Trends in Small Satellite Technology and the Role of the NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program

Final Update to the NASA Advisory Committee Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee

March 28, 2017 Bhavya Lal, Asha Balakrishnan, Alyssa Picard, Ben Corbin, Jonathan Behrens, Ellen Green, Roger Myers

Reviewers: Brian Zuckerman, Mike Yarymovych, Iain Boyd, Malcolm MacDonald Project Goal

Given investments outside STMD, and NASA’s mission needs, what is the “the appropriate, discriminating role for STMD vis-à-vis all the other organizations that are developing small satellite technology?”

2 Overall Approach

• Examined smallsat developments • Scope – State-of-the-art and activities outside – STMD’s Small Spacecraft Technology STMD Program (SSTP) supplemented by other – Evolution of the ecosystem: players STMD efforts and markets – Did not conduct an evaluation – Drivers of future activities: • No comment on adequacy of funding infrastructure, policies, investment levels • Analyzed STMD’s current and • Definition of a small spacecraft or emerging smallsat portfolio smallsat • Identified NASA’s small spacecraft – Considered several metrics – mass, cost, innovation approach (“lean needs, both user driven (tech satellite”) pull) and technology driven (tech – Settled on mass with upper limit ~200 push) kg • Identified gaps and made • With exceptions up to 500 kg as needed recommendations

3 Data Sources

• Reviewed the literature • Conducted 57 stakeholder – National Academy of Sciences discussions CubeSat Report (2016) – Industry representatives (32) – SSTP/Ames State of the Art Report – NASA HQ and Centers(11) (2015) – DoD and other government (4) – Trade Association/Other Reports – Academia (5) • EuroConsult SmallSat Market Analysis • Satellite Industry Association Annual – Non-profit (5) Reports • Identified smallsat organizations • Space Works • Frost & Sullivan Small Satellite Reports worldwide • NSR Reports – Assembled database from literature, – Additional Literature interviewees, conferences • STPI Report: Role of Microsatellites – Analyzed database • STPI Report: Global Trends in Space • Journal articles from Smallsat conference, IAC meetings

4 BACKGROUND – SMALLSAT INDUSTRY

5 Term “Industry” is Misleading – Ecosystem has a Large and Complex Value Chain

6 Sector is Globalized and International

~70 countries have smallsats or are part of the smallsat ecosystem 7 Sector is Globalized and International

• Companies have global supply chains and customers • Anyone (government, bank) can purchase turnkey service – Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. (SSTL) designed, built, and launched a constellation of Earth observation satellites for their China- based client Twenty-First Century Aerospace Technology 8 Ecosystem Growth Driven by Expectations of Market Demand

• Expected >3,600 small satellites will be launched in the coming decade – Overall remote sensing market large • Weather related disruptions cost businesses almost $3 trillion • Commercial smallsat imaging market expected to grow from $15 million in 2015 to $164 million in 2020 – SpaceX alone expects to earn $30B annually from its constellation

– RPO, satellite servicing and other markets Adapted from Prospects for the Small Satellite Market, Euroconsult 2016. Figure does not unknown include number for SpaceX and Boeing Constellations. – New applications continually emerging – Satellite usage has knock-on effects: $22 billion the UAS market expected to be a $20B in revenues expected by 2025 from smallsat opportunity for satellites launch and manufacturing alone

9 Private Funding for Smallsats Exceeds Government Funding

• Private funding may exceed Venture Capital and Equity government funding by an order of Company Financing through 2016 magnitude or more (Millions) OneWeb – Nearly twice as much venture capital $1,719 constellation was invested in space in 2015 than the SpaceX $1,185 previous 15 years, combined constellation Planet $171 – Non-traditional investors – Coca Cola in constellation OneWeb Kymeta $144 Spire $67 Spaceflight Industries/ $45 Blacksky Astroscale $43

10 FINDINGS – STMD PORTFOLIO

11 STMD Smallsat Programs

Universities $35 5% • “Develop and demonstrate new $30 small spacecraft technologies and NASA Centers capabilities for NASA’s missions in 35% $25 science, exploration and space Industry 60% operations” $20 • “Promote the small spacecraft approach as a paradigm shift for $15 Million in Funding USD NASA and the larger space community” $10

$5 • Since 2013, STMD’s smallsat

programs including SSTP have $0 disbursed about $80 million – Systems and constellations, communications, and mobility and propulsion make up 85 percent of funding • 60% funds to industry

12 Industry NASA Centers Universities STMD’s Smallsat Programs Support Upstream Activity in the Smallsat Ecosystem

Primarily supported by STMD

13 Much of Other Government Funding Focuses on Mid/Downstream Actors • National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) – Purchasing multispectral imagery from Planet • NOAA – NOAA buying space-based radio occultation data from GeoOptics and Spire Global • National Science Foundation – Focus on science missions for Geospace and Atmospheric Research (program may be cut by 1/3) • DARPA – Grant to Descartes Labs to demonstrate automated food security capability to analyze, monitor and forecast wheat crop across the Middle East/North Africa • NASA – SMD planning to purchase Earth science data – HEO spends ~$21M on missions and ~$2M on launch

14 Private Investment May Not Overlap with STMD Investment Private Investment Focuses on Privately-funded Technology Mid- and Downstream Actors Tends To Be Proprietary • Private funds typically go to • Companies that do work on operators (OneWeb, SpaceX, platform technologies (e.g., Spire) and downstream analytics SpaceX on smallsat lasercom) firms (MapBox, Orbital Insight) tend to keep the data proprietary • Companies that focus on upstream technologies do not do well with private funds (e.g., VC) as they cannot project large markets and customer bases that downstream companies can “Startups focusing on component-level technologies are challenging to fund, despite having good ideas, just because of the size of their addressable customer base” - Will Porteous, RRE Ventures 15 Even When Supporting Upstream Firms, VCs Invest in Late Stage Activities

www.nvca.org Note: Data represents all VC – not space-specific VC funding 16 STMD’s Support of Industry helps build a Broader Industrial Base [that eventually serves NASA]

Funders Performers

SSTP and other STMD University (Tech Investments Development and Mission Operations for NASA) SMD/HEO Technology Development Investments Upstream Center (Tech Industry Development and (components, Mission manufacturing, Operations for system NASA) integration)

Center IRAD

Industry Operator ((Tech Development and Data Provider for NASA) Industry IRAD, VC and Other Private Investment

17 Example - Funding of Private Companies Supports NASA Goals

Bus (if Radio or Company, Ground whole ACDS Propulsion Communi- Payload Launch Project Station procured) cations

Blue United Canyon RAVAN (APL) BCT BCT BCT NASA/APL Launch Technology Alliance (BCT)

ULA/Orbit MinXSS (LASP) LASP BCT N/A LASP LASP al ATK; ISS

Surrey Orbital CYGNSS Draper DDMI Orbital Unknown Satellite USN/SwRI ATK (NASA/SwRI) Labs (Surrey) Technology Pegasus

18 STMD Focuses on the Needed Technical Areas

STMD smallsat funding, 2013 to 2016 $35 M $30 M $25 M $20 M $15 M $10 M $5 M $ M

Technology Areas identified by stakeholders 19 STMD Focuses at the Needed Stage - Valley of Death

Note: Bubble size represents dollar values; bubble location corresponds to TRL and number of projects.

20 CHALLENGES FACED BY STMD’S SMALLSAT PROGRAMS

21 Challenge 1 – STMD Constituents have Varying Needs • Upstream firms providing technology to NASA missions and commercial operators have a range of needs – NASA needs technology to be state-of-the-art and de-risked – Commercial customers mostly need proven technology that is more affordable • NASA centers co-fund STMD projects with internal IRAD funds to make themselves competitive for missions • Commercial operators either develop technology in-house, or purchase derisked, mature and affordable components and systems from upstream operators. – Would prefer government to be buyers of their data rather than support the front-end technology development – Have a near-term horizon; often do not see that the affordable technology they are purchasing from upstream firms were initially developed with NASA and other government funds • Downstream firms are source-agnostic, do not even distinguish between data coming from smallsats vs large satellites vs drones vs social media

22 Challenge 2 – SSTP has not Articulated a Clear Strategy • SSTP has not articulated a clear mission – Mission is not clearly communicated to stakeholders either within NASA or in the private sector – Lack of communication creates challenges to infusion of STMD- developed technology

Challenge 3 – Organizational and Management • Absence of metrics or evaluation to assess if program is being managed effectively, or meeting expectations

23 RECOMMENDATIONS

24 Smallsat Ecosystem is Multilayered Technology Element Model

Strategic System Market Value Production planning integration development added

Science base

Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17 Smallsat Ecosystem is Multilayered Technology Element Model

Strategic System Market Value Production planning integration development added

Entrepreneurial Risk activity reduction

Proprietary technologies

Technology platforms

Science base

Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17 Areas STMD Should Fund Technology Element Model

Strategic System Market Value Production planning integration development added

Entrepreneurial Risk activity reduction

Proprietary technologies

Technology platforms

Science base

Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17 Role for Other Entities Technology Element Model

Market Joint targeting industry- assistance and government Scale-up procurement planning incentives incentives Strategic System Market Value Production planning integration development added Interface standards Technology Entrepreneurial Risk transfer- Acceptance diffusion activity reduction test Intellectual property standards, rights national test Proprietary facilities Tax incentives technologies Incubators

Technology National labs, consortia National platforms Labs Direct funding of firms and universities Science base

Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17 Recommendation 1: Areas to Fund

Platform Technology/Risk Reduction • Continue support for what is considered pre-competitive R&D – Mobility and propulsion, constellations and autonomy, thermal control, communications, etc. • If additional funds are available, include – Technologies related to deep space systems and avionics, debris mitigation and control – Technologies that interface between the bus and specialized payloads (e.g. small cryogenic coolers for infrared instruments) – In particular, support development of technologies to support launch (challenge is not as much cost as it is availability) Industrial Commons • Add critical industrial commons and infratechnologies to the investment portfolio – Database curation, reliability testing, and others – In creating industrial commons, to the extent possible, leverage existing organizations and learn from successful models 29 Recommendation 2: Develop and Communicate a SSTP Mission Statement

• SSTP should develop a mission statement, and communicate it, addressing 1) What is the basic purpose of SSTP 2) What makes it unique 3) Who are the principal customers 4) How are priorities determined (see proposal below)

• Communication may need to be formalized and regular

30 Recommendation 3: Maintain Independence from Users

ISLAND BRIDGE LAND FARM STAY MAKE IT MATTER FACTS S M A L L TARGET SERVE DO IT STRATEGIC SCIENCE ELSEWHERE INTERESTS

TARGET KNOW DO IT SPECIFIC BETTER FEEL FOR A TIME USES F R E E DRIVE TARGET HEED CHANGE MEET OPERATIONS MAKE NERDS SAUSAGE SIMPLIFY AND GREET CREATE A MANIFEST MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DESTINY

NAVIGATE GATHER SHARE BUREAUCRACY HERD KEEP SUPPORT POWER N E R D S CLEAR HAVE SPECIFY PLAY TECHNICAL VISIONS NICE CHOPS

SPECIFY LEAD LISTEN METRICS BE ORCHESTRAS AND LEARN B E T T E R SEEK DESERVE INPUT TRUST

TRY DO WHAT AND ERR OTHERS WON'T

SHOW THE WORLD To ensure funding high risk, high payoff technologies Program should be managed from HQ, not centers with parochial interests

31 Recommendation 4: Require Transition Partners • Will ensure the relevance and diffusion of the technology after SSTP’s involvement with it has finished. • Transition partners will also be advocates for the project and the program, and help shepherd technologies through the valley of death and beyond. • The criteria for what makes for a successful transition will differ according to the TRL of the project. • A transition partner would play a different role for technology push projects as distinct from technology push ones, but be relevant to both.

32 Industrial Commons/Transition Partners can Further Support STMD’s mission

Valley of Death

Higher TRL Support by STMD funding transition partners

Infrastructure support

33 Additional Recommendations

• Develop metrics for accountability, – Metrics could be qualitative, and process-oriented • Ensure continual monitoring and evaluation • Support autonomy for program managers – Allow use of alternative contracting approaches – Make awards based on the skills rather than administrative requirements

34 Summary: Findings/Conclusions

• STMD is one of many investors in the smallsat ecosystem; its funding may be dwarfed by other public and private sources by 1-2 orders of magnitude – STMD is one of a small number of government organizations that has the mandate to support upstream, far-term, high pay-off platform technologies – Private funding focuses on operations and near-term almost-mature technologies or on high pay-off technologies that will remain proprietary • STMD is supporting what stakeholders view as the most important technologies (systems/constellation, propulsion, communication) but not industrial commons to the degree needed • Primary challenges faced by STMD are not related to technology areas selected but to lack of effective communication and coordination with stakeholders

35 Summary: Recommendations

• STMD could add funds to program to increase focus on deep space systems and avionics, launch and debris mitigation and control technologies, as well as support of industrial commons • Smallsat programs in STMD must keep their unique value in the ecosystem, and maintain independence and a degree of separation from users (to prevent short- termism) • Better communication and coordination would require: – A mission statement [(1) what is the basic purpose of SSTP; (2) what makes it unique; (3) who are the principal customers; and (4) how are priorities determined] and continual communication – A transparent framework for decisionmaking that explains how each project fits with mission – Transition partners to promote infusion, even for push technologies – another way to ensure greater transparency/formality of communication – Program autonomy, metrics for program success, and continual evaluation to ensure course correction

36 ADDITIONAL SLIDES

37 INTERVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES

38 Case Studies Completed

Interview Ecosystem Sector Organization Date Location Upstream Accion Systems 10/26/2016 US Upstream Berlin Space Technologies 10/21/2016 Foreign Upstream Blue Canyon Technology 12/8/2016 US Upstream Busek Co. 12/12/2016 US Upstream Clyde Space 11/17/2016 Foreign Upstream Ecliptic Enterprises 10/20/2016 US Upstream GomSpace 10/19/2016 Foreign Upstream NovaWurks 11/3/2016 US Upstream Pumpkin 12/16/2016 US Upstream SSTL 12/6/2016 Foreign Up & Midstream Planetary Resources 11/21/2016 US Up & Midstream SpaceX 11/1/2016 US Up & Midstream Tyvak International 12/8/2016 US Midstream Chandah Space 11/3/2016 US Technologies Midstream Hawkeye 360 10/31/2016 US Midstream KSAT 10/28/2016 Foreign Midstream OneWeb 12/21/206 Foreign Midstream USRA/VALT 10/26/2016 US Mid & Downstream Blacksky (Spaceflight) 11/8/2016 US Mid & Downstream Spire 11/1/2016 US Mid & Downstream Terra Bella 11/28/2016 US

39 Interviews Conducted - Industry

Organization Name Point Person Interview Date Arianespace Aaron Lewis 12/13/2016 Berlin Space Technologies Tom Segert 10/21/2016 Clydespace Pamela Anderson 11/17/2016 GomSpace Igor Alonso Portillo 10/19/2016 KSAT Stig-Are Thrana 10/28/2016 OneWeb Mike Lindsay 12/21/2016 SSTL John Paffet 12/6/2016 Accion Natalia Brikner 10/26/2016 Blue Canyon Tech John Carvo 12/8/2016 Busek Peter Hruby 12/12/2016 Chandah Helen Reed 11/3/2016 Cubecab Adrian Tymes 1/4/2017 Draper Labs Seamus Tuohy 12/9/2016 Ecliptic Rex Ridenoure 10/20/2016 ExoTerra Resource Mike Van Woerkom 12/7/2016 Hawkeye 360 Chris DeMay 10/31/2016 NovaWurks Talbot Jaeger 11/3/2016 Planetary Resources Peter Marquez 11/21/2016 Pumpkin Andrew E. Kalman 12/16/2016 Rocket Crafters Sid Gutierrez 1/4/2017 Space Systems Loral Al Tadros 4/26/2016 Spaceflight/Blacksky Peter Wagner 11/8/2016 SpaceX Matt Dunn 11/1/2016 Spire Peter Platzer 11/1/2016 Terra Bella John Fenwick 11/28/2016 Tyvak Dave Williamson 12/8/2016 VALT/USRA Dan Mosequeda 10/26/2016 York Space Systems Dirk Wallinger 10/13/2016 Bessemer Venture Partners Sunil Nagraj 10/21/2016 Lux Capital Shahin Farshchi 10/25/2016 Space Angels Networks Chad Anderson 10/31/2016

40 Interviews Conducted – NASA, Other Government

Organization Name Point Person Interview Date NASA Ames Bruce Yost 9/22/2016 NASA Goddard - Roundtable Round Table 9/2/2016 NASA HQ David Pierce 11/7/2016 NASA HQ Garrett Lee Skrobot 10/28/2016 NASA HQ Jason Cruzan 10/24/2016 NASA HQ Ellen Stofan 9/14/2016 NASA HQ Michael Seablom 8/24/2016 NASA Johnson Daniel Newswander 11/3/2016 NASA JPL Norton Charles 10/5/2016 NASA JPL - Roundtable Round Table 10/24/2016 Formerly NASA Lori Garver 1/30/2017 AFRL David Voss 11/29/2016 NOAA Steve Volz 11/2/2016 NSF Thyagarajan Nandago 11/29/2016 NSF Therese Jorgenson 8/29/2016

41 Interviews Conducted – Academic/Other

Organization Name Point Person Interview Date Aerospace Corporation Rich Welle 10/18/2016 Aerospace (Space Quality Improvement Marilee Wheaton 1/12/2017 Council) APL Bill Swartz 9/1/2016 Cornell Mason Peck 10/11/2016 LASP Tom Woods 9/2/2016 MIT Paulo Lozano 8/30/2016 Montana State University David Klumpar 10/31/2016 SDL Pat Patterson 8/26/2016 UC Berkeley Ned Wright 8/30/2016 University of Michigan M-BARC Team 10/12/2016

42 Downselecting Investment Areas for STMD (1/3)

Comparative Comparative Comparative Advantage for Advantage for Advantage for Topic area Critical Need Government NASA STMD Payloads --General investment in instruments High High High ? --Small calibration sources High Medium Medium ? --Hyperspectral imaging instruments High Medium Medium ? --Microwave instruments High Medium Medium ? --Instruments for science/ non-commercial missions ? High High High (exoplanets, astronomy) --Synthetic aperture radar Medium Medium Medium ? Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control --< 3 arcsec pointing for optical communications High Medium Medium Medium --< 0.4 arcsec pointing for precision astronomy/astrometry High High High High missions --Navigation systems for deep space where GPS not available High High High High Communication --Optical communication system for satellites High High High High --Ground stations/ infrastructure to support optical High High High High communication --Higher data rates at higher frequencies at lower cost High Medium Medium Medium Mobility and Propulsion --More flight demonstrations for existing technology High High High High --Electric propulsion with 100s-1000s m/s impulse High Medium Medium Medium --Cheaper propulsion systems (<$10k) Medium Low Low Low --Hall thrusters Medium Medium Medium Low --(General) novel miniaturized efficient hybrid, chemical, or High High High High electric systems --Green propellant systems High High High High --EDL systems for planetary science High High High High --Mechanisms and actuators High High Medium Medium 43 Downselecting Investment Areas for STMD (2/3)

Comparative Comparative Comparative Advantage for Advantage for Advantage for Topic area Critical Need Government NASA STMD Electrical Power Generation and Storage --Cheaper, more efficient (>30%) solar cells High High Medium Medium --Longer lasting batteries Low Low Low Low --Radioisotope power systems High High High Low Thermal control --Miniaturized cryocoolers for detectors (IR, bolometers) High High High High --Heat dissipation for large amounts of power in small volume High High High High --More active thermal control system High High High Medium Deployable systems --Cheaper miniaturized deployables for antennas, radiators, and High Low Low Low solar panels --Deployable technology to increase aperture diameters Medium Medium Medium Medium --CubeSat deployer attached to small satellite mothership High High High High Data Handling, Processing, and Autonomy --Chips to process large amounts of data onboard High High Medium Low --Clever onboard data handling (e.g. Higher compression rates) Medium Medium Low Low --Improved analytics for new data sources (i.e. SAR) or data High Medium Medium Low fusion, change detection, aperture synthesis interferometry System integration --Mass or large-scale manufacturing capabilities High Low Low None --Additive manufacturing of cubesats/smallsats Low Low Low None --Concurrent design engineering* High Medium Medium Low --Optimal concept selection methods* High High High High Constellations --Swarm or constellation with propulsion for science missions High High High High --Constellation mission designs/ management systems High High High High --Ground infrastructure for constellations High Medium Medium Low --Intersatellite links High Medium Medium Medium --Frequent revisit/low latency constellations to replace large Low None None None satellites DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 44 --Constellation for space-based broadband Low Low None None Downselecting Investment Areas for STMD (3/3)

Comparative Comparative Comparative Advantage for Advantage for Advantage for Topic area Critical Need Government NASA STMD Other technology --Deep space systems and avionics High High High High --Debris removal technology development High High Medium Medium Industrial commons --Database with testing and performance history of COTS parts High High High High --Reliability/certification standards High High Medium Medium --Testing facilities, support for space simulation/radiation testing High High High Medium of components --Open up ISS as platform for testing High High High Medium --Operation of shared ground system for academia/small players High High Medium Medium --Training and workforce development High High High Low --Affordable, high frequency launch opportunities High High High High Other --Streamline licensing process and/or reduce ITAR burden High High Low Low --Improve SSA or STM system High High Low Low --Streamline and speed NASA funding process Medium Medium Medium Medium --Coordinate Centers’ roles High High High High --Have transition partner High High High High --Debris removal policy Low Low Low Low --Have NASA/STMD be a data buyer High High High High

45 What are SmallSats and What they Enable

Small • Risk taking Shorter – Experimentation [e.g., use of COTS components] development – Lesson-learning -- “fly-learn-refly” paradigm cycles, smaller • Faster deployment teams, lower cost/timeliness – Take advantage of new breakthroughs – faster tech refresh of launch – Speedy development to observe transitory phenomenon • Expendable platforms (high risk orbits) (CubeSats) • New mission types Standardized – Secondary lines of sights Mass – Targeted science – simple, focused short duration missions production, easier launch • Lower-cost spatially/temporally distributed data collection platforms vehicle – Instrument space integration (can • Platform for de-risking technology for small and non-small S&T lower cost) Applications driven by expectation of profit making and other societal benefit

• Using satellite observations of the total number of trucks per day for 6,000 industrial facilities as a proxy for economic activity, SpaceKnow suggests that China’s manufacturing index was 46.9 while the government’s figure stood at 50.2 • The World Bank has estimated global poverty at around 30%, while Columbia University professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin states that satellite imagery of light pollution suggests it may only be around 6% Describing Change Detection

Signs of water pooling on glaciers in Tibet (left) preceded a pair of avalanches (right)

Planet’s Doves will permit daily images of the entire Earth http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/flotilla-tiny-satellites-will-photograph-entire-earth-every-day?utm_source=sciencemagazine&utm_medium=facebook-48 text&utm_campaign=planet-11360 Recommendation: Ensure a Robust Pipeline Across the TRL Spectrum

• SSTP should ensure low TRL revolutionary, high payoff technologies move up the innovation pipeline through formalized partnerships within and outside NASA

49 Smallsat Launchers

14 1-50 Kg 51-100 Kg 101-200 Kg 201-500 Kg Unknown • United States leads with respect to 12 the number of smallsat launchers

10 under development

8 • Of the 36 launchers we know of, 34 are under development 6 • All focus on LEO, 16 categorized as 4 serving sun-synchronous markets 2 • Most focus on cubesats (11) or 201- 0 500 kg smallsats (13) with very few in the 51-100 (2) 101-200 (5) categories

Sources: Adapted from company websites, D. Lim, “Small launcher market survey – where are we and where are we going?” Room, October 2016, and D. Messier, “A Plethora of Small Satellite Launchers” Parabolic Arc, October 2016

50 Role of funders for smallsat start-ups

Source: https://www.spacenewsmag.com/capital-contributions/the-next-wave-of-space-investors/ Smallsat Companies do not Make the VC Cut

VC raised in 2016 $41.6B Funding received by VC-backed companies $69.1B

• Software companies attracted 48% • Pharma/biotech- 11%

http://nvca.org/pressreleases/2017-nvca-yearbook-highlights-busy-year-venture-industry-nvca/

52 Proportion of U.S. LEO VC Investments 2008 thru January 20, 2015

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/economic-development-of-low-earth-orbit_tagged_v2.pdf 53 Models in other sectors

• The first digital computer — built in the mid-1940s to calculate the trajectories of artillery shells and used to design the first hydrogen bomb — cost about $500,000 (around $4.7 million today), operated billions of times more slowly than modern computers, took up the space of a small bus, and had no immediate commercial application • By subsidizing engineering development and the construction of manufacturing facilities ... the military catalyzed the establishment of an industrial base” — helping to create the technological and industrial backbone for the information age

54 Satellites Radio or planned (as of Communi- Ground Company, Project 12/2016) Bus (if whole procured) ACDS Propulsion cations Payload Station Launch OneWeb 648 OneWeb Satellites (Airbus OneWeb External (Hall Qualcomm MDA and Hughes Arianespace and OneWeb) Satellites Thrusters, and MDA Other Network and Virgin undisclosed) Undisclosed Systems Galactic Vendors SpaceX 4,425 (800 to be In-house (payload, undisclosed) In-house operational)

Planet targeting 210 In-house In-house? SSTL (for SSTL (for Optical (in- In-house Nanoracks Rapideye) Rapideye) house) (ISS), PSLV, SpaceX, Spaceflight Spire 100 by 2017 In-house (solar panels from Clyde Space) All except China

BlackSky 60 In-house COTS, In-house In-house Optical (Harris In-house PSLV integrated in- Corp.) (hardware

Private Sector Sector Private house from RTLogic, Orbit)

Planetary 10 (6 by 2017) In-house In-house In-house In-house In-house (IR, Nanoracks Resources (Ceres) (optical) hyperspectral) (ISS)

Terra Bella 21 by end of Space Systems Loral (SSL) Space ECAPS (part Unknown Unknown KSAT and in- PSLV, 2017 Systems Loral of SSC) house Arianespace, (SSL) Orbital ATK

HawkEye 360 21 Utias SFL Utias SFL DSI GomSpace GomSpace TBD (e.g., KSAT SpaceX or internal) (Spaceflight)

RAVAN (APL) 1 Blue Canyon Technology BCT BCT BCT NASA/APL United (BCT) Launch Alliance MinXSS (LASP) 3 LASP BCT N/A LASP LASP ULA/Orbital ATK; ISS NASA CYGNSS 8 Orbital Draper Labs Unknown Surrey DDMI (Surrey) USN/SwRI Orbital ATK (NASA/SwRI) DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Satellite Pegasus55 Technology Private/Commercial Space

“Emerging” Private (Referred to as “True” Private Space Commercial Space) [e.g., Virgin Galactic, [e.g., Orbital Sciences, Bigelow (future) Boeing Corporation, Iridium, Intelsat, SpaceX, Bigelow Trimble (current)] Private Entities/ Market Take Risk Aerospace]

“Traditional” Space

Risk Taker [e.g., Orbital Sciences, [e.g., Roscomos, Boeing Corporation, Arianespace]

Takes Risk Lockheed Martin] Government Government

Government Government One of Only/Primary Many Customers Customer

Customer Base

Note: The porous boundaries imply the movement of firms within quadrants. 56 Approaches Used by Private and Public Investors

Type of Investor or Example Mechanism Overview of Investor (Investor, Company) Angel Investors Often high-wealth investors that invest early in a company’s life. Elon Musk, SpaceX; Space Angels, Accion Systems Venture Capital (VC) A dedicated group of investors that identify high-risk, high-return companies to Bessemer Venture Partners, Spire invest in; usually based off a managed fund Corporate Venture A subsect of VCs; may support relevant R&D efforts of interest to the company, Coca Cola and Bharti Enterprises, OneWeb Capital and Investors or to develop strategic partnerships Private Equity Investors Large investment houses that often invest in relatively established companies, Google and Fidelity, SpaceX either through equity or debt financing. PrivateSector Public Markets Companies raise money once they “go public” (IPO), allowing for a portion of the Public Market (Nasdaq First North Premier), company to be owned publically. GomSpace Internal Funds Funds secured through contracts, non-equity partnerships and other means. SpaceX, proposed broadband constellation

Grants (i.e., SBIRs in the Grants are awarded by government institutions to support both private and Air Force SBIR, Blue Canyon Technologies United States ) public (i.e., academia) endeavors Contracts and Public- Contracts are often awarded by governmental and academic actors to NGA, Planet Private Partnerships companies across all sectors. Internal Funds Internal funds (i.e., IR&D) are used within public agencies to support technology NASA IR&D funds, NASA Centers and mission development

PublicSector Indirect support (i.e., tax Governments support actors through in-direct investments including subsidized India (subsidized launch), Berlin Space incentives) launch options and tax incentives for manufacturing facilities Technologies (potentially opening manufacturing plant in India) 57 Smallsat Sector Incorporates Technology from Other Sectors Evolution from space-only to space-led and space-also

• (Unnamed) adapting parallax algorithms from automobile collision avoidance systems for RPO • Phase Four using high density electronics miniaturized by the cell phone industry • Other • inertial measurement units from video games • radio components from cellphones • processors meant for automobiles and medical devices • reaction wheels meant for dental tools Source: L. Summerer, Evaluating research for disruptive innovation in the space sector, • cameras intended for professional Acta Astronautica, Volume 81, Issue 2, 2012, 484 – 498 photography and the movies • open-source software available on the Internet

58 Government’s Comparative Advantage

Correct for Correct for • STMD’s comparative Market Failures Systemic Failures advantage is in areas not funded by other government agencies and other parts of NASA Non-appropriability Coordination within of investing in R&D and outside NASA

Non-appropriability Maintaining of investing in international “industrial competitiveness of commons” U.S. smallsat sector

Uncertainty of Driving disruptive outcome and time technology horizons innovation 59 PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 60 SSTP University Partnerships: Supports partnerships between universities and NASA centers to collaborate on smallsat technologies. Managed by Ames Research Center. Solicitations go Core SSTP out every 2 years. SSTP Flight Demonstration Projects: flight demonstration projects for new mission capabilities involving both competitive contracts and directed NASA efforts. Early Career Initiative: An initiative administered through STMD that is intended for early SSTP career NASA technologists to partner with external innovators. Projects are funded for up to Participation $1 million a year plus up to 4 FTE for 2 years.* in STMD Tipping Point Selections: Public-private partnerships for companies to mature technologies Initiatives past the “tipping point,” so that private industry will develop and qualify them for market. The goal is to stimulate the commercial space industry and also to deliver technologies and capabilities needed for future NASA missions. Administered through STMD.† Partnership with Flight Opportunities: Provides flight testing opportunities for promising new space technologies from industry, academia, and government. Two primary objectives: to mature technology payloads from TRL 4 to 6, and to foster growth in the commercial space industry. Part of STMD’s Commercial Partners Portfolio.‡ Partner STMD Small Business Innovation Research: A government-wide program run by the Small Business Technology Administration—every federal agency with an extramural R&D budget over $100,000,000 Development must participate.§ Each Phase I award is for up to 6 months and $150,000 to explore the Programs feasibility or merit of a new technology. Phase II awards are given to promising technologies to expand upon Phase I results, for up to $1 million over 2 years. Within NASA’s SBIR awards, there are many funding topics available (28 topics in 2016), and some of the awards have been for smallsat-relevant projects.#

*NASA, “NASA Partners with leading Technology Innovators to Enable Future Exploration,” Release 14-290, October 24, 2014. †NASA, “NASA Announces New Public-Private Partnerships to Advance ‘Tipping Point,’ Emerging Space Capabilities,” Release 15-225, November 19, 2015. ‡*NASA. “About Flight Opportunities.” 2017. §Small Business Administration. “Small Business innovation Research (SBIR) Program: Policy Directive.” February 24, 2014. #Small Business Administration. “NASA SBIR 2016 Program Solicitation.” November 12, 2015.

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 61 Actual and Requested SSTP Funding by Year, 2012–2021

$30

$26.8M $26.8M $26.8M $26.8M $26.8M

$25

$20.4M $20 $18.M $17.M $15.2M $15

$11.2M

$10

$5

$- FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18* FY 19* FY 20* FY 21* Request Source: Program Executive 62 SSTP Projects across STMD, 2013–2016

Total Funding for Number of 2013–2016 STMD Programs Awards % Funding (in Millions) Core SSTP Flight Demonstrations 7 $55.4 70% University Partnerships 29 $8.3 10% SSTP Participation in STMD Initiatives Tipping Point* 4 $3.8 5% Early Career Initiative (ECI) 2 $5.9 7% Partner STMD Technology Development Programs FO: Flight Opportunities 6 $1.2 2% SBIR: Phase I 12 $1.5 2% SBIR: Phase II 3 $3.4 4% Total Number of Awards 63 $79.4 100%

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 63 STMD Smallsat Investments by Technology Area and Associated Funding, 2013–2016 Number of Flight Funding for Number Total Funding Demonstration Flight Demo Projects in 2013–2016 Projects in Projects Technology Area Technology Area (in Millions) Technology Areas (in Millions) Mobility and Propulsion 20 $15.6 8 $10.0 Communications 16 $19.1 2 $15.0 Electrical Power Generation and 10 $4.7 Storage Attitude and Orbit Determination 8 $4.0 1 $0.5 and Control Payloads 5 $0.7 Systems and Constellations 5 $32.7 2 $29.5 Thermal control 2 $0.8 System Integration 2 $1.0 1 $0.5

Flight and Ground Systems Software 2 $0.4 Data Handling, Processing, and 2 $0.4 Autonomy Note: We identified 72 technologies in 63 projects and assigned them to one of 10 technology areas. Some projects were coded to have 2 technology areas. The funding was assigned to each project’s primary technology area with the exception of the Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator (PTD) Project. Funding for PTD was assigned 3/5 to Mobility and Propulsion, 1/5 to Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control and 1/5 to Communications. DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 64 Technology Readiness Level Ranges for STMD’s 63 Smallsat Projects

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 65 Technology Readiness Level for STMD’s Smallsat Projects

$60.0M 33 35

$50.0M 30

25 $40.0M 20 $30.0M 16 15 $20.0M Number of Projects Funding in Millions$ 10 6 $10.0M 4 2 2 5

$.0M 0 2 to 5 3 to 5 3 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 7 5 to 7 TRL Level

Funding Number of Projects

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 66 Starting and Ending TRLs for STMD Smallsat Projects

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 67 STMD Smallsat Project Breakdown by Sector

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 68 STMD Smallsat Funding Breakdown by Sector

Universities 5%

NASA Centers 35%

Industry 60%

Total = $79.4 Million, 2013–2016

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 69 Approximate Smallsat Funding to Centers, 2013–2016

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

Funding in Million USD Million in Funding 3

2

1

0 JPL Ames Marshall Glenn Langley Goddard Johnson Kennedy

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 70 Funding by Sector and Technology Area (millions of dollars)

Funding to Funding to NASA Funding to Technology Areas Industry Centers Universities Total Funding Systems and Constellations $25.3 $5.6 $1.7 $32.7 Communications $9.2 $9.2 $0.7 $19.1 Mobility and Propulsion $8.1 $7.3 $0.2 $15.6 Electrical Power Generation and Storage $2.3 $2.1 $0.3 $4.7 Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control $2.5 $1.2 $0.4 $4.0 System Integration — $0.8 $0.1 $1.0 Thermal control — $0.6 $0.2 $0.8 Payloads — $0.5 $0.2 $0.7 Data Handling, Processing, and Autonomy — $0.3 $0.1 $0.4 Flight and Ground Systems Software — $0.3 $0.1 $0.4 All Technology Areas $47.5 $27.8 $4.1 $79.4 Funding Percentage 60% 35% 5% 100%

DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 71