Commercialisation of Space and Its Evolution

COMMERCIALISATION OF SPACE AND ITS EVOLUTION

WILL NEW WAYS TO SHARE RISKS AND BENEFITS OPEN UP A MUCH LARGER SPACE MARKET?

Report 4, May 2007 Rolf SKAAR, ESPI

European Space Policy Institute 1 Report 4, May 2007

DISCLAIMER

This Report has been prepared for the client in accordance with the associated contract and ESPI will accept no liability for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of the report to third parties.

Short Title: ESPI Report 4, May 2007 Ref.: P16- C/20490-001 Editor, Publisher: ESPI European Space Policy Institute A-1030 Vienna, Schwarzenbergplatz 6, Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel.: +43 1 718 11 18 - 0 Fax - 99 Copyright: © ESPI, May 2007 Rights reserved - No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 4, May 2007. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. Price: 11,00 EUR Printed by ESA/ESTEC Layout and Design: M. A. Jakob/ESPI and Panthera.cc

Report 4, May 2007 2 Commercialisation of Space

Foreword

The main purpose of this report is to investigate if new models for sharing risks and benefits may lead to more space activities.

Also included in the study are ongoing activities to reduce the cost of access to space and other efforts to make space more affordable such that there will be more space related activities.

Examples of such work are the privately funded launcher development by rich entrepreneurs in the US and the increased capabilities of smaller satellites developed by universities and small companies.

European Space Policy Institute 3 Report 4, May 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Executive summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

1. Capabilities in the private sector………………………………………………………………………………… 8

2. Development of commercial satellite communication………………………………………………… 9

3. Satellite communication constellations………………………………………………………………………… 11

4. Development of commercial Earth observation ……………………………………………………… 13

5. Development of commercial satellite ground station services …………………………………… 15

6. Space Tourism ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16

7. Space transportation, commercialization of launchers………………………………………………… 18

8. Could dramatic changes happen to commercial space………………………………………………… 24

9. Lessons learned, commercial space and role of the governments…………………………… 27

10. Analysis of risks and benefits of proposed actions……………………………………………………… 30

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32

Report 4, May 2007 4

Commercialisation of Space

Executive Summary

The prime goal of this study was to Governments may gain twice if the investigate new ways and present proposed actions are implemented. They new role models for the will pay less for the space derived development of space systems. services they need, and they will help foster a globally competitive industry. By If Governments could be smarter, take far the most critical element is to truly more risks, and change some of their reduce the cost of access to space. policies, commercial space could grow faster and would become more Contrary to general belief, commercial affordable and therefore more useful. space business is already the major The first seven chapters deals with the space activity, in particular when space development of commercial space based applications are included as space activities organized by sector, including a business. The capabilities in the private chapter on Space Tourism. sector are such that any space activity which governments wishes to do, can also be done by the private sector. This The main recommendations of the is due to the fact that over several study are: decades Space Agencies and other Government Agencies have contracted 1. Governments should stimulate out the major portion of its space demand by being “smart customers” mission to industrial companies. and give industry flexibility both in implementation and in getting The major hindrance to more space additional revenues. activities and to more space business is the relative high cost of 2. Governments should invite industry access to space and of the and make serious efforts to really spacecrafts or satellites themselves. reduce the cost of access to space. A part of this study has therefore been 3. The current challenge with Galileo is devoted to ongoing activities to make analyzed and a way forward is space more accessible and more proposed based upon an adaptation affordable. Of special interest to reduce of the way Europe has developed its cost of access to space is the new meteorological satellites and entrepreneurial companies in the US, established Eumetsat. developing with mainly private funding new launchers. 4. The most daring proposal is found in Chapters 8 and 10. Assuming prices Also mentioned in the report is space of launchers can be brought tourism, initially sub-orbital tourism. If significantly down if sufficient the current development in sub-orbital number of same type of launchers tourism leads to also orbital tourism it are used every year, it is proposed to will have a major impact of both the cost develop a system for fully automated of access to space and the volume of assembly in orbit of future medium space business. to heavy mass spacecraft, using multiple launchers, one for each In particular, the cost of manned space individual subassembly. missions could be significantly reduced both for Governments and wealthy Finally in chapter 10, the benefits individuals if the entrepreneurs succeed and risks of the proposed actions are with their ambitious plans. Also the likely analyzed. development of mini satellites is

European Space Policy Institute 5 Report 4, May 2007

analysed with their potential for needs, including both civilian and becoming much more capable. military use. This has led to the creation of new entrepreneurial companies, There seems to be a substantial DigitalGlobe and GeoEye, who have difference of mentality in the private designed, built and launched optical sector between the US and Europe in earth observation satellites which they the willingness to take risks in now operate using commercial ground developing commercial space stations and commercial data ventures. transmission to reach the end-users.

In the US private sector invested several These companies have their risks billion USD in the so-called satellite reduced by being guaranteed a certain constellations for the Iridium and minimum sale of such pictures, however Globalstar networks. Now wealthy the companies have all technical risks entrepreneurs are investing in the including launch and satellite failure. development of new launchers as well as They basically make their profit from in space tourism. In Europe such high selling the remaining capacity for taking risk individuals or companies are not imagery to other commercial users. visible in space ventures, with the exemption of Sir Richard Branson with Both in Europe and recently also in the his Virgin Galactic sub-orbital space US, the military needs for secure, tourism company. encrypted satellite communication is now met by commercial companies who This study gives several examples of combine the secure military satellite new and different ways of sharing payload with the standard commercial the risks and benefits of space transponders using a common missions compared to the traditional geostationary communication satellite practice. (i.e. Skynet 5 and HispaSat). Another example is ground station This has opened both for more services for telemetry, tracking and commercial space activities and helped control (TT&C) and data reception is now create new space companies. being opened for global competitive commercial tendering, allowing any A key part to foster such paradigm shift satellite owner or potential satellite is that the customer, and in particular owner to have its satellites being ground government or space agency customers, serviced from a globally competitive may buy data or information or a industry with no need to make the particular service based upon investment for their own dedicated competitive bidding, and where the ground station. supplier is free to design the means to The chapter on commercial launchers produce the customers requirements and details the historic background of also to use the government contract as launcher development and the strength an “anchor contract” to develop a system of Ariane 4 and 5 in the global market to produce the desired data, information for launch of communication satellites to or service, and keep for himself the geostationary orbit. An analysis of the additional revenues for selling more potential of the new commercially under data, information or services to other development launchers, like the Falcon customers, using the same system. family from SpaceX is given with its possible impact on the European launch In the US, the government agency, industry. It is recommended that Europe National Geospatial Intelligence Agency establish a road map for bringing up a (NGA), now procures, through the Euro-Russian family of globally Clearview programme, optical pictures competitive low cost launchers. with very high resolution, fresh, newly captured, information (40 cm ground A possible paradigm shift for both resolution and 30 minutes after a pass) commercial and institutional space is for various US government agencies analyzed. Such change caused by a

Report 4, May 2007 6

Commercialisation of Space

combination of very much reduced cost standardized solar cells power system of access to space for small to medium and also standardized satellite bus to sized payloads to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) which the specialized and dedicated combined with the use of practical payloads will be mated fully commercial components, who have automatically in orbit. proved their reliability in space, making small to medium sized satellites far more Finally in the last chapter on lessons capable than today. learned, commercial space and role of Governments, an analysis of risks and The author proposes an alternative benefits for the various proposals is approach for complex and large given. This chapter also includes a spacecraft, either for Earth orbit or section of an alternative for Galileo for planetary missions. based upon following the well proven model of how European Member States His idea is to develop a system for in- organized its meteorological satellites by orbit assembly of complex and large setting up Eumetsat and tasking ESA for spacecraft such that the most cost the development and launching of the effective launchers may be used to LEO, satellites needed. and getting also economics of scale by

European Space Policy Institute 7 Report 4, May 2007

1. Capabilities in the private sector

It is interesting to note, and normally not noted that nonetheless permissions from even people working in space activities Governments to do space missions in reflect on this that both in the US and in most cases would be needed for logistics Europe, the private sector has equal reasons). capabilities to pursue advanced space missions as any of their governments. This is because the consistent policy developed over decades has been that Governments and/or Space Agencies missions are contracted out and executed by private companies. Thereby these private companies gained know- how, insight and technological expertise and capabilities to develop complete space systems independently.

It was for this very reason that commercial satellite communication or “Satcom” developed into a large competitive business which today dominates commercial space with around $60 billions annual sales out of total $180 billions total annual space activities1.

As an interesting example, consider the following: If Microsoft Corp., for whatever reason (Public Relation, wish of its Founder and Major owner) wanted to put a man on the moon before China, India and the US Government, they have the financial resources, the organizational know how, to task existing industry to do such “man on the moon” project on their behalf. Also the Founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, could easily afford, through The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, both to help eradicate key deceases and fund such a “man on the moon again” project. (His personal wealth is more than $50 billions).

On a more realistic level, there exists now Launch Ranges (like Sea Launch), Commercial Ground Stations and industrial companies able to perform any commercial space mission without the need to use assets owned by Space Agencies or Governments. (It should be

1 Source 2005 figures from the US Space Foundation 14.11.2006

Report 4, May 2007 8

Commercialisation of Space

2. Development of commercial satellite communication

The first demonstration of Consequently Satcom became the most telecommunication via a satellite was the important driver for European space NASA passive satellite Echo, launched companies. Arianespace became the already in 1960, to be followed by the launch service provider of choice with its relay satellites Telstar and Relay from Ariane 4 launcher (typical with 60-80% 1962. However, it was the use of the of global market share), and both Alcatel geostationary orbit with first the Syncom and Astrium proved that they could satellite which demonstrated live TV compete with the 3 key US competitors, signal transmission over the Pacific from Hughes (now Boeing), Locheed-Martin Tokyo, Japan to the US during the 1964 and Space Systems/Loral. Today Thales summer Olympics, that satellite Alenia Space (after the merger Alcatel communication was born as a business. Alenia Space with part of Thales) is the Soon thereafter satellite communication global leader when measured as order (Satcom) was being developed for trans- book (at end 2006) for new satellites. oceanic telephony. European companies did equally well in The technology was first developed by the Satcom services business. After NASA, however it was the major privatization of most national telephone telephone (monopoly) companies; companies in Europe and elsewhere, a Comsat in the US was established in consolidation and privatization of the 1962 and Intelsat established in Europe Satcom services companies followed with in 1964, that made Satcom for telephony Eutelsat, Intelsat and Inmarsat into a major business. With the becoming listed on major stock proliferation of fiber optical cables exchanges, and recently to be purchased crossing the vast ocean distances over by a combination of US and European the Pacific and the Atlantic, Satcom for Private Equity Funds. Today the 10 telephony lost its strength for largest Satcom services companies are: commercial trans oceanic traffic.

It was the Direct-to-home TV (DTV) market that really caused the Satcom industry to become by far the most important commercial space business and thus providing the largest market for both the satellite launcher companies and the satellite manufacturers. Typically every year around 6-10 large communication satellites are procured, manufactured and launched at a cost of around ($200M-$300M) for the satellite and ($60M-$100M) for the launch.

European Space Policy Institute 9 Report 4, May 2007

2005 Revenue Satellites Satellites on Rank Company Location in million $ in Orbit Order 1 SES Global Luxembourg 1480 30 6 2 Intelsat Ltd Bermuda/USA 1170 28 1 3 Eutelsat France 885 22 3 PanAmSat 4 US 861 24 1 Holding 5 Telesat Canada Canada 407,3 6 2 6 JSAT Corp Japan 373 9 3 New Skies 7 Netherlands 240,5 5 1 Satellites Australia/ 8 SingTel Optus 165 5 2 Singapore 9 Star One Brazil 164,5 4 2 Space 10 Communications Japan 153,7 4 1 Corp

Source : de Selding P.: “Top Fixed Satellite Service Operators” Space News 26/6/2006

It is worth noting that both the largest and the #3 operator are European based.

Report 4, May 2007 10

Commercialisation of Space

3. Satellite communication constellations

One of the most interesting examples to and get in operation such large and learn from, as regards new initiatives for complex systems. enlarged commercial space activities, is the so-called global constellations for However, Iridium soon went bankrupt, satellite communication. The first Teledesic and Skybridge were never initiative was led by the US developed, a main reason for this was communication company Motorola, Inc. the very rapid globalization of digital cell who proposed 77 satellites in 7 orbital phones becoming available in most planes providing full global coverage, countries and in the most remote of including the poles and the oceans. This places. This caused the market for the was followed by a less expensive globally travelling business people to be proposal from Globalstar with 48 taken over by ordinary cell phones. satellites in 4 planes with a “bent-pipe” After its bankruptcy, Iridium was taken architecture using and dependant upon over by a new company, also privately the terrestrial network for coverage financed. With a guaranteed minimum globally over land. However, the most business from the US Department of advanced proposal came from Microsoft Defence which also financed the and Mr. McCaw (a pioneer in US cell development of an encrypted, secure phone systems), proposing an internet in Iridium phone to provide global secure the sky structure with internet routers in communication with a small handset, each satellite and with broadband Iridium has survived. transmission rates.

The system called Teledesic was initially As an example of the speed the private proposed with around 900 satellites, sector may work at, the author will go later reduced to a proposal of 495 through the Iridium development in satellites. In Europe Alcatel Space some detail. It might be interesting for a proposed Skybridge, a constellation with reader to compare this with the Galileo 64 satellites for high bandwidth Internet project. (Iridium was both more traffic. These 4 competing constellations expensive and has more than twice as would create a new and large market for many satellites). launchers, both for the initial The concept for Iridium was basically configurations and the replenishing of ready in 1988, Motorola established the single satellites after their individual company Iridium Inc. in 1991, and after failures, as well as for satellite using $5 billions and building an manufacturing. advanced assembly line type automated factory for producing the satellites and All these proposals were based upon launching 66+6 satellites the system using private capital with minimum was fully operational in September 1998. government support envisaged or asked This technical achievement was not to be for. Two of these systems were actually followed financially, already after 12 built and launched; Iridium, with finally months the company went into chapter 66 satellites in 6 orbital planes with 6 in- 11(the first stage of US bankruptcy law), orbit spares for a total of 72 satellites, and after another year it went bankrupt and Globalstar with 48 satellites plus 4 in August 2000. With new ownership the in-orbit spares. Both systems are services were re-established in 2001. operational.

What is truly remarkable is the private Teledesic and Skybridge gave up before sector willingness to invest in high-risk any satellite was built and also space ventures and the rapid pace in Globalstar had to go through a Chapter designing, manufacturing and launching 11 debt restructuring. It is worth

European Space Policy Institute 11 Report 4, May 2007

mentioning that after the financial Conclusions restructuring where most of the debt was not to be served both the Iridium There are at least the following and Globalstar will finance their next lessons to be learned from these generation of satellite constellation from constellations: their ongoing operations. Thales Alenia Space has already received a contract • If private sector sees a space for 48 new satellites for Globalstar. based commercial oppor- The Iridium satellites have shown a tunity, it is able and willing to remarkable long life and the company invest very large amounts. claims there is enough in-orbit spares to keep the system going until 2020 • The ability to have a very without building any new satellites (most rapid pace to develop, take likely with a reduced configuration if no risks, launch and operate a more satellites added). multi billion USD very complex infrastructure both in space It is interesting to note that the Iridium and on the ground. satellites marginal cost was only around 5MUSD each, achieved by automated • Be aware of alternative so- assembly line manufacturing (marginal lutions to reach the market, cost meaning the additional cost of space may not be the only making one extra satellite). alternative and space may be risky.

Report 4, May 2007 12

Commercialisation of Space

4. Development of commercial Earth observation

It is fascinating to observe how space- From a European perspective, one of based Earth observation over the years the interesting commercial develop- have changed from black and white ments of Earth observation is the secret photo reconnaissance missions, success of Spot Image, a subsidiary recovered from space in capsules, by the of CNES, dedicated to Earth Soviet Union and the US, to commercial observation, imaging and a value Earth observation with satellites with added service provider. The capabilities of 40 cm ground resolution in company has grown and for many panchromatic and around 1meter years been a leader in commercial resolution in full colour directly optical data with even US downloaded and transmitted to Earth. government agencies among its largest customers. Partly the same incredible speed of improving the performance and ease of The chosen method of risk sharing use of amateur and professional cameras implied a high risk for CNES which is now taking place in optical satellites, developed for its own account the SPOT making them much less expensive and satellites and launched them into orbit easier to operate. and then transferred the operation of the SPOT satellites to Spot Image for a The US Government has opened for royalty fee. commercial optical Earth observation by guaranteeing a market through the NGA2 Another interesting European case of Clear View programme creating both a technological development is the use of new business model and a market Information Technology (IT), which has resulting in some new entrepreneurial made Earth observation satellites less companies. expensive as demonstrated by Surrey Satellite Technology (SSTL) Ltd from the The US risk sharing model is easy to UK. By being involved in both UK and understand: The US Government ESA advanced satellite technology guarantees minimum revenue for several development projects, SSTL as an years subject to delivery of useful offspring from Surrey University, became pictures (data) and ensuring priority of a global leader for the development and data access. It also may pay for part of the manufacturing of small satellites. the technical development. These small satellites over the years The supplier bears all technical risks, became more and more capable, in including launch failure and in orbit particular as regard to optical resolution, failure of the satellite (both of these may on-board memory storage and rate of be insured, however at a high price). data transmission to Earth ground The supplier gets all additional income stations. from other customers. This has resulted in a business for SSTL There can be US Government imposed for affordable, highly capable optical restrictions (“shutter control”) on the Earth observation satellites with typical 3 commercial sale of high resolution meter resolution and costing around 5- pictures (sometimes reflected on the 10 Meuro. SSTL provides also launcher freshness on the pictures). selection, support to the launch and a significant offer for training and support to the customer. SSTL has made looking at your neighbours from space affordable 2 NGA: National Geospacial-Intelligence Agency and practical for many nations.

European Space Policy Institute 13 Report 4, May 2007

Examples of customers are countries Conclusion like, Algeria and Nigeria, the city of Beijing and the German company Commercial Earth Observation RapidEye which is focusing on the revolution is already happening with agricultural market with a constellation the most important impact being the of 5 satellites. rapid spread of web-based Earth observation imagery portals. It has not been a bonanza for the large When looking back 10 years from now, space companies because the more the authors personal intuition is that the agile, flexible and less risk adverse most dramatic event in commercial Earth entrepreneurial companies have observation proved to be the competition been the winners for affordable between the two giant software Earth observation. companies Microsoft and Google and their respective Virtual Earth and Google Earth programmes. This competition has already opened-up a new market for the new entrepreneurial companies GeoEye and DigitalGlobe (both companies established due to the new US policy of opening Earth observation commercially) as well as for companies like Spot Image.

It is worth noticing that what has made Google Earth and Virtual Earth possible as a free service from internet is the tremendous improvement in IT, in particular the cost of storage and transmission. The unit cost of computing, measured in current currency, has been reduced by a factor of 50 million from 1964 to 2004!

Report 4, May 2007 14

Commercialisation of Space

5. Development of commercial Satellite Ground Station Services

An interesting example of how 10 years it has become now the world government policies open up for largest Ground Station for Polar Orbiting commercialization of space is the rapid Satellites. More than $100M have been commercialization of Satellite Ground invested, almost all coming from the Services, a key element of all space institutional satellite owners like NASA, infrastructures. From the beginning of NOAA and Eumetsat and lately both Space Age, Governments and Space Iridium and Galileo have decided to Agencies owned and operated the large install an antenna park at SvalSat. ground stations with their large tracking It was the combination of the US antennas to provide two-way opening Ground Station Services for communication between the spacecrafts commercial companies plus the ideal and the mission control centres. During location at 78 degrees north that made the mid 1990´ the US Congress decided SvalSat possible. that US Federal Agencies like NASA and SvalSat can have radio contact with all NOAA should purchase whenever 14 orbits of a typical polar orbiting possible, both telecommunication satellite, allowing one contact during services and Ground Station Services for each orbit by the use of only one ground support of their satellites. This was station with each contact lasting from 6 confirmed by the Commercial Space Act to 17 minutes. of 1998. In 2003 in order to save costs the two A decade after this US Congress major users of SvalSat, NASA and NOAA, decision, the result is very visible. agreed to pay for transmission services Commercial Ground Station Services are an amount which made it possible to now available through competitive install two independent sub sea fiber suppliers and costs have been optical cables between mainland Norway dramatically reduced due to both and Longyearbyen of total cable length competition and improved technology as around 2900km for the two cables. The well as lower costs for both terrestrial project cost of around $50M was paid and space data transmission making back over only 4 years compared to economy of scale gains by collocating alternative transmission methods. It is multiple antennas at same site with interesting to observe that to meet the automated operations. space needs of data transmission a solution with a technology that normally The result of such change is that a is not appreciated by space agencies was Government or a private company selected. can launch, support and control its satellites without any investment in, Because of the demand for fresh data or own dedicated Ground Stations. with twice per orbit data dumps a sister Ground Station is now fully operational In particular for Polar Orbiting Satellites, in Antartica at the Norwegian Troll the orbit of choice for most Earth Station at 67 degrees South, permitting observation satellites, the change is the “pole-to-pole” concept with twice per dramatic and can be illustrated with an orbit data downloading. Again this interesting example from SvalSat, investment in Antartica became possible Svalbard Satellite Station at due to US Government decisions on Longyearbyen, Norway. purchasing “fresh” data for imagery from This station was developed from scratch private sector companies. starting in 1996. However, in less than

European Space Policy Institute 15 Report 4, May 2007

6. Space Tourism

Commercial space tourism currently is commercial sub-orbital Space Tourism only available from Russia through the business to be conducted from US-based company Space Adventures commercial US spaceports planned and with the so-called taxi flights to the ISS under construction. In Europe the at a cost of around $23M-$25M for a 7- Swedish Government through the 100% 10 day trip including training (which may owned government company last several months). It is reported that Rymdaksjebolaget AB (Swedish Space there is a long waiting list of individuals Company Ltd) has signed an agreement willing to pay such amounts for with Virgin Galactic to investigate the becoming an astronaut. Until now only 5 possible development of a space tourism individuals have paid these amounts and spaceport in Kiruna to become available been tourists in space, all of them being no sooner than 2010. self made entrepreneurs becoming rich by establishing IT/internet/software/ It will be more than interesting to see if biotech companies. space tourism actually becomes a new business and as such a driver for very By winning the Anzari X-Price, Burt much reduced cost of access to space Rutan financially backed by Microsoft co- and opening up for commercial ballistic founder Paul Allen proved that suborbital flights. However, Orbital Space Tourism flights using the Space-Ship 1 rocket is a very much more challenging task plane are feasible. A European than Virgin Galactic Space-Ship 2 as it entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson have requires launchers and manned seen the potential for space tourism and spacecraft of a very different nature. has established the company Virgin Galactic which has teamed for the Nevertheless, the US company Bigelow development of the Space-Ship 2 vehicle Aerospace is developing habitable, and the White Knight 2 mother airplane inflatable spacecraft, with one already with Paul Allen and Burt Rutan and their being tested in orbit based upon company Scaled Composites. Test flights technology from NASA. are planned during 2008-09 and first tourists flights will start in early 2009. Both SpaceX and Kistler are developing This will open Space Tourism for a much reusable launchers with stated goals of larger market. Current pricing is around being able to offer manned transport $200.000 for an approximate 2 1/2 both to the ISS and to these Bigelow hours ride, of which a few minutes in “Space Hotels”. Mr. Bigelow recently zero gravity to the dark sky at around gave a press conference stated that their 100 km above Earth. initial market is Governmental, countries that wish to have its own astronauts and Sir Richard Branson states that this unable to secure this by other means. might lead to suborbital travel permitting NASA has awarded contracts to SpaceX travelling from London to Singapore in and Kistler for a total of $500 M as part about 30 minutes (for passenger and of their COTS (Commercial Orbital very high value goods). Transportation Services) to stimulate the Virgin Galactic will apparently be facing development of commercial launchers. competition from another entrepreneurial start up, a US company called Benson Space Company. According to Virgin Galactic web site, the first 1000 priority space tourists have already been sold out. To secure such priority, payment of the full price of $200 000 was needed. Currently US legislation will allow for

Report 4, May 2007 16

Commercialisation of Space

Conclusion

A few years ago, most people associated with serious space activities working with space for Governments and in Space Agencies would laugh and consider ridicule the idea of Orbital Space Tourism organized by private companies.

However, after Burt Rutan and Paul Allen success with Space- ship 1 and Sir Richard Branson willingness to invest his own money in Virgin Galactic as well as the successful launch of a pressurized Bigelow module, some of them have changed their minds on the viability of such endeavours.

It is highly likely that suborbital space tourism will become a reality in less than 3 years from now.

Orbital Space Tourism as a commercial activity might actually happen, and if so it will have an enormous impact of cost of going to space both for humans and for spacecraft.

European Space Policy Institute 17 Report 4, May 2007

7. Space transportation, commercialization of launchers

The rockets to launch satellites into orbit respectively Europe and the US and to were initially adapted Inter Continental serve the commercial markets. Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), developed by Soviet and the US, based on the German At the same time both Soviet and V-2`s. In the beginning of the Space Chinese rockets had been made available Age they were the only countries to have both for launching commercial and this capability. institutional spacecraft. It is worth mentioning that it was the major It is interesting to revisit how a growing western launch companies Boeing, commercial space business in satellite Lockheed-Martin and Arianespace who communication led Europe to develop brought the Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian the Ariane family of launchers. Until launchers to the market with the 1965 Europe was depending upon using following joint venture or alliances as US rockets to launch its satellites. When follows: Europe around 1973 wanted to launch a Boeing with the Sea Launch company communication satellite for commercial using the Ukrainian Zenith rocket, business on a US launcher, the US Lockheed-Martin with ILS (International Government requested Europe to Launch Services) using the Russian guarantee that this European satellite Proton and Arianespace with Starsem called Symphonie would not compete for using Soyuz. It was these companies business with US communication who had to ask their Governments for satellites, and to be considered as an support in order to continue the experimental satellite. guaranteed access to space, in effect an indirect subsidy to allow the commercial Europe, led by France, could not accept satellite communication companies to this, and in 1964 ELDO (European continue to be able to use Western Launcher Development Organization) launchers. was established, later to be merged with ESRO (European Space Research In Europe this led to the ESA program, Organization) and ESA was created. EGAS (European Guaranteed Access to Space) and in the US it was decided to ELDO and later CNES, through an fund two complete independent family of arrangement and some funding from launchers through the EELV (Evolved ESA, developed the Ariane family of Expendable Launch Vehicles), the Atlas launchers. Ariane 1 was launched in and Delta ( with the Atlas 5 first stage December 1979 and Ariane 4 was depending upon a Russian rocket available and tested when the US policy motor). of using only the Space Shuttle to launch all US satellites, governmental or Recently, in order to save costs, the US private, totally failed with the loss of the Government approved that Boeing and Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986. Lockheed –Martin merged their Ariane 4 dominated the commercial respective launcher organizations for launcher business with a market share of Atlas and Delta into their 50/50 owned 60-80% for the launch to Geostationary company ULA (United Launch Alliance) Transfer Orbit of communication which for the time being have a satellites, the main launcher market. monopoly for US Government launches The next generation of heavy launchers of heavy spacecraft. Ariane 5, and Atlas 5 and Delta 4 were all developed by government funding This is the background from which the with the argument of having guaranteed US new entrepreneurial companies independent access to space for started developing new launchers.

Report 4, May 2007 18

Commercialisation of Space

The major hindrance for more use of low thirties and with several hundred $ space and increased space activities millions available, he decided he would is the high cost of access to space. use his time, energy and some of his money to make space access affordable This is due to the challenge of reaching trough the development of a completely the necessary orbital speed of around new family of very competitive 7,2 km/sec for a spacecraft to enter a launchers. stable orbit. Many attempts and almost SpaceX is privately developing a family equally many failures have until now not of launchers with the following main really reduced the cost of access to specifications and prices space. However, some intriguing efforts are now ongoing in the US, where privately funded enterprises challenge both their Government efforts and the established launcher companies.

As an example, the case of SpaceX is looked at in some detail including a visit in February 2007 by the author to this entrepreneurial company located in El Segundo, Los Angeles. SpaceX is entirely funded by Elon Musk (a small portion owned by his brother), a software entrepreneur who sold his company, Pay-Pal, when he was in his

FALCON 1 FALCON 9 FALCON 9 Heavy

Q3 2007

(Two demo launches First launch Q2 2008 2010 Estimated occurred, first failed,

second partially Successful) Number of launches 6 0 on current 5 manifest

US Gov., Malaysia US Gov, MDA Corp Customers on SpaceDev, MDA Corp (Canada),NASA Demo-

manifest (Canada), Swedish 1, Space Corp NASA Demo-2, NASA Demo-3

500kg 8 000kg Performance to (200km sun- (700km, 60 degree 27 500kg LEO synchronous) incl.)

$ 7M $ 35M $ 90M Price to LEO Performance to GTO nil 5 000kg 12 000kg (185x35788)km Prices to GTO as <3500kg $ 35M 5000-5500kg $55M a Function of 3500-4500kg $ 45M 5500-6500kg $ 65M satellite mass 4500-5000kg $ 55M 6500-11500kg $ 90M

European Space Policy Institute 19 Report 4, May 2007

It is likely that the SpaceX designers the two winners (the other winner must have had access to the best Rocket Plane Kistler). practice and all the legacy of all • The NASA COTS contract with previously US designed launchers. It has SpaceX is not for the development of clear roots in the Saturn moon rocket, the Falcon family; it is for the partly using kerosene and liquid oxygen and funding (approximately 1/3 according several identical rocket motors in parallel to SpaceX) of the Dragon spacecraft, and very strong emphasis on reliability. an Apollo like re-entry capsule The author visited its main assembly hall designed to take cargo and crew to located in the same building as its head the ISS and for the purchase of 3 office. In the hall was the first produced demonstration launchers. tank for the Falcon-9 and also a full size • SpaceX is also a 10% investor in mock-up or model of the Dragon Surrey Satellite Technologies Ltd, its spacecraft. SpaceX have decided to be purpose, according to the completely independent of supplies or management, is to gain detailed services from any of their competitors. insight into the requirements for the SpaceX therefore have in-house launching of modern small satellites capabilities for the design and like the ones SSTL is developing. manufacturing of all critical elements, • SpaceX business plan does not this includes complete stir-welding depend on making the Falcon-9 equipment for the large tank. Moreover if reusable or refurbishable. It will land demands outstrip the capacity of their in water using a heat shield and a current two assembly halls they will parachute and will be recovered. contract out manufacturing work. SpaceX states that the main purpose of this recovery is to increase the It is worth to mention the following reliability by being able to inspect in policies of SpaceX. detail the mechanical structure after a launch. Only if economical and • SpaceX was founded without any practical will parts of the Falcon 9 be direct government support, and until refurbished. Mike Griffin was appointed NASA administrator, there was no likely SpaceX is now speeding up the NASA business. development of Falcon 9 in order to be • SpaceX has refused to accept direct able to support NASA with crew and US government funding to develop cargo transport to the ISS competing for the Falcon family of launchers. This is post COTS contract in 2010. The target because it wishes to be free with its is to qualify the Falcon 9 for human flight pricing policy and believe in its in time to fill part of the gap between the competitiveness with any other retirement of the US Space Shuttle at comparable launcher. the end of 2010 and the ARES/Orion • DARPA (Department of Defense successor to be ready at the earliest in Advance Research Project Agency) 2014. has supported SpaceX by purchasing an unspecified number of (up to a There is a substantial business maximum of $100M) demonstration opportunity for SpaceX if this company is launchers, the first of which failed able to qualify the Falcon 9 and Dragon while the second test and in time to support the ISS with cargo development launch took place March and crew transportation. It should be 20th 2007 (Without a payload). noted that to be qualified for human This launch was considered flight is a much more challenging task successful enough so that the next than cargo flights. launch (fall 2007) will be for a However, if Falcon 9/Dragon could be satellite with a paying customer. qualified for human flights, another • SpaceX competed for the NASA COTS opportunity is to transport paying (Commercial Orbital Transportation astronauts to the planned Bigelow System) and was rewarded with a “Space Hotel”. USD 278 million contract as one of

Report 4, May 2007 20

Commercialisation of Space

What will happen if one or both of cost economies of Russia, China and the US COTS selected companies India. Vega now may face one or two succeed? more competitors with significantly lower It will mean that for the first time production costs. For a satellite to LEO since the retirement of Delta 2, the weighing less than 550 kg, the SpaceX US will have an affordable and Falcon 1 is hard to compete against. The globally competitive launcher. Vega will have a capacity of around 1500 kg to LEO so it fits into a class between With Falcon-1 capable of launching 570 the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. kg to Low Earth Orbit for less than 7 If the so called Falcon 9 Heavy will be MUSD, space will become affordable and developed, this launcher will compete possible for more players. head-on with the US Evolved Expendable It also means that Russian, Chinese and Launch Vehicles (EELV) launchers, Delta India launchers will have a US 4 and Atlas 5, and the Ariane 5. competitor. According to SpaceX the Falcon 9 Heavy may be available at the earliest in 2010 For Europe, it will probably have initially with a capacity to GTO of more than 12 a modest effect on the dual-satellite tons. Ariane 5 launcher for its traditional heavy communication satellites to The following tables are giving some key Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO). It is information on launchers from various possible the Falcon 9 will compete with countries available on the market. Prices Soyuz from Kourou for satellites to GEO are very difficult to obtain, parts of the weighing less than 5 tons. According to market is supported by converted current price information, the Falcon 9 strategic missiles, using them for with a GTO capacity of 3.5 tons has a list launching satellites instead of destroying price of $25M. (Soyuz from Kourou them as agreed by the US and Russia, so initially will have a maximum weight to production costs are not very GTO of 3 000 kg (Soyuz 2-1b), while a meaningful. standard Falcon 9 will have 5000 kg). Only the market for launching communication satellites to For European launchers the main impact Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) is in will be for the European small launcher some way commercial, although Vega. This launcher already faces development in most cases was paid for competition from launchers from the low by Governments.

Small Launchers Price Capability* to Origin/launch Name Country information Remarks LEO kg organization millions US$ Air launch Orbital 190 kg to 800 Pegasus XL 190 - 440 US 20-25 Sciences km SSO First stage from Taurus 2110 740 - 1 250 US Orbital Sciences 30-50 Peacekeeper Russia Converted DNEPR-I 400 - 3 700 ISC Kosmotras 10-15 Ukraine strategic missile Converted Minotaur 4 1 750 US Orbital Sciences strategic missile Converted Rockot 1 340 - 1 850 Russia SS19 Eurockot 15-20 strategic missile Cosmos 3M 1 500 Russia 15 Vega 1 500 – 2 300 Europe Arianespace 20 Target price Commercial Falcon 1 570 - 670 US 7 SpaceX

European Space Policy Institute 21 Report 4, May 2007

Medium Launchers Price Origin/launch Name Capability to Country information Remarks organization LEO (800KM) Kg millions US$ No longer available for commercial Delta 2 2 700 - 6 100 US market 60-80 2 185 kg to GTO Soyuz 2 – 1a 4 350 – 7 480 Russia Arianespace 40-50 2 780 kg to GTO PSLV 1 200 – 3 650 India ISRO 20-25 Commercial Falcon 9 8 000 US 35 See also p. 23 SpaceX

Heavy Launchers Price Origin/launch Name Capability to Country information Remarks organization GTO in Tons millions US$ Long March CZ-3B 5.1 China Great Wall Not known GSLV 2.2 India ISRO 40-50 JAXA H-IIA 2-3.8 Japan Mitsubishi 80-100 Proton M/Breeze 5.5-6 Russia ILS Negotiable Russia Zenith 3 SL 6. 1 Ukraine Sea Launch 90-110 Atlas 5 4.1-8.2 US EELV ULA Negotiable Delta 4 3.9-10.8 US EELV ULA 140-170M Ariane 5 ECA 9.6-10.5 European Arianespace 100-160M Dual payload

Source: Wikipidia, free encyclopedia and International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems AIAA, Fourth Edition, 2004.

* Capabilities to LEO depending on orbit from 200km LEO to 800km SSO (Sun Synchronous Orbit).

Report 4, May 2007 22

Commercialisation of Space

Conclusion companies with those in the ESA member states, there should be no Thanks to European institutional doubt that Europe can combine a good investments in launchers with the Ariane business case and reduce cost of access family, and now also the forthcoming to space. It is therefore recommended to Vega and Soyuz from Kourou, Europe establish a road map for bringing up a has secured its guaranteed access to Euro-Russian family of globally space with a choice of launchers competitive low cost launchers. depending on the requirements. More than securing access to space, initially What, at the end may be more Ariane 4 and now Ariane 5 became important for Europe, is the fact that globally competitive over several cheaper access to space will bring decades in the most important business, more space activities and an the launching of communication satellites increased space market both for to their Geostationary Transfer Orbit smaller and highly capable satellites (GTO) where they became the global and the applications derived from market leaders. such satellites.

The author believes it would be risky for Europe to rest on its laurels in the belief that the current strong market situation will last and that the new entrepreneurial efforts in the US will all fail.

What neither Europe nor the US so far has achieved is to really reduce the cost of access to space.

The author believes that it would be good government policy to create more space activities and also be an insurance against the new launchers designed to be globally competitive if the future European launcher policy also would focus on the following:

• To really reduce the cost of access to space due to smart design, efficient manufacturing and low cost launch campaigns. • To ensure that new launchers be globally competitive for their class and without need for subsidies nor for future support.

A pragmatic attitude should be selected if low cost is achieved through reusability, partly reusability or partly refurnishable or simply by developing a launcher with low manufacturing cost using state of the art manufacturing and cost effective subsystems . What is more important is to find the lowest cost both to governments for their initial funding and afterwards for each launch. If Europe could combine the strength of the capabilities in Russian launcher

European Space Policy Institute 23 Report 4, May 2007

8. Could dramatic changes happen to commercial space?

Space business has developed, in a way, network of subcontractors like most businesses with normal which may be losing business growth, not really any major changes and market share because of a but ups and downs following the mix of new generation of demand from commercial space, military entrepreneurial companies with space and government institutional smaller satellites and cheaper market. launchers. Could this change? 2. Support the customers by If the new US entrepreneurial launcher supporting the solution which companies really succeed in bringing gives the best value for money launch costs significantly lower, this with acceptable risks. could have a major effect. There will be more satellites, in particular more As a general comment, we feel that nations looking at their neighbours from Government industrial policy should be space because it will become affordable more focused on fostering change and competitive compared to other ways instead of preventing it. By supporting of observations and it will also potentially the customer and accepting change, the open new markets. long term prospects will be better, even if at short term there will be some pain The smaller satellites to use these new for the established industrial base. low cost launchers will definitely become more capable because they will use In the US a very real choice for the US newer generation of computers and Government may be how to provide crew sensors with much more in-orbit storage and cargo transport to the ISS after the and higher data transmission rates. shuttle retires in 2010. The NASA COTS Except for Surrey Satellite Technology, programme finances alternative Europe is not really prepared for such a entrepreneurial companies to possibly possible challenge. Europe is even less take over such transport to the ISS. prepared for Space Tourism (except the fact that the largest investor in Space A recent study by a US Engineering Tourism, Virgin Galactic is owned by a consulting firm SpaceWorks Engineering European entrepreneur, Sir Richard shows a win-win situation where US Branson, also owner of Virgin Airlines). Government might save as much as $8 billions and creating a commercial Europe with its dominant position in business to support ISS of around commercial space business, both in USD6.5billion when comparing COTS to launch services and in satellite using current US government available manufacturing, has a lot to loose if launchers. smaller satellites become more Could similar dramatic changes which capable and can be cheaply happened to the computer industry, also launched. take place in commercial space activities? European governments may be faced with two choices to avoid this The computer industry for many years situation: followed two laws:

1. Support the established large 1. Grosch law saying that if you space companies with their doubled the manufacturing cost of

Report 4, May 2007 24

Commercialisation of Space

a computer, you would increase the on-board memory storage and new performance with a factor of 4, sensors in order to make really useful implying that the largest and most small satellites. Not quite the same pace expensive computers would have of progress as with computers and the lowest cost of per unit microprocessors, however sufficient to computing. have a major impact on the cost of 2. Moore law saying that the time to future satellites, both for more scientific double the number of transistors on use and for application satellites. a chip (an integrated circuit or a microprocessor) would be between 18 and 24 months. The author believes that a third pillar, besides low cost launchers and more Most companies used a combination of capable and affordable satellites, needs these two laws and kept manufacturing to be developed and perfected before a cost constant and increased performance substantial increase in capabilities and at a rate of doubling every second year. even more impressive reduction in the However, only Moore law survived and is cost for future space missions can be still valid, and made Grosch law today achieved. The idea is not new, and is completely irrelevant. based upon the same concept that was first sketched and then implemented for Between 1988 and 1990 the market the Apollo moon landing architecture. price for a typical high performance 32 bit computer fell by a factor of 10, and in Suppose that fully automatic a few years the global industry was assembly of space system completely changed as most computer subassemblies could routinely and companies had disappeared. The modern reliably be performed in orbit (for IT world thus started with a revolution, example assisted by Galileo+GPS computers became so cheap and still very accurate positioning). This third very useful that they became a mass pillar, together with lower cost of market and were sold in millions instead access to space and far more of in thousands as before. Today capable small satellites could really microprocessors are ubiquitous and are start a dramatic change and increase included in almost any device. commercial space activities.

Could a similar revolution (although on a Several organizations, including space more moderate scale) happen with agencies and the new entrepreneurial space? space companies are now designing the Suppose cost of access to space is systems which will allow for fully reduced by a factor of 10, and a 500 kg automated assembly in orbit. There is an satellite could be put into low earth orbit important similarity here with modern for 3 MUSD, could that be the first start computers, The development cost is high of changing commercial space? while the manufacturing cost is marginal. (To develop a high end competitive The author believes strongly that the microprocessor today, including its cost of access to space for small manufacturing plant, costs several billion payloads will be significantly reduced. USD, while the manufacturing cost of However, even more important, the each microprocessor is much less than small satellites will become far more 100$ (less than 1$ for the mass capable and affordable. A visit to the market)). recognized global leader in small satellites, Surrey Satellite Technology What is needed initially for automated Ltd. (SSTL) in the UK in April 2007, and assembly in space is to supply fuel or a meeting with this company chairman fuel tanks to a spacecraft in orbit, this is and founder Sir Martin Sweeting, already in development, with the first convinced the author that there is a application to extend the life of tremendous future potential in using geostationary communication satellites more advanced microprocessors, more where the new company, Orbital

European Space Policy Institute 25 Report 4, May 2007

Recovery with ConExpress has this as its in orbit at a launch cost of less than $3 business plan. If also the solar panels, billions. Compare that with the cost of and /or the large antennas for either developing the next Saturn V, the ARES? communication or radar satellites, or even a complete ion-engine with its fuel In order to make such a third pillar and solar cells, could be put into orbit on happen, Space Agencies and separate launchers and mated fully Governments should simply accept that automatically to its target spacecraft, lower cost of access to space for medium than we have the beginning of a “LEGO” weight class spacecraft will take place type space systems (LEGO is the and become available in the market. Also trademark of a Danish toy company it should be taken for granted that those famous for its plastic building blocks and spacecraft will become far more capable the way they are combined into objects just by following the general by pushing the blocks together). technological development (with some distance time wise to the commercial For the planetary and other complex market). orbits, also the engine and its fuel could be mated to the mother spacecraft in low-earth orbit. Conclusion

With such an architecture even large Governments should therefore task highly capable long lasting their Space Agencies to develop this spacecraft may be placed into any third pillar and make the mating orbit, even planetary missions, at a technology available to all much reduced cost compared to competing space industrial current architecture where the companies. complex ESA, NASA and NOAA advanced Earth observation The governments will be the biggest satellites all have a cost of more winners if modern space systems than $ one billion including launch. would be made with interoperable space subassemblies to be fully Such architecture is scalable. SpaceX, automatically connected together in just as an example, may be able to put orbit. If the successor to the ISS 20 tons into LEO for around $50M with could be manned Bigelow structures its Falcon 9 Heavy launcher, planned to in orbit, the savings to Governments be available before 2012, assuming a compared to supporting ISS could be very realistic discount when you order 50 enormous. launchers. 1000 tons of spacecraft, fuel, return fuel, rocket engines, human habitat modules etc could be assembled

Report 4, May 2007 26

Commercialisation of Space

9. Lessons learned, commercial space and role of Governments

Space, contrary to what most people becoming global leaders with active believe, is mainly a commercial participation in the consolidation phase. business driven activity. This is even more so for Europe because military By looking for lessons learned and space which is a very large portion comparing US and European policies to of US space activity has only a stimulate commercial space, the modest impact in Europe. following observations can be made: Commercial space is totally dominated by applications made a) The US policy of transferring to the possible by infrastructure in space. private sector its needs for telecommunication and ground Most of such applications are based upon station services and also optical high combining the space infrastructure with resolution Earth observation data has equipment on the ground, like end user been very successful and has created terminals for navigation, satellite new industries championed by new telephones and TV reception. By far the entrepreneurial companies. most important and largest element of today’s commercial space is satellite b) Government policies should in communication and broadcast, providing particular stimulate the demand telephone, internet, broadband and TV to for space based applications and any spot on earth, stationary or mobile. if necessary, governments themselves should be the initial European companies have been very customer. Such policies are in the successful in every part of these beginning of revolutionizing segments; they have dominated the Earth observation with com- launching of these large satellites to mercial companies bringing their their geostationary orbit. European own satellites into orbit and the satellite builders are competitive in a competition between Google and global market place with typical a market Microsoft provides an additionally share of around 40% of the global large market on top of the market. Finally European owned or various agencies of the US controlled companies now dominate the government. largest part of the satellite communication business, the service c) European governments must be very providers with no. 1 and no. 3 of the aware of this trend in the US and largest companies being European. increase its focus on stimulating the market. Because the largest Government policies have been investments by European important to reach this success. governments in space applications is Governments, mainly through ESA have currently focused on the Galileo supported the development of both the navigation system programme and launchers (Ariane family) and the GMES, we find it is relevant to give advanced technologies needed for the brief comments on whether these satellites themselves. However, even government programmes will really more important, Governments have foster more commercial space facilitated at a very early stage the activities. establishment of service providers and allowed these service providers to be d) The public-private partnership (PPP) privatized and listed on major stock model for Galileo was the first major exchanges and by such policies effort in Europe to implement a new

European Space Policy Institute 27 Report 4, May 2007

model for sharing of risks and after the Galileo specifications became benefits for a major space project. known to the US.

The European Union (EU) wished to have We believe that it might be necessary to a European, civilian controlled rethink and adjust the original public- Positioning, Navigational and Timing private partnership model. We see at (PNT) system to complement and to be least the three following models for interoperable with the US military Galileo: controlled GPS. EU and Member States decided upon a model where European 1. ESA completes the full Galileo industry was invited and encouraged to System under a contract from form competing consortia to bid for the EC and hands it over to a Eu- so called position “Galileo metsat like organization con- concessionaire” who would take over trolled by Galileo Member from ESA a proven and tested design States. including 4 Galileo satellites in orbit (the result of the EU/ESA co-funded IOV (In 2. ESA completes the full Galileo Orbit Validation) phase for Galileo) and System under a contract from then complete the 30 satellite Galileo EC and when finished hands it constellation and operate it for 20 years. over to a consortium/ concessionaire which in the This financing model for Galileo and the meantime have been set up by Galileo project itself are now facing the EC/EU. major difficulties, including several years delay, cost overruns and political 3. The European Union will infighting for roles and locations of guarantee a minimum pur- Galileo infrastructure and hosting of chase of services for a number Galileo main offices among Member of years sufficient for the States funding Galileo. Also the original public private part- shareholders of European Satellite nership model to be accepted Navigation Industries (ESNI) are fighting by industry. among themselves to secure the roles they wish to have. The fact that the two We believe in the current situation that competing consortia were allowed to the best value for European tax-payers merge and to put forward one money, and also to limit the delays is to consolidated proposal has eliminated adapt the Eumetsat model. This is the competition. This merged consortium, way Europe has chosen to operate the now called ESNI, has decided to use a European meteorological satellites. bank loan to partially finance the implementation of the full Galileo ESA manages on behalf of EU and the system. EU/ESA Member States the fixed price contract for the Galileo IOV (In-Orbit Validation) phase. This will include 4 The banks are not willing to take any Galileo satellites tested in their proper risks and therefore ESNI have asked EU orbits and demonstrating the proof of or its Member States to give a guarantee concept for the complete Galileo system for a minimum future revenue stream to including the basic Ground System come from the Guaranteed Public Network in order to operate the Galileo Regulated Service supposed to be the constellation. Member States could key feature of Galileo compared to the simply task ESA to complete the Galileo free use of GPS. constellation. ESA would then, based upon competitive bidding, following However, with the delays for making mutually agreed EU-ESA industrial policy Galileo fully operational, the difference rules, purchase the needed number of between the free GPS and the planned additional copies of the already more accurate Galileo will be reduced contracted 4 Galileo satellites and launch due to a new generation of GPS satellites them into their proper orbits. ESA would

Report 4, May 2007 28

Commercialisation of Space

also complete the associated Ground combining the Guaranteed Position, System Network necessary to operate Navigation and Timing signals with other the complete constellation. smart technologies like for example advanced communication systems, In parallel with this ESA part, Member probably embedded into smart devices States will establish a Eumetsat like using state-of the art IT. (One possible organization, GalileoSat, who will such application may be fully automatic consolidate the situation, operate the operation of first cargo trains, without system to be taken over from ESA. After drivers, and later passenger trains). a few years of operational experience It is even possible 10-15 years from now GalileoSat may invite competing to have a convoy of trucks driving on the consortia to take over the Galileo autobahn where only the first truck has a operation, much in the same way as driver and all the others are following originally foreseen, including always using trusted guaranteed Galileo signals having in-orbit spare satellites and combined with sensors and smart boxes replenishing failed satellites with new in each vehicle and in constant touch ones. Planning of next generation Galileo with the “AutobahnSatAuthority” constellation and next generation regulating semi-automatic truck traffic. satellites also to be organized by GalileoSat (not industry, not ESA in e) The European GMES, Global order to be user driven). Monitoring for Environment and Security, we believe is a balanced Also parallel to these efforts, GalileoSat development of government funding and its Member States should encourage of the space and ground industry and academia and others to infrastructure and applications identify such high value services based development. We also commend the upon the unique Guaranteed Regulated development of the most important Navigational Signal that a future revenue early services element, and believe stream for such a service is both this is a good model for development understood and is likely to happen. If no of commercial space based services. such service is to be found it would be European governments are clear that like in the US, the GalileoSat orchestrating a structure whereby organization will have to be funded by its government agencies are customers, Member States. and encouraging private sector companies, including SME´s to The author believes that most probably compete for services needed by such high value services will come from governments.

European Space Policy Institute 29 Report 4, May 2007

10. Analysis of risks and benefits of proposed actions

Governments should stimulate Governments should invite industry demand by being “smart customers” and make serious efforts to really and give industry flexibility both in reduce the cost of access to space. implementation and in getting additional revenues. Benefits from reduced cost of access to space.

By buying services/data/information The main benefit will be to create there is a clear definition of who has increased space business because there which risks and who gets the benefits. will be more space activities, resulting Industry is free to make all technical very likely in a total net growth ( As an decisions and select a solution which can example, when prices of computers deliver the customers requirements at a significantly decreased by several orders better understood risk and with better of magnitude, the total computer market known revenue and profit potential. exploded and therefore total IT- investments including computer sales increased). Such a policy will also result in a globally more competitive industry, helping Another benefit will be to have a industry in particular for the fully commercially competitive launch commercial space market. industry also for medium sized payloads, Customers, institutional and commercial, and which does not depend on future will benefit from lower prices and share government support. in the benefits of either reuse of system or reuse of information and economies of Governments must be willing to take scale. some risks now, in order to reap the rewards in the future.

The customers will themselves determine The prevailing culture in most space their actual needs and if this can be agencies and in the large space delivered from existing or moderately companies is to avoid failures and improved existing systems, they will therefore try to eliminate any possible benefit. cause of a launch or satellite failure. Because both launching and satellites are so expensive it is fully Governments will benefit twice, first as understandable that this no risk culture smart customers paying for their needs prevails. only, and second they will help create a more competitive space industry. A good proof of this is military space contracting Governments could save meaningful in the US, where the Government takes amounts by tasking their Space Agencies all the risks. And US industry with its and ESA to take more risks now and “fat” cost plus military business becomes develop the LEGO type architecture for unable to compete commercially and assembly in orbit as mentioned in globally (example US launcher industry). chapter 8. For medium to large missions such architecture could lead to substantial future savings and also shorten the time from concept to a functional spacecraft in its orbit.

Report 4, May 2007 30

Commercialisation of Space

A beginning could be to seriously study Such a scheme was actually discussed the feasibility of developing the docking between CNES and RKK-Energia in 2002, or mating system to allow a spacecraft and both NASA and DARPA in the US are to be launched as three separate working on similar concepts. subassemblies like for example: The future large satellites for Eumetsat • Solar panel module with its and next generation advanced Earth associated docking mechanism. No observation could then be based upon in orbit manoeuvring is foreseen such three subassemblies to be fully and needed, only a low cost automatically mated in orbit. Two of the satellite stabilization system during units will be standardized and only the docking plus a communication payload part will be unique to each system to inform the ground mission. Such LEGO type architecture system of its precise orbit (using would allow the development of next GPS and/or Galileo). generation modules to be independently • Fuel tanks and rocket engines for in decided. When there is little to be orbit position keeping and for the gained, the standardized modules for the ability to find and dock with the bus including the solar panels could last solar panels already in orbit. These several generations of payloads where two docked pieces will constitute most likely the technological what is normally called the satellite development in components and sensors bus. Typically this unit will include will be more valuable. the star tracker and reaction wheels for three axes stability and attitude control and for manoeuvring. • The actual payload with its standard docking part and which the already mated satellite bus will also find and dock to. Note that also this unit does not need in orbit manoeuvring, just the same standard low cost stabilization and communication system.

European Space Policy Institute 31 Report 4, May 2007

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank his colleagues and the staff of ESPI for their valuable input, including participation in brain storming followed by discussion, such that this report could reflect the ideas and input from many. In particular, I am grateful to ESPI Secretary General, Dr Serge Plattard, for first proposing such a study and for his guidance and support to the final report. Also special thanks to Nicolas Peter and Segolene van den Steen and to M.A. Jakob for their input and for making the final layout and preparing for production of the final report. And not at least, a very special thank to Ms Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX and Sir Martin Sweeting at Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd for their enthusiasm and important contributions to make space activities more affordable.

Report 4, May 2007 32

Mission Statement of ESPI

ESPI’s mission is to carry out studies and research to provide decision-makers with an independent view on mid- to long term issues relevant to the governance of space.

Through its activities, ESPI contributes to facilitating the decision-making process, increasing awareness on space technologies and applications with the user communities, opinion leaders and the public at large, and supporting students and researchers in their space-related work.

To fulfill these objectives, the Institute supports a network of experts and centres of excellence working with ESPI in-house analysts.

European Space Policy Institute 33 Report 4, May 2007