January 2018 Satellite & Space Monthly Review

Home , Boeing Starliner, ChinaSat 9A, Energia, Simorgh (rocket), SkySat, SSL 1300

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. And, for a Defense Department looking to bring cost savings and efficiency to its notoriously costly and labyrinthine procurement system, smallsts represent a legitimate opportunity to bend the cost curve.

Early efforts to advance smallsat technology, such as the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) office (formed in 2007) were consistently undermined by the Air Forces, which repeatedly tried to de-fund the office. More recently, however, the DoD has been expanding its smallsat efforts with programs such as the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx).

Likewise, the industry has taken note of this trend, as evidenced by recent product development and M&A efforts, including: • Boeing’s launch of a dedicated Phantom Phoenix smallsat product line • SS/L’s contract to manufacture XX Skysat satellites for Skybox Imaging February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

• General Atomic’s acquisition of smallsat manufacturer Miltec, along with the US assets of SSTL • Thales Alenia Space’s partnership with Sitael on the development of a 200 kg smallsat bus • Lockheed Martin’s investment in smallsat manufacturer Terran Orbital and announcement that it intends to spend $300 million to develop a new family of satellite buses • Harris’ recent win of a classified “pathfinder” smallsat program that is expected to ramp to >$100 million over next two years

The expeditious pace of cubesat, nanosat, and other small satellite launches has accelerated noticeably in recent years and could see an enormous boost if the Pentagon shifts towards the adoption of swarms of smallsats to provide a more economical means of gathering communications, remote sensing, weather and intelligence data.

Annual increase in nanosatellite launches (includes cubesats). Source: Nanosats.eu

January 17, 2018: Effective Space signs its first satellite Artist’s Rendition of Effective Space’s “Space Drone extension contract. Adding further evidence that the nascent satellite servicing market is not a flash in the pan, Effective Space Systems (ESS) announced on January 17th that it had signed its first contract for satellite servicing operations using two of its Space Drone mission extension Moon Express MX-1 Lander vehicles. The $100 million contract, signed by an as-of-yet undisclosed customer, will have the company’s Space Drones dock with two currently on-orbit satellites, providing attitude control and station-keeping functionality to extend their operating life over a period of several years. The launch has been scheduled for 2020.

ESS’ announcement is especially topical considering that Source: Effective Space Systtems Orbital-ATK, which is also developing its own GeoStar- Source: Moon Express. February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

based Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV), announced on Artist’s Rendition of Orbital ATK’s MEV-1 January 4th that it had received a second order from its client, Intelsat, for a satellite servicing mission in mid-2020. Their first MEV launch is scheduled for early 2019.

The quickly-emerging field of satellite servicing is also being targeted by Space Systems Loral (SS/L), which is developing its Robotic Servicing Vehicle (RESTORE-L) for NASA and Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS) for DARPA. Restore-L, which is intended to refuel a LEO satellite, is scheduled to launch in 2020, while RSGS is currently on the docket for 2021. Likewise, in June 2017 SS/L signed a servicing contract with commercial operator Source: Orbital ATK. SES for a planned 2021 mission.

Also on the horizon, Airbus announced in September 2017 that it is developing the “Airbus Space Tug” (possibly in collaboration with the Russian company RSS Energia) and Daytona Beach, Florida-based Weintraus is developing the Hercules servicing vehicle with a planned initial mission in 2022.

Conclusion: Satellite servicing industry poised to flourish? With the official entry of Effective Space into the market, it appears that the establishment of the satellite servicing industry as a viable, burgeoning 2020s business model is now all but inevitable. Effective Space’s $100 million-dollar contract demonstrates that significant demand exists among industry-wide satellite operators for the prospect of squeezing extra years out of otherwise perfectly functional satellites. In the case of the Space Drone, a $50 million price tag to restore an existing spacecraft far outweighs the $250-500 million cost to construct and launch an entirely new satellite.

But wait! Aren’t high throughput satellites (HTS) going to obsolete much of the current on-orbit capacity? In the long term, probably yes, but there are at least two uses cases where life extension services make imminent sense today: • Video services, which by-and-large are not impacted by HTS technology • Regional services, where the cost/complexity of upgrading to an HTS architecture cannot be justified based on current business/revenue model.

Over the next 5-10 years, we may yet see the development of new and innovative LEO business models (ranging from asteroid mining to space tourism), but for the time being satellite servicing has emerged as the one service that has earned unmistakable buy-in from the established industry. As the next wave of satellite operators consider satellite servicing missions, we expect three major criteria to weigh on their source selection: • Overall mission cost • Capabilities provided by the servicing vehicle • Duration of life extension services

February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

Comparison of Leading Satellite Servicing Vehicles Manufacturer Effective Space Orbital ATK SSL Nomenclature SPACE DRONE MEV RSV Platform Custom GEOStar SSL-1300 Mass 400 kg 2041 kg ~ 5000+ kg Propulsion Electric Electric, chemical Electric, chemical Bus Power UNK 8 kW UNK Launch Secondary Secondary Primary Customers Undisclosed Intelsat DARPA, SES Spacecraft Life 15 years 15+ years 15+ years Hosted Payloads No Yes Yes Refueling No No Yes Station-keeping Yes Yes Yes Repair No No Yes Assembly/augmentation No No Yes Inspection/Imagery No Yes Yes NOAA License? No Yes UNK First Mission 2020 NET 2019 2021 (DARPA) Satellite Compatibility > 90% of total in orbit 80% of total in orbit 100% of total in orbit Source: Company reports and Quilty Analytics.

Pricing: In the battle over cost, Effective Space has a clear advantage, with its Space Drone’s 400 kg launch mass and comparatively small size enabling flights of multiple vehicles on one rocket, as well as significant versatility in available launch vehicles to carry it. Effective Space has also touted their vehicle’s ability to fly as a secondary payload. Orbital’s MEV also takes economies of scale into account, with its instruments mounted on one side to allow it to be stacked within an Ariane 5 payload fairing with other GeoStar-3 satellites (how convenient). SS/L’s RSV, derived from an SSL-1300 bus, falls short in this category, with an estimated mass of at least 5,000 kg.

Features: Capabilities of the servicing vehicles vary based on customer requirements, but the most in- demand services are refueling/station-keeping, inspection and repair, and orbital repositioning. While SS/L specifically provides satellite refueling, the MEV and Space Drone instead attach themselves to the satellites, using their own propulsion systems to maintain the satellite’s position by functioning as a “jetpack.”

Inspection and repair: Currently, only SS/L’s RSVs have this capability, having developed advanced optics and dexterous robotic arms for their vehicles per DARPA and NASA mission requirements. Imaging systems generally require a NOAA license, which Effective Space has not obtained, though Orbital-ATK, through its subsidiary ViviSat, has. SS/L is not listed as having a NOAA license, but may be exempt due to their involvement with US government clients. All three spacecraft are stated to provide orbital repositioning capabilities. February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

Fountain of Youth: Finally, when it comes to the amount of mission extension provided by the servicing vehicles, all three have apparently settled on a standard of 15 extra years of operational life, with the capability to undock and service other satellites if a customer opts for decommissioning after less elapsed time. SS/L’s vehicle under the RSGS program is only required by DARPA to operate a 6-9 month mission, after which they are free to serve other customers, such as SES.

Impact to manufacturers? While satellite operators are understandably thrilled by the prospect of squeezing extra life out of their capital assets, satellite manufacturers are likely to take a more nuanced view toward the market do to the cannibalizing impact on the (already suffering) satellite manufacturing sector. The next decade could prove perilous to new satellite orders if progressively more operators opt to revive their zombie satellites rather than purchase a new a state-of-the-art model. In the case of Orbital-ATK and SS/L, both companies have already started carving out market share within the new servicing niche, essentially concluding that “if you can’t beat them, join them.”

Artist’s rendition of SS/L’s RSV

Source: DARPA.

Sector Spotlight – Global Launch Activity in 2017

2017 saw a 7% increase in worldwide rocket launches to 91, nearly matching 2014’s 20-year high of 92 total launches. Key observations from the year include: • US launch sector dominates globally. The United States pulled well ahead of Russia in industry launches, with China coming in at a close 3rd. In 2017, the United States represented nearly 1/3rd of total launches with 30 in total, essentially switching places with Russia (with 20) in terms of historical market share. The US had an improvement of 8 launches, or 36%, from 2016. Russia only managed to conduct a single launch above their disastrous 2016, indicating that it may be years before the Russian launch industry fully-recovers to its regular cadence. • Failure rate rises slightly but remains nominal. The global launch industry had a success rate of over 92% in 2017, which is marginally lower than last year (95%), but still within traditional parameters. Of the seven total failures, Russia experienced only a single failure (of a Soyuz-2-1b) over the course of the year, matching the US, which saw the failure of a Rocket Lab Electron test flight. February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

2017 Orbital Launch Failures Level of Date Vehicle Satellite Country Failure

1/14/2017 SS-520 (3-Stg) TRICOM 1 Japan Total

5/25/2017 Electron Test flight USA/NZ Total 6/18/2017 Long March 3B/G2 ChinaSat 9A China Partial 7/2/2017 Long March 5 SJ 18 China Total

7/27/2017 Simorgh Test flight Iran Total

08/31/2017 PSLV-XL IRNSS 1H India Total 11/28/2017 Soyuz-2-1b Fregat-M Multiple Russia Total Source: Gunter’s Space Page, Quilty Analytics. • Some newspace launchers are blasting off, others… not so much. Over the past five years, dozens of small launch providers have exploded onto the scene, offering the promise of affordable, on-demand launch services for small satellites. This promising future, however, has progressively “slipped to the right” as these start-ups have struggled to overcome design, engineering, and financing challenges (heck, it is rocket science).

2018, however, could be a breakout year for smallsat launchers. On January 21st, New Zealand/US startup Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket successfully made it off the pad, placing cubesats into orbit for commercial operators Planet and Spire Global. Likewise, Vector Space Systems, which has now completed two successful test flights, is aiming to commence lofting smallsats sometime this year. Finally, Virgin Orbit (a Virgin Galactic offshoot),is expected to conduct its first orbital launches of LauncherOne, an air-launched rocket, from a repurposed Virgin Atlantic 747-400 (dubbed “Cosmic Girl”) sometime in the first half of 2018.

Other upcoming launchers are in hardware testing, such as billionare-backed Blue Origin’s New Glenn and Stratolaunch, which are both likely to fly in the next few years, although the secretive aura around both companies makes any true assessment of their hardware’s launch-readiness somewhat opaque. Given the successful testing of the suborbital New Shepard rocket and the upcoming BE-4 engines, it appears that Blue Origin is likely much closer to orbital flight.

A dizzying array of other start-ups remain stuck in the mud much further behind, such as Russian newspace startup Lin Industrial, which has released almost zero new information since 2014. Without success in obtaining firm commitments from customers, sufficient investment capital, or navigating a plethora of obtuse international aerospace regulations, it is unclear just how many of these NewSpace hopefuls will make it to the final frontier. The chart below provides our subjective assessment of the developmental progress of several major upstart launch providers:

February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

Roadmap of Emerging Small Launch Service Providers

Source: Quilty Analytics

• 2018 to be an industry-defining year. With this year already seeing the first successful launch of Rocket Lab’s Electron hauling commercial satellites to LEO, 2018 should prove to be a year of milestones throughout the satellite and space industry. Notable upcoming 2018 space events include: o The first launch of the Falcon Heavy, the most powerful launch vehicle since the Saturn V moon rocket and Soviet Energia super-heavy lift vehicle. o A potential first commercial moon landing (also via an Electron). o The first NASA Commercial Crew unmanned and manned test flights of the Boeing Starliner and SpaceX Dragon V2 spacecrafts in the second half of 2018. o The first possible suborbital space tourism flights on Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket.

Historic and Planned Launch Activity for Major Vendors Vendor 2016 2017 2018E Arianespace 11 11 7 ILS/Proton 3 4 - United Launch Alliance (ULA) 12 8 14 SpaceX 8 18 16+ Total 34 41 37+ Source: Gunter’s Space Page, Spaceflight Now, Company forecasts, Quilty Analytics

February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

1957-2017 Worldwide Launch Events

140

120

100

60 Total Total of Number Launches

1957 1963 1985 1991 1997 1961 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1987 1989 1993 1995 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 1959 Source: Gunter’s Space Page, Quilty Analytics

2017 Launches by Country

China 20% USA 33% European Union 10%

India 5% Russia Ukraine Japan 1% 22% 8% Iran 1%

Source: Gunter’s Space Page, FAA, Quilty Analytics

February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

Industry Growth, Valuation, and Stock Performance

2018 Enterprise Value to EBITDA Multiples

Comtech Telecomm. Corp 9.6x

Ground Intellian Technologies, Inc. 5.8x Equipment KVH Industries, Inc. 15.6x

Gogo Inc 13.4x

SpeedCast International Ltd 8.6x

RigNet Inc 9.5x SatelliteServices Global Eagle Entertainment Inc 5.5x

Harris Corp. 15.4x

OHB SE 12.1x

Orbital ATK Inc 11.6x

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc 9.2x

SpaceInfrastructure Maxar Technologies, Ltd. 4.0x

Avanti Communications Group plc 199.4x

ViaSat Inc 19.5x

ORBCOMM Inc 16.2x

UrtheCast Corp 14.2x

Iridium Communications Inc 9.2x

Intelsat, S.A. 8.6x

Eutelsat Communications SA 7.3x

SatelliteOperators SES SA 7.2x

EchoStar Corp. 7.0x

Inmarsat Plc 6.3x

Telenor ASA 6.3x

APT Satellite Holdings 3.2x

0.0x 10.0x 20.0x 30.0x 40.0x 50.0x

Source: Sentieo and Quilty Analytics February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

2018 Price to Earnings (P/E) Multiples

Source: Sentieo and Quilty Analytics February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

Satellite & Space Stock Performance (TTM)

Comtech Telecomm. Corp 97.4%

Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd 45.6% Ground

Equipment Intellian Technologies, Inc. (10.4%)

SpeedCast International Ltd 49.5%

Gogo Inc 6.6%

KVH Industries, Inc. 6.0%

RigNet Inc (16.2%) SatelliteServices Global Eagle Ent. (65.1%)

OHB SE 139.1%

Orbital ATK Inc 50.4%

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc 49.5%

Harris Corp. 42.9%

SpaceInfrastructure Maxar Technologies, Ltd. 11.6%

Telenor ASA 37.2%

ORBCOMM Inc 35.8%

Iridium Communications Inc 25.0%

ViaSat Inc 21.1%

EchoStar Corp. 15.2%

Eutelsat Communications SA 8.5%

APT Satellite Holdings (8.5%)

Intelsat, S.A.

SatelliteOperators (10.0%)

Inmarsat Plc (24.3%)

UrtheCast Corp (25.9%)

SES SA (34.9%)

Avanti Comms. (51.5%)

(100.0%) (50.0%) 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0%

Source: Sentieo and Quilty Analytics

February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

Satellite and Space EBITDA CAGRs

Intellian Technologies, Inc. 29%

Ground Comtech Telecomm. Corp 26% Equipment SpeedCast International Ltd 95%

Global Eagle Entertainment Inc 40%

Gogo Inc 33%

RigNet Inc 4% SatelliteServices KVH Industries, Inc. -7%

OHB SE 16%

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc 14%

Harris Corp. 8%

Orbital ATK Inc 6% SpaceInfrastrucutre

UrtheCast Corp 28%

ORBCOMM Inc 18%

Iridium Communications Inc 6%

Telenor ASA 3%

APT Satellite Holdings 2%

Intelsat, S.A. 0%

Inmarsat Plc -3%

SatelliteOperators Eutelsat Communications SA -3%

SES SA -4%

ViaSat -12%

Avanti -21%

EchoStar Corp. -47%

-65% -45% -25% -5% 15% 35% 55% 75%

Source: Sentieo and Quilty Analytics

February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

8.9x

8.1x

8.0x

8.8x

4.5x

3.8x

9.0x

7.7x

6.1x

7.0x

8.2x

8.5x

7.0x

7.2x

7.1x

7.0x

8.1x

7.4x

2019

10.2x

11.0x

14.1x

13.3x

13.0x

27.7x

11.0x

5.8x

9.6x

8.6x

9.3x

5.5x

4.0x

9.2x

6.3x

7.4x

9.2x

8.6x

6.5x

7.3x

7.0x

7.8x

3.2x

9.3x

8.2x

2018

15.5x

13.9x

11.5x

12.1x

15.3x

20.1x

14.8x

16.2x

11.5x

199.4x

EV/EBITDA

7.8x

9.9x

7.1x

7.7x

9.7x

6.3x

7.3x

9.8x

8.5x

6.8x

7.0x

7.9x

8.3x

3.3x

8.3x

2017

11.0x

11.3x

42.0x

24.2x

12.4x

14.3x

15.9x

15.1x

22.2x

11.3x

12.4x

102.4x

Multiples

1.9x

1.2x

1.0x

1.6x

0.7x

1.8x

0.9x

1.2x

3.3x

1.0x

2.5x

1.4x

2.4x

4.5x

3.5x

4.7x

6.5x

3.3x

5.4x

2.6x

3.4x

9.0x

1.2x

3.4x

2019

1.1x

1.2x

5.0x

1.4x

1.1x

1.8x

0.9x

1.8x

1.0x

1.2x

3.5x

1.1x

2.9x

2.5x

4.7x

3.8x

5.3x

6.6x

8.4x

5.7x

2.9x

3.6x

2.6x

1.4x

1.2x

4.2x

2018

18.7x

EV/Revenue

1.5x

1.4x

1.3x

1.4x

1.1x

2.3x

1.2x

2.0x

1.3x

3.6x

1.2x

3.4x

1.3x

1.4x

5.6x

5.9x

6.4x

3.5x

5.2x

3.0x

4.5x

2.7x

1.4x

2.0x

4.9x

2017

13.7x

11.0x

40.7x

5.7%

6.3%

6.2%

6.3%

3.8%

5.3%

6.7%

2.4%

2.1%

9.2%

5.3%

9.2%

-0.3%

-1.5%

-1.3%

26.2%

16.3%

18.6%

65.9%

26.2%

14.4%

41.5%

31.0%

92.2%

102.7%

EBITDA

CAGR

5.3%

7.2%

6.5%

4.6%

7.8%

8.8%

3.3%

6.0%

-4.2%

-0.7%

-2.0%

18.8%

10.5%

18.8%

26.1%

18.7%

16.3%

56.7%

27.5%

11.5%

16.1%

-23.6%

166.6%

112.9%

Revenue

$76

$39

$19

$81

£69

€ 80 €

2019

$213

$158

$139

2019

$811

$777

$232

2019

$387

$311

£510

$866

$470

2019

C$19

$1,579

$1,641

€ 1,385€

€ 1,101€

kr 51,313kr

$70

$34

$12

$65

£10

€ 73 €

2018

$200

$100

$114

2018

$770

$743

$226

2018

$256

$275

£546

$878

$420

2018

C$10

$1,451

$1,630

€ 1,316€

€ 1,081€

₩19,900

kr 49,522kr

HK$1,056

Adj. EBITDA Adj.

$68

$28

$57

$87

$47

£19

€ 61 €

-C$2

2017

$157

2017

$720

$388

$215

2017

$340

$260

£525

$781

$394

2017

$1,398

$1,649

€ 1,329€

€ 1,131€

₩14,900

kr 48,945kr

HK$1,032

Estimates

2019

$892

$269

$195

$842

2019

$303

$539

$979

£212

2019

€ 985€

C$103

$5,057

$2,479

$6,783

$2,046

$2,047

$2,157

£1,079

$2,331

€ 2,172€

€ 1,451€

kr 127,862kr

$575

2018

$348

$228

$181

$763

$681

2018

$278

$482

£424

$920

£102

2018

C$59

€ 908€

$4,839

$2,509

$6,271

$1,927

$1,761

$2,128

$2,123

€ 2,076€

€ 1,389€

Revenue

₩108,400

HK$1,286

kr 126,094kr

£47

$280

$528

2016

$126

$221

$176

$597

$530

2016

$187

$434

$725

2016

€ 699€

€ 885€

C$112

$4,455

$6,203

$1,761

$1,515

$2,188

£1,011

$2,075

€ 1,510€

₩77,791

HK$1,230

kr 219,064kr

$385

$673

$311

$193

$621

€ 878€

C$148

$1,725

$1,385

$8,897

$2,973

$2,081

$5,136

$1,053

$2,541

£3,548

$6,156

$3,289

£1,906

€ 9,755€

€ 7,892€

$22,192

$13,955

₩115,632

HK$3,360

kr 310,487kr

€ 85 €

$27

C$23

£432

($60)

$152

$419

$587

$420

$735

$226

$777

$209

$295

£1,457

€ 4,013€

€ 3,725€

$1,291

$3,609

$1,345

$1,143

₩3,762

$13,636

Net DebtNet

kr 44,128kr

(HK$103)

Satellite & Space Industry Public Valuations SatelliteCompany Industry & Space

$445

$521

$284

$189

$798

$202

$844

$319

€ 793€

C$125

$1,307

$7,606

$2,238

$1,855

$4,359

$1,195

£2,090

$5,861

$2,146

£1,474

€ 5,742€

€ 4,168€

$18,583

Mkt Cap Mkt

HK$3,463

₩111,870

kr 266,359kr

238

119

121

454

118

456

232

162

931

1,501

Price

$8.15

$5.50

$9.20

$2.36

$2.70

£9.09

$22.07

$15.60

$11.05

$61.42

$26.43

$74.89

C$1.03

$11.39

$12.20

$61.23

$34.45

€ 45.60€

€ 12.65€

€ 17.93€

$131.86

$155.90

£458.40

HK$3.72

₩15,500

kr 177.40kr

189300:KS

GILT

CMTL

Ticker

SDA:AU

RNET

KVHI

GOGO

ENT

Ticker

OHB:GR

MAXR

HRS

AJRD

Ticker

VSAT

UR:CN

TEL:NO

SESG:FP

ORBC

IRDM

ISAT:LN

ETL:FP

SATS

DGI

AVN:LN

1045:HK

Ticker

Intellian Technologies, Inc. Technologies, Intellian

Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd GilatNetworks Satellite

Comtech Telecomm. Corp Telecomm. Comtech

GroundEquipment

Median

SpeedCast International Ltd International SpeedCast

RigNet Inc RigNet

KVH Industries, Inc. KVHIndustries,

Gogo Inc Gogo

Global Eagle Entertainment Inc Entertainment EagleGlobal

Satellite Services Satellite

Median

Orbital ATK Inc Orbital ATK

OHBSE

Maxar Technologies, Ltd. Technologies, Maxar

HarrisCorp.

Aerojet Rocketdyne HoldingsInc Rocketdyne Aerojet

SpaceInfrastructure

Median

ViaSatInc

UrtheCast Corp UrtheCast

Telenor ASA Telenor

SES SA SES

ORBCOMM Inc ORBCOMM

Iridium Communications Inc Communications Iridium

Intelsat, S.A. Intelsat,

Inmarsat Plc Inmarsat

Eutelsat Communications SA Communications Eutelsat

EchoStar Corp. EchoStar

DigitalGlobeInc

Avanti Communications Group plc Group Communications Avanti APT Satellite HoldingsSatellite APT Satellite Operators Satellite

February 5, 2018 Industry Brief

Quilty Analytics Disclosures

Independent Research Quilty Analytics is an independent research and consulting company. Quilty Analytics is not a member of FINRA or the SIPC and is not a registered broker or investment advisor. All opinions, views and analyses expressed in these Publication Services are those of Quilty Analytics at the time they were published. Quilty Analytics does not owe any fiduciary obligation to any Covered Company or Subscriber. The opinions expressed in the Publication Services may be short-term in nature and are subject to change. Quilty Analytics takes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement in Publication Services to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the Publication Service is created, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

Limitations of Publication Services and Disclaimer These Publication Services have been prepared for distribution to Subscribers to Quilty Analytics' services. The information contained herein does not constitute financial, legal, tax or any other advice. All third party data presented herein were obtained from publicly available and third party sources which are believed to be reliable; however, Quilty Analytics makes no warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy or completeness of such information. Subscriber agrees and acknowledges that the Publication Services are provided on an “as-is” basis and any representations or warranties, express or implied, including without limitation any representations or warranties of non-infringement, merchantability, correctness, accuracy, or fitness for a particular purpose are specifically disclaimed. Additionally, Quilty Analytics is a financial research publishing company (publisher) and does not provide investment advice to its subscribers or advocate for the purchase or sale of any investment or security and Quilty Analytics and its employees, content providers, and licensors will not be liable to subscriber or any other persons as a result of subscriber’s use of the publications services for consequential, indirect, punitive, special, or exemplary damages, including without limitation, lost profits, whether based on contract. Tort, or other legal theory, in connection with the use of Publication Services.

Intellectual Property, Reproduction and Distribution These Publication Services and the contents thereof are the intellectual property of Quilty Analytics or its licensors. The Publication Services are provided to Subscriber solely for their internal use. Subscriber shall not, infringe, or enable the infringement of, the intellectual property rights of Quilty Analytics or its licensors in any way, including without limitation by making available internally or externally the Publication Services or any portion thereof without prior written permission of Quilty Analytics.