Q2 Catapult’s quarterly Small Satellite Market Intelligence report provides an update of the small satellites launched in Q2 2021 (1st April to 30th June 2021). This edition also includes a short article on the applications, benefits, and challenges to satellite operations in very low Earth orbit (VLEO). SMALL SATELLITES 02 LAUNCHED IN Q2 2021 OVERVIEW In the second quarter of 2021, there were 564 small satellites launched into orbit. This falls short of the all-time record, set in the first quarter of this year, which still stands at 757. However, this quarter takes second place comfortably, beating the next highest quarter by over 200 satellites. This brings the total number of small satellites launched in 2021 to 1321, meaning that it has already broken the yearly record for number of small satellites launched, with half the year still to go. SpaceX contributed to the majority of small satellites launched once again, accounting for 64% (363) of the satellites launched into orbit this quarter. This brings the total number of Starlink satellites launched to 1808 as they continue to expand their beta test program. Interestingly, the 853 Starlink satellites launched in 2021 (Q1 and Q2) already surpass the 833 Starlink satellites launched in 2020, as SpaceX show no signs of slowing down even as their constellation network nears first phase completion. OneWeb also continued operations in building their constellation. They launched 72 satellite this quarter, the most of any quarter in their history to date, and double the number launched in Q1 of this year. This brought their total satellites launched in 2021 to 108, surpassing the 2020 tally of 104. OneWeb announced the investments this quarter of $550 million from Eutelsat, and $500 million from Bharti Global, which will allow the space start-up to accelerate their efforts in finishing their 648-satellite constellation. Number of Small Satellites Launched Note: The mathematical model line in the graph above (simulating an accelerating small satellite market uptake followed by a levelling off) represents a general trend and not a prediction per year. APPLICATIONS 03 Applications are defined by the primary objective of the mission as categorised below: • Communications: the objective of the mission is to transmit or receive signals to/from a user terminal or gateway. • Technology/Scientific: the objective of the mission is to gather knowledge to better understand physical phenomena or to test the functionality of the payload or equipment. • Earth observation/Remote sensing: the objective of the mission is to provide imagery or data relating to the Earth or its atmosphere. Small Satellites Launched by Application Percentage Share of Small Satellites by Application 04 Communications Continuing with the trend of recent years, communications satellites accounted for most small satellites launched this quarter. Of the 564 small satellites launched, around 86% (484) of these were communication satellites. The vast majority of these were attributed to companies adding more satellites to their constellation networks. Around 97% of the communication satellites launched this quarter were from SpaceX, OneWeb and Swarm Technologies who sent 363, 72 and 36 satellites into orbit, respectively. The remaining satellites were from Fleet Space Technologies, Guodian Gaoke, NanoAvionics, Eutelsat, Echostar Global, Astrocast and Lynk Global. Of note in this list is Lynk Global, who is planning a several thousand satellite constellation to provide cellular coverage for mobile phones. If they scale their operations as intended, then we may see a new player challenging the SpaceXs and OneWebs for one of the top spots in communication small satellite launches. Earth Observation There were 40 Earth Observation/Remote Sensing small satellites launched in Q2. There were no dominating players in this group, with the largest number of satellites in this category being launched by Spire (8) as part of their Lemur constellation. Finnish start-up ICEYE continued to add to their constellation, launching 4 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) small satellites this quarter, along with an announcement of opening an office in Japan to serve the Japanese market. Luxembourg start-up Kleos Space and Argentinian Satellogic also added 4 satellites to their constellations. There were 9 satellites launched by Chinese governmental and academic institutions in this category, as they continue to make their mark on the New Space industry. Commercial Earth observation companies Capella Space, HawkEye 360, PlanetiQ, SatRevolution and Umbra Lab also had launches in the single digits, while MIT Space Systems Laboratory and the Royal Thai Airforce added a single satellite each to the overall total. Technology/Scientific The number of satellites launched in the Technology/Scientific category equalled that of the Earth Observation/Remote Sensing category at 40. These were spread across 32 different entities who each launched between 1 and 3 satellites. Commercial companies accounted for half of the Technology/ Scientific small satellites at 20. Government entities launched 15 small satellites in this category, the vast majority of these (13) were from American organisations, including 3 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellites, whose exact application and orbit were classified. The remaining 2 government technology satellites were from the Royal Netherlands Airforce and Mauritius Research Council. There were 5 satellites from academic institutions within this category, including a mission from the University of Manchester to investigate atmospheric interactions with spacecraft in very low Earth orbit (VLEO). SIZE AND MASS 05 Satellite classification Satellite subclassification Associated wet mass range Small Satellite < 500 kg Mini-satellite 100 kg - 500 kg Micro-satellite 10 kg – 100 kg Nano-satellite 1 kg – 10 kg Pico-satellite 0.1 kg – 1 kg Small Satellites Launched by Mass Category The recent trend of mini-satellites dominating the mass categories continues in Q2, with 445 of 564 small satellites launched falling within this mass range. SpaceX and OneWeb accounted for 98% of the mini-satellites with 363 and 72 launched this quarter, respectively. American government entities such as the US Space Force, DARPA and the NRO, as well as Chinese entites including China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) and Aerospace Dongfanghong Satellite are responsible for the remaining mini-satellites launched this year. Micro-satellites were the next most popular platform of choice for the second quarter of 2021, with 49 satellites launched. No organisation dominated this particular segment of the mass categories, with 32 different entities launching between 1-4 satellites each. There were 32 nano-satellites launched in Q2. A quarter of these (8) were from Spire, who continue to add to their Lemur Earth observation constellation. Swiss company Astrocast launched 5 nano-satellites into orbit as part of their global L-band machine-to-machine (MTM) service. The rest of the satellites in this category were spread evenly across 17 different entities. Of the 38 pico-satellites launched this quarter, 36 were from Swarm Technologies as they add more SpaceBEE satellites to their Internet of Things (IoT) constellation. They have now launched 127 pico- satellites out of a planned 150, which is on track to be completed by the end of 2021. One of the other two pico-satellites was launched by the Mauritius Research Council (MRC) to collect land and ocean data on the Republic of Mauritius from space, the country’s first satellite. The remaining pico-satellite was the country of Kuwait’s first satellite, developed by Orbital Space to empower the next generation of Kuwaiti satellite engineers. ORGANISATION 06 Small Satellites Launched by Organisation Small satellites launched by commercial companies accounted for roughly 96% (539) of the total launched this quarter. This is a trend that has been occurring since 2013 and shows no signs of letting up. The vast majority (87%) of commercial small satellites in Q2 can be attributed to SpaceX, OneWeb and Swarm Technologies, with 363, 72 and 36 small satellites launched, respectively. With SpaceX and OneWeb continuing to add more satellites to their constellations, as well as new entrants with mega- constellation ambitions (e.g. Lynk Global) it is likely that commercial companies will continue to dominate these figures. Small Satellites Launched by Organisation - Quarter 2 There were 19 small satellites launched by 2021 government entities this quarter. The majority of these (13) can be attributed to government organisations of the United States as part of technology demonstrations for DARPA, NRO, United States Armed Forces and the Missile Defence Agency, or for science missions led by NASA Ames Research Centre. China came in second in terms of government satellites this quarter, with 3 earth observation platforms launched. The Netherlands, Thailand and Mauritius each had one satellite launched in Q2. Of note this quarter was an announcement by China that they are developing plans for a 13,000-satellite mega-constellation, as part of a national network satellite internet project. A project like this would see government figures skyrocket to numbers never seen before. There were only 6 small satellites launched this quarter that fall under the academic category, which is dramatically less than the 58 launched in Q1 of this year. There was a fairly even spread among countries, with academic institutions from China, Germany, Mexico and the UK launching a single academic satellite, and the US launching 2 this quarter. This brings the total number of small satellites launched in 2021 by academic entities to 64, almost double the 2020 total. While the 2018 record of 87 small satellites launched by academic organisations is still yet to be broken, there are another 6 months of the year left. LAUNCH 07 Number of Small Satellite Launches and Number of Small Satellites Launched by Launch Vehicle There were 22 small satellite launches in the second Orbits by Number of Launches quarter of 2021, including 3 failed launch attempts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite
    46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2008-1131 7 – 10 January 20006, Reno, Nevada Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite Stephen A. Whitmore* and Tyson K. Smith† Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-4130 A trade study investigating the economics, mass budget, and concept of operations for delivery of a small technology-demonstration satellite to a medium-altitude earth orbit is presented. The mission requires payload deployment at a 19,000 km orbit altitude and an inclination of 55o. Because the payload is a technology demonstrator and not part of an operational mission, launch and deployment costs are a paramount consideration. The payload includes classified technologies; consequently a USA licensed launch system is mandated. A preliminary trade analysis is performed where all available options for FAA-licensed US launch systems are considered. The preliminary trade study selects the Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch vehicle, derived from the decommissioned Peacekeeper missile system, as the most favorable option for payload delivery. To meet mission objectives the Minotaur V configuration is modified, replacing the baseline 5th stage ATK-37FM motor with the significantly smaller ATK Star 27. The proposed design change enables payload delivery to the required orbit without using a 6th stage kick motor. End-to-end mass budgets are calculated, and a concept of operations is presented. Monte-Carlo simulations are used to characterize the expected accuracy of the final orbit.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Nasa's Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services
    FEBRUARY 17, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-012 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-09-011-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms COTS Commercial Orbital Transportation Services CRS Commercial Resupply Services DOD Department of Defense EELV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle ESMD Exploration Systems Mission Directorate GAO Government Accountability Office GLAST Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope IBEX Interstellar Boundary Explorer ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ICESat-II Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite IDIQ Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity ISS International Space Station LADEE Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer LCROSS Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter LSP Launch Services Program NLS NASA Launch Services OCO Orbiting Carbon Observatory OIG Office of Inspector General PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution SMAP Soil Moisture Active Passive SMD Science Mission Directorate SOMD Space Operations Mission Directorate ULA United Launch Alliance REPORT NO. IG-11-012 FEBRUARY 17, 2011 OVERVIEW REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES The Issue Commercial U.S. launch services providers compete domestically and internationally for contracts to carry satellites and other payloads into orbit using unmanned, single-use vehicles known as expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). However, since the late 1990s the global commercial launch market has generally declined following the downturn in the telecommunications services industry, which was the primary customer of the commercial space industry. Given this trend, U.S. launch services providers struggling to remain economically viable have been bolstered by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303), which requires NASA and other Federal agencies to plan missions and procure space transportation services from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast, 9Th Edition
    2019 NANO/MICROSATELLITE MARKET FORECAST, 9TH EDITION Copyright 2018, SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. SPACEWORKS ENTERPRISES, INC., COPYRIGHT 2018. 1 Since 2008, SpaceWorks has actively monitored companies and economic activity across both the satellite and launch sectors 0 - 50 kg 50 - 250kg 250 - 1000kg 1000 - 2000kg 2000kg+ Custom market assessments are available for all mass classes NANO/MICROSATELLITE DEFINITION Picosatellite Nanosatellite Microsatellite Small/Medium Satellite (0.1 – 0.99 kg) (1 – 10 kg) (10 – 100 kg) (100 – 1000 kg) 0 kg 1 kg 10 kg 100 kg 1000 kg This report bounds the upper range of interest in microsatellites at 50 kg given the relatively large amount of satellite development activity in the 1 – 50 kg range FORECASTING METHODOLOGY SpaceWorks’ proprietary Launch Demand Database (LDDB) Downstream serves as the data source for all satellite market Demand assessments ▪ Planned The LDDB is a catalogue of over 10,000+ historical and Constellations future satellites containing both public and non-public (LDDB) satellite programs Launch Supply SpaceWorks newly updated Probabilistic Forecast Model (PFM) is used to generate future market potential SpaceWorks PFM Model ▪ The PFM considers down-stream demand, announced/planed satellite constellations, and supply-side dynamics, among other relevant factors Expert Analysis The team of expert industry analysts at SpaceWorks SpaceWorks further interprets and refines the PFM results to create Forecast accurate market forecasts Methodology at a Glance 2018 SpaceWorks forecasted 2018 nano/microsatellite launches with unprecedented accuracy – actual satellites launched amounted to just 5% below our analysts’ predictions. In line with SpaceWorks’ expectations, the industry corrected after a record launch year in 2017, sending 20% less nano/microsatellites to orbit than in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Minotaur I User's Guide
    This page left intentionally blank. Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D REVISION SUMMARY VERSION DOCUMENT DATE CHANGE PAGE 1.0 TM-14025 Mar 2002 Initial Release All 2.0 TM-14025A Oct 2004 Changes throughout. Major updates include All · Performance plots · Environments · Payload accommodations · Added 61 inch fairing option 3.0 TM-14025B Mar 2014 Extensively Revised All 3.1 TM-14025C Sep 2015 Updated to current Orbital ATK naming. All 3.2 TM-14025D Sep 2018 Branding update to Northrop Grumman. All 3.3 TM-14025D Sep 2020 Branding update. All Updated contact information. Release 3.3 September 2020 i Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D This page left intentionally blank. Release 3.3 September 2020 ii Minotaur I User’s Guide Preface TM-14025, Rev. D PREFACE This Minotaur I User's Guide is intended to familiarize potential space launch vehicle users with the Mino- taur I launch system, its capabilities and its associated services. All data provided herein is for reference purposes only and should not be used for mission specific analyses. Detailed analyses will be performed based on the requirements and characteristics of each specific mission. The launch services described herein are available for US Government sponsored missions via the United States Air Force (USAF) Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD), Rocket Systems Launch Program (SMC/ADSL). For technical information and additional copies of this User’s Guide, contact: Northrop Grumman
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Institute for Near East Policy August
    THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY n AUGUST 2020 n PN84 PHOTO CREDIT: REUTERS © 2020 THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. FARZIN NADIMI n April 22, 2020, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force (IRGC-ASF) Olaunched its first-ever satellite, the Nour-1, into orbit. The launch, conducted from a desert platform near Shahrud, about 210 miles northeast of Tehran, employed Iran’s new Qased (“messenger”) space- launch vehicle (SLV). In broad terms, the launch showed the risks of lifting arms restrictions on Iran, a pursuit in which the Islamic Republic enjoys support from potential arms-trade partners Russia and China. Practically, lifting the embargo could facilitate Iran’s unhindered access to dual-use materials and other components used to produce small satellites with military or even terrorist applications. Beyond this, the IRGC’s emerging military space program proves its ambition to field larger solid-propellant missiles. Britain, France, and Germany—the EU-3 signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is known—support upholding the arms embargo until 2023. The United States, which has withdrawn from the deal, started a process on August 20, 2020, that could lead to a snapback of all UN sanctions enacted since 2006.1 The IRGC’s Qased space-launch vehicle, shown at the Shahrud site The Qased-1, for its part, succeeded over its three in April. stages in placing the very small Nour-1 satellite in a near circular low earth orbit (LEO) of about 425 km. The first stage involved an off-the-shelf Shahab-3/ Ghadr liquid-fuel missile, although without the warhead section, produced by the Iranian Ministry of Defense.2 According to ASF commander Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2018 Satellite & Space Monthly Review
    February 5, 2018 Industry Brief Chris Quilty [email protected] January 2018 +1 (727)-828-7085 Austin Moeller Satellite & Space Monthly Review [email protected] +1 (727)-828-7601 January 11, 2018: Air force to utilize more smallsats for weather DMSP F19 Readying for Launch observation. Citing growing budget constraints, the US Air Force announced that is considering using small satellites in combination with next-gen software rather than procuring traditional multibillion-dollar, cost-plus spacecraft to replace/replenish its Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). Despite awarding a $94 million contract to Ball Aerospace in November to design the Weather System Follow-on Microwave (WSF-M) satellite, the Air Force plans to begin launching small satellites equipped with infrared imaging and electro-optical instruments to monitor battlefield weather starting in 2021-2022. The Air Force is also considering augmenting their current capabilities with inactive NOAA GOES satellites in the near-term. These considerations parallel recent comments by USSTRATCOM commander Gen. John Hyten, who has repeatedly stated that the Air Force currently spends too much time and money developing large, high- cost satellites, and needs to invest in more small satellites for strategic Source: Lockheed Martin and budgetary reasons. Conclusion: Smallsats ready for a DoD growth spurt? With growing evidence of Russian/Chinese anti- satellite technology demonstrations, the Pentagon is becoming increasingly reluctant to spend billions of dollars on monolithic “Battlestar Galactica” satellite systems that place too many eggs in one basket. While not as robust or technologically-capable as high-end spacecraft built by traditional contractor, such as Lockheed Martin, small satellites are orders-of-magnitude less expensive to build, launch, and maintain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Missile Challenge
    The Iranian Missile Challenge By Anthony H. Cordesman Working Draft: June 4, 2019 Please provide comments to [email protected] SHAIGAN/AFP/Getty Images The Iranian Missile Challenge Anthony H. Cordesman There is no doubt that Iran and North Korea present serious security challenges to the U.S. and its strategic partners, and that their missile forces already present a major threat within their respective regions. It is, however, important to put this challenge in context. Both nations have reason to see the U.S. and America's strategic partners as threats, and reasons that go far beyond any strategic ambitions. Iran is only half this story, but its missile developments show all too clearly why both countries lack the ability to modernize their air forces, which has made them extremely dependent on missiles for both deterrence and war fighting. They also show that the missile threat goes far beyond the delivery of nuclear weapons, and is already becoming far more lethal and effective at a regional level. This analysis examines Iran's view of the threat, the problems in military modernization that have led to its focus on missile forces, the limits to its air capabilities, the developments in its missile forces, and the war fighting capabilities provided by its current missile forces, its ability to develop conventionally armed precision-strike forces, and its options for deploying nuclear-armed missiles. IRAN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE THREAT ...................................................................................................... 2 IRAN'S INFERIORITY IN ARMS IMPORTS ................................................................................................... 3 THE AIR BALANCE OVERWHELMINGLY FAVORS THE OTHER SIDES ........................................................... 4 IRAN (AND NORTH KOREA'S) DEPENDENCE ON MISSILES ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cubesat Mission: from Design to Operation
    applied sciences Article CubeSat Mission: From Design to Operation Cristóbal Nieto-Peroy 1 and M. Reza Emami 1,2,* 1 Onboard Space Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Space Campus, 981 92 Kiruna, Sweden 2 Aerospace Mechatronics Group, University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies, Toronto, ON M3H 5T6, Canada * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-416-946-3357 Received: 30 June 2019; Accepted: 29 July 2019; Published: 1 August 2019 Featured Application: Design, fabrication, testing, launch and operation of a particular CubeSat are detailed, as a reference for prospective developers of CubeSat missions. Abstract: The current success rate of CubeSat missions, particularly for first-time developers, may discourage non-profit organizations to start new projects. CubeSat development teams may not be able to dedicate the resources that are necessary to maintain Quality Assurance as it is performed for the reliable conventional satellite projects. This paper discusses the structured life-cycle of a CubeSat project, using as a reference the authors’ recent experience of developing and operating a 2U CubeSat, called qbee50-LTU-OC, as part of the QB50 mission. This paper also provides a critique of some of the current poor practices and methodologies while carrying out CubeSat projects. Keywords: CubeSat; miniaturized satellite; nanosatellite; small satellite development 1. Introduction There have been nearly 1000 CubeSats launched to the orbit since the inception of the concept in 2000 [1]. An up-to-date statistics of CubeSat missions can be found in Reference [2]. A summary of CubeSat missions up to 2016 can also be found in Reference [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite Trends
    Satellite trends Technical and business technology and regulatory challenges Attila MATAS [email protected] WRC-15 GFT Decision Seamless satellite based ADS-B – GFT - world wide coverage 2 © ITU WRC-15 – UAS Decision Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) – Use of FSS bands for control and non- payload communications (CNPC) of UAS in non-segregated airspaces LOS Out-LOS 3 Non-GSO satellites Advantages – Less booster power required – Less delay in transmission path – Suitability for providing service at higher latitude – Lower cost per satellite to build and launch satellites Disadvantages – Satellite system and ground segment are expensive – Less expected life of satellites due to ionizing radiation effects, requires frequent replacement – Requirements for deorbiting Non-GSO satellite projects Nowadays – Space science missions, navigation (GPS, Galileo, Glonass, Compas) and mobile-satellite systems (Iridium, Globalstar) – First non-GSO broadband from O3B Satellite technology – Era of microsats, nanosats – Mass production brings down the cost – Technological advancements • Satellites terminals are smaller and cheaper • Ka-band applications • New technologies – optical links, electronic propulsion How it is non-GSO different? 1990s 2016 Cost per kg to LEO >10 000 [1 600] – 4 000 (USD) (Dnepr-1) (FH projected) Teledesic OneWeb Cost per sat. (USD) 20mil/35mil [0.5mil] Project cost (USD) 9bn 1.5-2bn How is the satellite communication different? Investments More IT/TECH - companies ready to invest (Google, Facebook) Launch Costs Launch costs are down, new entrants in the market SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Orbital ATK etc Market Internet is very different There are millions without access Big Data requires more users to mine data Mobile is the next market to win New applications – ADS-B, UAS, IoT, ESiM Competition More players Support from satellite operators High Throughput Satellite (HTS) Improved capacity, higher throughput rates, lower space segment cost per MB through frequency reuse and multiple spot beams 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions
    Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint International Conference & Workshop June 12-15, New Orleans, LA Bob Bitten, Debra Emmons, Claude Freaner 1 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Abstract • The upcoming retirement of the Delta II family of launch vehicles leaves a performance gap between small expendable launch vehicles, such as the Pegasus and Taurus, and large vehicles, such as the Delta IV and Atlas V families • This performance gap may lead to a variety of progressions including – large satellites that utilize the full capability of the larger launch vehicles, – medium size satellites that would require dual manifesting on the larger vehicles or – smaller satellites missions that would require a large number of smaller launch vehicles • This paper offers some comparative costs of co-manifesting single- instrument missions on a Delta IV/Atlas V, versus placing several instruments on a larger bus and using a Delta IV/Atlas V, as well as considering smaller, single instrument missions launched on a Minotaur or Taurus • This paper presents the results of a parametric study investigating the cost- effectiveness of different alternatives and their effect on future NASA missions that fall into the Small Explorer (SMEX), Medium Explorer (MIDEX), Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP), Discovery,
    [Show full text]
  • Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive
    CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY HAER FL-8-B BUILDING AE HAER FL-8-B (John F. Kennedy Space Center, Hanger AE) Cape Canaveral Brevard County Florida PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 100 Alabama St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY BUILDING AE (Hangar AE) HAER NO. FL-8-B Location: Hangar Road, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Industrial Area, Brevard County, Florida. USGS Cape Canaveral, Florida, Quadrangle. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: E 540610 N 3151547, Zone 17, NAD 1983. Date of Construction: 1959 Present Owner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Present Use: Home to NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) and the Launch Vehicle Data Center (LVDC). The LVDC allows engineers to monitor telemetry data during unmanned rocket launches. Significance: Missile Assembly Building AE, commonly called Hangar AE, is nationally significant as the telemetry station for NASA KSC’s unmanned Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) program. Since 1961, the building has been the principal facility for monitoring telemetry communications data during ELV launches and until 1995 it processed scientifically significant ELV satellite payloads. Still in operation, Hangar AE is essential to the continuing mission and success of NASA’s unmanned rocket launch program at KSC. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A in the area of Space Exploration as Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) original Mission Control Center for its program of unmanned launch missions and under Criterion C as a contributing resource in the CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Small Satellite Technology and the Role of the NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program
    Trends in Small Satellite Technology and the Role of the NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program Final Update to the NASA Advisory Committee Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee March 28, 2017 Bhavya Lal, Asha Balakrishnan, Alyssa Picard, Ben Corbin, Jonathan Behrens, Ellen Green, Roger Myers Reviewers: Brian Zuckerman, Mike Yarymovych, Iain Boyd, Malcolm MacDonald Project Goal Given investments outside STMD, and NASA’s mission needs, what is the “the appropriate, discriminating role for STMD vis-à-vis all the other organizations that are developing small satellite technology?” 2 Overall Approach • Examined smallsat developments • Scope – State-of-the-art and activities outside – STMD’s Small Spacecraft Technology STMD Program (SSTP) supplemented by other – Evolution of the ecosystem: players STMD efforts and markets – Did not conduct an evaluation – Drivers of future activities: • No comment on adequacy of funding infrastructure, policies, investment levels • Analyzed STMD’s current and • Definition of a small spacecraft or emerging smallsat portfolio smallsat • Identified NASA’s small spacecraft – Considered several metrics – mass, cost, innovation approach (“lean needs, both user driven (tech satellite”) pull) and technology driven (tech – Settled on mass with upper limit ~200 push) kg • Identified gaps and made • With exceptions up to 500 kg as needed recommendations 3 Data Sources • Reviewed the literature • Conducted 57 stakeholder – National Academy of Sciences discussions CubeSat Report (2016) – Industry representatives
    [Show full text]