2002 commercial space transportation forecasts · commercial space launches worldwide will occur...

2002 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION FORECASTS

Federal Aviation Administration's Associate Administrator for Commercial

Space Transportation (AST)

and the

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC)

May 2002

The Federal Aviation Administration’sAssociate Administrator for CommercialSpace Transportation (FAA/AST) licensesand regulates U.S. commercial spacelaunch activity as authorized by ExecutiveOrder 12465, Commercial ExpendableLaunch Vehicle Activities, and theCommercial Space Launch Act of 1984, asamended. AST’s mission is to license andregulate commercial launch operations toensure public health and safety and thesafety of property, and to protect nationalsecurity and foreign policy interests of theUnited States during commercial launchoperations. The Commercial Space LaunchAct of 1984 and the 1996 National SpacePolicy also direct the Federal AviationAdministration to encourage, facilitate, andpromote commercial launches.

The Commercial Space TransportationAdvisory Committee (COMSTAC) pro-vides information, advice, and recommen-dations to the Administrator of the FederalAviation Administration within theDepartment of Transportation (DOT) onmatters relating to the U.S. commercial

space transportation industry. Establishedin 1985, COMSTAC is made up of seniorexecutives from the U.S. commercial spacetransportation and satellite industries,space-related state government officials,and other space professionals.

The primary goals of COMSTAC are to:

! Evaluate economic, technological andinstitutional issues relating to the U.S.commercial space transportation industry;

! Provide a forum for the discussion ofissues involving the relationship betweenindustry and government requirements;and

! Make recommendations to theAdministrator on issues and approachesfor Federal policies and programsregarding the industry.

Additional information concerning ASTand COMSTAC can be found on AST’sweb site, http://ast.faa.gov.

2002 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts

Federal Aviation Administration and the iCommercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC)

About the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation andthe Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee

Cover: Art by Phil Smith (2002)


ii FAA and COMSTAC

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Growth of Commercial Space Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2About the COMSTAC 2002 Commercial Geosynchronous Launch Demand Model . . . . . . . . .2About the FAA NGSO Commercial Space Transportation Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Combined Payload and Launch Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3COMSTAC 2002 Commercial Geosynchronous Orbit Launch Demand Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92002 Mission Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Satellite Launch Demand Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Satellite Launch Mass Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Commercial GSO Satellite Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Comparison with Previous COMSTAC Demand Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Launch Vehicle Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Factors That May Affect Future Launch Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Appendix A. Use of the COMSTAC GSO Launch Demand Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Demand Model Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21COMSTAC Demand Projection vs. Actual Launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Factors That Affect Launch Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212001 Space Industry Performance on Launch Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Projecting Actual Launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Appendix B. Supplemental Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Appendix C. Letter from the Associate Administrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

2002 Commercial Space Transportation Forecast for Non-Geosynchronous Orbits . . . . . . . .29Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Market Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31NGSO Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

“Little LEO” Telecommunications Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Licensing Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34Market Demand Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

“Big LEO” and MSS Voice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Licensing Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Market Demand Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

“Broadband LEO” Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Licensing Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Market Demand Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Remote Sensing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Remote Sensing Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Market Demand Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

International Science and Other Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Digital Audio Radio Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Market Demand Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Future Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Vehicle Sizes and Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Payload and Launch Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Baseline Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Robust Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Historical NGSO Market Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50


FAA and COMSTAC iii

List of FiguresFigure 1: GSO Satellite and Launch Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Figure 2: NGSO Satellite and Launch Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Figure 3: Combined GSO and NGSO Launch Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Figure 4: Historical Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Figure 5: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Launch Demand Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Figure 6: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Satellite Demand Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Figure 7: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Satellite Demand Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Figure 8: Forecast Trends in Annual GSO Satellite Mass Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Figure 9: 2000 and 2001 versus 2002 COMSTAC Mission Model Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . .17Figure 10: 2000 and 2001 versus 2002 COMSTAC Mission Model Comparison . . . . . . . . . . .18Figure 11: Baseline Market Scenario Payload Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Figure 12: Baseline Market Scenario Launch Demand Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Figure 13: Robust Market Scenario Payload Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Figure 14: Robust Market Scenario Launch Demand Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Figure 15: Comparison of Past Baseline Launch Demand Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

List of TablesTable 1: Commercial Space Transportation Payload and Launch Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Table 2: Commercial GSO Launch Demand Forecast Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Table 3: Satellite Mass Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Table 4: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Satellite Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Table 5: Commercial GSO Near-Term Mission Model (as of April 24, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Table 6: Forecast Trends in Satellite Mass Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Table 7: 2000 and 2001 versus 2002 COMSTAC Mission Model Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Table 8: Commercially-Competed Launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Table 9: Commercial Services Debuted in NGSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Table 10: Little LEO Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Table 11: Big LEO Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Table 12: Broadband LEO Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Table 13: Commercial Satellite Remote Sensing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Table 14: Commercial Satellite Remote Sensing Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Table 15: Baseline Market Scenario Payload and Launch Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Table 16: Robust Market Scenario Payload and Launch Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Table 17: Historical Commercial NGSO Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Table 18: Historical NGSO Payload and Launch Activities (1993-2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51


iv FAA and COMSTAC


FAA and COMSTAC 1

The Federal Aviation Administration’sAssociate Administrator for CommercialSpace Transportation (FAA/AST) and theCommercial Space Transportation AdvisoryCommittee (COMSTAC) have preparedforecasts of global demand for commercialspace launch services for the period 2002to 2011.

The 2002 Commercial Space TransportationForecasts report includes:

! The COMSTAC 2002 CommercialGeosynchronous Orbit Launch DemandModel, which projects demand for com-mercial satellites that operate in geosyn-chronous orbit (GSO) and the resultinglaunch demand to geosynchronous trans-fer orbit (GTO); and

! The FAA’s 2002 Commercial SpaceTransportation Forecast for Non-Geosynchronous Orbits, which projectscommercial launch demand for satellitesin non-geosynchronous orbits (NGSO),such as low Earth orbit (LEO), mediumEarth orbit (MEO), and elliptical orbits(ELI).

Together, the COMSTAC and FAA fore-casts project that an average of nearly 27commercial space launches worldwide will

occur annually from 2002 to 2011. Thecombined forecasts are down 16.5 percentfrom those of last year, which projected anaverage of 32 launches per year from 2001-2010. The decrease is a result of a lack offinancing for satellite systems in some sec-tors, industry consolidations, global eco-nomic conditions and, in the NGSO market,a weakened position for telecommunica-tions systems.

Specifically, GSO launch demand is downabout 15 percent compared to last year’sforecast and the launch demand for NGSOis down about 21 percent. COMSTAC andFAA project an average annual demand for:

! 20.5 launches of medium-to-heavylaunch vehicles to GSO;

! 2.5 launches of medium-to-heavy launchvehicles to NGSO; and

! 4 launches of small vehicles to NGSO.

In general, commercial launch demand iscalculated by determining the number of pri-mary payloads that are open to international-ly-competed launch services procurement.

Executive Summary

Each year, the Federal AviationAdministration’s Associate Administratorfor Commercial Space Transportation(FAA/AST) and the Commercial SpaceTransportation Advisory Committee (COM-STAC) prepare forecasts of global demandfor commercial space launch services. Thejointly-published 2002 Commercial SpaceTransportation Forecasts report covers theperiod from 2002 to 2011 and includes:

! The COMSTAC 2002 CommercialGeosynchronous Orbit Launch DemandModel, which projects demand for com-mercial satellites that operate in geosyn-chronous orbit (GSO) and the resultinglaunch demand to geosynchronous trans-fer orbit (GTO); and

! The FAA’s 2002 Commercial SpaceTransportation Forecast for Non-Geosynchronous Orbits, which projectscommercial launch demand for all spacesystems in non-geosynchronous orbits(NGSO), such as low Earth orbit (LEO),medium Earth orbit (MEO), and ellipticalorbit (ELI).

Growth of Commercial SpaceTransportation

Prior to the 1980s, the launching of payloadsto Earth orbit was carried out as a govern-ment-run operation. Since then, commerciallaunch activity has steadily increased. During1997-2001, commercial launches accountedfor an average of about 42 percent of world-wide launches.

The commercial launch market is directlyimpacted by positive or negative activity inthe satellite market ranging from globalfinance and customer demand to manufac-turing timelines and industry consolidations.

About the COMSTAC 2002Commercial GeosynchronousLaunch Demand Model

At the request of the FAA, COMSTACannually compiles a model that forecastsworldwide demand for commercial launchesof spacecraft that operate in geosynchronousorbit. First compiled in 1993, the model isupdated annually and is prepared usingplans and projections supplied by U.S. andinternational commercial satellite and launchcompanies. Projected payload and launchdemand is limited to those spacecraft andlaunches that are open to internationally-competed launch services procurements.Since 1998, the model has also included aprojection of launch vehicle demand, whichis derived from the payload demand andtakes into account dual manifesting of satel-lites on some launch vehicles.

About the FAA NGSO CommercialSpace Transportation Forecast

Since 1994, the FAA has compiled anassessment of demand for commerciallaunch services to non-geosynchronousorbits, i.e., those orbits not covered by theCOMSTAC GSO forecast. The NGSO fore-cast is based on a worldwide satelliteassessment of telecommunications, remotesensing, science and other spacecraft usingcommercial launch services.

The forecast develops two scenarios fordeployment of NGSO satellite systems: a“baseline” scenario (considered the mostlikely to occur) and a “robust” scenario (con-sidered likely to occur if demand for NGSOsatellite services is sufficiently greater thanexpected).


2 FAA and COMSTAC

Introduction


FAA and COMSTAC 3

This year’s COMSTAC GSO and FAA NGSOcombined forecasts show a 23 percent reduc-tion in the total number of payloads that willgenerate worldwide commercial launchdemand during the period from 2002-2011 incomparison to last year’s ten-year forecast.Launch demand is down 16.5 percent com-pared to last year’s forecast. Payload andlaunch demand are based on the COMSTACGSO mission model and the baseline sce-nario of the FAA NGSO forecast

The combined GSO and NGSO forecastsproject that 352 payloads will be deployedbetween 2002 and 2011, as shown inFigures 1, 2, and 3. The projected payloaddemand for GSO is significantly greaterthan NGSO for the second year in a row.There are 273 GSO payloads in the ten-yearforecast, compared with 79 in NGSO. TheGSO forecast averages 27.3 payloads peryear with a low of 24 and a high of 32.With the exception of 2004 and 2005,deployment of NGSO payloads is relativelyconstant and overall averages about eightper year. For the first time since the FAAbegan forecasting, the majority of the satel-lites in NGSO are expected to be comprisedof science and remote sensing satellites, not

telecommunications satellites. The NGSOpayload forecast is down 48 percent com-pared to last year’s forecast.

After taking into account the dual manifest-ing of GSO payloads and the multiple man-ifesting of NGSO payloads, the forecaststogether project 268 commercial launcheswill be conducted through 2011, as shownin Table 1 and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. Theforecasted launch demand is an average ofnearly 27 launches per year, consisting of:

! 20.5 launches of medium-to-heavylaunch vehicles to GSO;

! 2.5 launches of medium-to-heavy launchvehicles to NGSO orbits; and

! 4 launches of small vehicles to NGSO.

GSO launch demand is down about 15 per-cent compared to last year’s forecast of anaverage of 24 launches. NGSO launchdemand is down about 21 percent comparedto the 2001 forecast that had an average ofeight launches per year. Figure 4 shows his-torical forecasts from 1998 to 2002.

Combined Payload and Launch Forecasts

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Average

GSO Forecast (COMSTAC) 32 24 24 24 25 26 29 30 29 30 273 27.3NGSO Forecast (FAA) 10 6 22 12 5 7 4 4 5 4 79 7.9Total Payloads 42 30 46 36 30 33 33 34 34 34 352 35.2

GSO Medium-to-Heavy 27 19 18 18 18 19 21 22 21 22 205 20.5NGSO Medium-to-Heavy 1 1 11 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 24 2.4NGSO Small 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 3 39 3.9Total Launches 32 24 33 30 23 23 25 26 26 26 268 26.8

Payloads

Launch Demand

Table 1: Commercial Space Transportation Payload and Launch Forecasts


4 FAA and COMSTAC

Figure 1: GSO Satellite and Launch Demand

Figure 2: NGSO Satellite and Launch Demand

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Num

ber

per

Year

Historical Forecast

GSO Satellites Actual

GSO Launch ForecastGSO Launch Actual

GSO Satellite Forecast

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Num

ber p

er Y

ear

NGSO Satellites Actual

NGSO Medium-to-Heavy Launches

Actual

NGSO Small Launches Actual

Historical Forecast

NGSO Medium-to-Heavy Launch Forecast

NGSO Small Launch Forecast

NGSO Satellite Forecast

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Laun

ches

Historical Forecast

2002 NGSO Launch Forecast

2002 GSO Launch ForecastGSO Launch Actual

NGSO Launch Actual


FAA and COMSTAC 5

Figure 3: Combined GSO and NGSO Launch Forecasts

0

25

50

75

100

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Laun

ches

1998 Forecast

Historical Forecast

1999 Forecast

2000 Forecast

2001 Forecast

GSO + NGSO Launch Actual 2002 GSO + NGSO Launch Forecast

Figure 4: Historical Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts


6 FAA and COMSTAC

2002 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts: GSO Forecast

FAA and COMSTAC 7

Executive Summary

This report was compiled by theCommercial Space Transportation AdvisoryCommittee (COMSTAC) for the Office ofthe Associate Administrator for CommercialSpace Transportation of the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA/AST). The COMSTAC2002 Commercial Geosynchronous OrbitLaunch Demand Model is the tenth annualforecast of the worldwide demand for com-mercial geosynchronous (GSO) launches asseen by the U.S. commercial space industry.It is intended to assist the AST in its effortsto foster a healthy commercial space launchcapability in the United States.

The commercial mission model is updatedannually, and is prepared from the inputs of commercial companies across the satel-lite and launch industries. In this reportCOMSTAC produces a satellite and launchdemand forecast. Two content changeshave been introduced this year, viz., (1)new mass class categories are introduced inorder to better align with actual satellitemodels being offered, and (2) an interpreta-tion of the historical difference betweendemand forecasts and the actual number ofsatellites launched is applied to this year’sforecast. The latter change is expected toprovide a more useful report in that theimpacts of such unforeseeable events aslaunch failures, launch delays and satellitedelays are taken into consideration.

The satellite demand is derived by fore-casting the number of satellites to be placedin GSO that are open to internationally-competed launch service procurements. Todetermine the number of possible launchesin a year, the satellite demand is adjusted bythe number of satellites forecasted to belaunched in a dual-launch configuration.

2001 yielded the lowest number of commer-cial GSO satellites launched since 1993; just

14 satellites were launched, down from 24 in2000, a decrease of 42 percent. The 2001commercial model forecasts a launchdemand of 24 satellites in 2001. Nearly allof the 10 satellites that were included in theforecasted demand for 2001 that did notlaunch in 2001 are expected to launch in2002 and are included in this year’s near-term forecast.

The near-term forecast, which is based onexisting and anticipated satellite programsfor 2002 through 2004, shows demand for32 satellites to be launched in 2002, 24 in2003, and 24 in 2004.

The average annual COMSTAC demandforecasts published in the 2000 and 2001reports were 30.6 and 30.5 satellites peryear, respectively, over the forecast period.This year’s mission model predicts an aver-age demand of 27.3 satellites to belaunched per year over the period from2002 through 2011, a decrease of approxi-mately 11 percent from the demand fore-cast of 30.5 satellites per year forecast inthe 2001 report. Several factors are impact-ing the demand for commercial GSO satel-lites, including economic conditions, avail-ability of financing for satellite projects,and industry consolidation. The influenceof these factors is addressed in more detailin this report.

It is important to distinguish between fore-casted demand and the actual number ofsatellites expected to be launched (seeAppendix A. Use of the COMSTAC GSOLaunch Demand Model). Satellite projects,like many high-technology projects, aresubject to schedule slips, which tend tomake the forecasted demand an upper limitof the number of satellites that might actu-ally be launched. Over the nine years thatthis report has been published, forecasteddemand for the first year of the forecast hasconsistently exceeded the actual number of

COMSTAC 2002 Commercial Geosynchronous Orbit Launch Demand Model

satellites launched in that year. Using thishistorical variance as an indicator suggeststhat the 2002 demand of 32 satellites willbe discounted to an actual number of satel-lites launched of somewhere between 22and 27. The variance between that forecast-ed demand in the first year of the forecastvs. the actual number of satellites launchedwill be discussed in more detail.

Figure 5 shows the graphical representationof the COMSTAC Demand Forecast interms of number of satellites and launchesdemanded. The near-term launch demandforecast equates to 27 launches for 2002,19 launches for 2003, and 18 launches for2004. As in the last two forecasts, the near-term demand has declined in this year’sforecast. Table 2 shows the projected num-ber of dual payloads to be launched.


8 FAA and COMSTAC

Table 2: Commercial GSO Launch Demand Forecast Data

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Average Satellite Demand 32 24 24 24 25 26 29 30 29 30 273 27.3 Dual Launch Forecast 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 68 6.8 Launch Demand Forecast 27 19 18 18 18 19 21 22 21 22 205 20.5

Figure 5: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Launch Demand Forecast

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Num

ber

of S

atel

lites

/Lau

nche

s

2002 Satellite Demand Forecast

2002 Launch Demand Forecast

Introduction

The Federal Aviation Administration’sOffice of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation(FAA/AST) of the U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) endeavors to foster ahealthy commercial space launch capabilityin the United States. The DOT feels that itis important to obtain the commercial spaceindustry’s view of future space launchrequirements and has therefore requestedthat its industry advisory group, theCommercial Space Transportation AdvisoryCommittee (COMSTAC), prepare a com-mercial satellite launch demand missionmodel and update it annually.

This report presents the 2002 update of theworldwide commercial geosynchronousorbit (GSO) satellite mission model for theperiod 2002 through 2011. It is based onmarket forecasts obtained in early 2002from major satellite manufacturers, satelliteservice providers, and launch serviceproviders.

It should be emphasized that this is not aforecast of actual launches for any givenyear. It is a forecast of the demand forlaunches, i.e., the number of launchesneeded to fulfill the projected delivery ofsatellite orders in a given year. The numberof actual launches for that year will thendepend on other factors such as satellitedelivery, launch failures, etc. A more thor-ough explanation of this difference and thefactors that potentially affect the realizationof actual launches for a given year isincluded in Appendix A of this report.

Background

COMSTAC prepared the first commercialmission model in April 1993 as part of areport on commercial space launch systemsrequirements. Each year since 1993, COM-STAC has issued an updated model. Theprocess has been continuously refined andindustry participation has broadened to pro-

vide the most realistic portrayal of spacelaunch demand possible. Over the years,the COMSTAC mission model has beenwell received by industry, governmentagencies and international organizations.

The first report in 1993 was developed bythe major launch service providers in theU.S. and covered the period 1992-2010. Inthe next few years, the major U.S. satellitemanufacturers and the satellite serviceproviders began to contribute to the marketdemand database. In 1995, the Technologyand Innovation Working Group (the WorkingGroup) was formally chartered to prepare theannual Commercial Payload Mission ModelUpdate. Since then, the participation in thepreparation of this report has grown. Thisyear the committee received 27 inputs fromU.S. and non-U.S. satellite service providers,manufacturers, and launch vehicle providers.COMSTAC would like to thank all of theparticipants in the 2002 mission model update.

Methodology

With the exception of minor adjustments,the Working Group’s launch demand fore-cast methodology has remained consistent.As in previous years, the Working Groupsolicited input from industry via a letterfrom the Associate Administrator forCommercial Space Transportation. This let-ter is shown in Appendix C. The letterrequested that each company provide aforecast of the number of addressable com-mercial GSO payloads per year for theperiod 2002 - 2011.

Launch vehicle payloads in this context aresatellites that are open for internationally-competitive launch service procurement.These satellites are considered the“addressable” market. Not included in thisforecast are those satellites that are captiveto national flag launch service providers(i.e., USAF or NASA satellites, or similarEuropean, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, orIndian government satellites that are cap-tive to their own launch providers).


FAA and COMSTAC 9

Note that the number of projected vehiclelaunches per year is less than the satellitelaunch demand forecast due to the potentialfor multiple manifesting of satellites onlaunch vehicles. The remainder of the com-mercial market, non-geosynchronous orbit(NGSO) launches, is addressed in a sepa-rate forecast developed by FAA/AST.

Respondents were asked to segregate theirforecast into satellite mass classes based onthe spacecraft’s separated mass that is to beinserted into a nominal geosynchronoustransfer orbit (GTO). For 2002, theWorking Group decided to update the massclass categories used in the launch demandforecast to better reflect the current productmix in the industry. In previous years, themass class categories used were representa-tive of clusters of launch vehicles of simi-lar capability. The categories, however, didnot always accurately reflect the satellitemodels that would be competed by differ-ent manufacturers for a particular procure-ment. The goal of the Working Group inupdating the mass categories was to createlogical categories based on the satellitemodels offered by manufacturers.

To establish the new mass class categories,the Working Group performed an analysisof the masses of satellites launched in thelast five years and those satellites currentlyunder contract. The analysis showed thatthe spacecraft bus models produced by dif-ferent manufacturers could be grouped intoconsistent mass categories. The revised

mass categories are similar to the categoriesused in previous years, but now more accu-rately reflect the spacecraft models beingsold in the market, as shown in Table 3.

The following organizations respondedwith data used to develop this report:

! Asiasat! Astrium! Binariang! The Boeing Company*! Broadcasting Satellite System Corp.! China Great Wall Industries, Inc.! Destiny Cable Inc.! Eurasiasat! Hispasat! INMARSAT! Kelly Space & Technology, Inc.! Kistler Aerospace Corp.*! Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corp.*! Loral Skynet! Loral Space & Communications*! Miraxis! Mobile Satellite Ventures! NEC Toshiba Space Systems, Ltd.! PanAmSat! Rocket Systems Corporation! Shin Satellite Plc.! SingTel Optus! Space Communications Corporation! StarOne! Telenor! Telesat Canada! Thuraya Telecommunications


10 FAA and COMSTAC

Table 3: Satellite Mass Classes

GTO Launch Requirement Satellite Bus ModelsBelow 2,200 kg (<4,850 lbm) LM A2100A, Boeing 376, Orbital Star 2,

Astrium ES2000, Alcatel SB 20002,200 - 4,200 kg (4,850 - 9,260 lbm) LM A2100, Boeing 601/601HP, Loral

1300, Astrium ES2000+, Alcatel SB 3000A/B/B2

4,200 - 5,400 kg (9,260 - 11,905 lbm) LM A2100AX, Boeing 601HP/702, Loral 1300, Alcatel SB 3000B3

Above 5,400 kg (>11,905 lbm) LM A2100AXX, Boeing 702/GEM, Loral 1300, Astrium ES 3000, Alcatel SB 4000

Comprehensive mission model forecastsfrom the organizations marked by an aster-isk (*) were used in determining thedemand forecast. The comprehensiveinputs were of the total addressable marketof customers seeking commercial launchservices for GSO spacecraft from the years2002 to 2011. Other responses providedpartial market or company-specific satellitelaunch demand information.

The near-term COMSTAC mission model(2002-2004) is a compilation of the cur-rently-manifested launches and an assess-ment of potential satellite programs to beassigned to launch vehicles. This forecastreflects a consensus developed by theWorking Group based on the current mani-fests of the launch vehicle providers andthe satellite manufacturers. Since the near-term demand represents visibility at thetime of publication of this report, it doesnot account for delays resulting from unan-ticipated launch failures, nor delays in thelaunch vehicle or satellite supply chain.Minor delays at the end of a year due tolaunch vehicle problems or satellite manu-facturing issues can also push launches intothe following year. These factors will causedifferences between the demand forlaunches and the actual launches for that

year. This pattern of firm schedule commit-ments, followed by delays, has been con-sistent over the history of the industry.

Over the history of this report the forecast-ed demand, in terms of both satellites andlaunches, has exceeded the actual numberof satellites and launches for the first yearof the forecast. This variance is shown inthe historical portion of Figure 6. Over thenine years that this report has been pub-lished the variance between forecasteddemand in the first year of the forecast andthe actual number of satellites launched inthat year has averaged 23 percent. In 1997this variance was only 12 percent, while in1999 and 2001 the variance was 42 per-cent. Over the first five years the varianceaveraged 16 percent, while during the lastfour years this variance averaged 32 per-cent. If this range of variance were appliedto this year’s demand forecast of 32 satel-lites, the probable number of satellites thatwill actually be launched in 2002 would besomewhere between 22 and 27 (as illustrat-ed in Figure 6). It is important to note thatthis historical variance applies only to thefirst year of the forecast and should not beapplied to the entire forecast.


FAA and COMSTAC 11

Figure 6: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Satellite Demand Forecast

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Num

ber

of

Sate

llite

s

Historical S atellite Dem and Forecast

2002 S atellite Dem and Forecast

Actual S atellites Launched

Historical Projected

Probable Realization for Current Year

The Working Group used the comprehen-sive inputs from the U.S. respondents toderive the average launch rate for years2005 through 2011. The comprehensiveinputs for each mass category in a givenyear are averaged. The total forecast forthat year is then calculated by adding theaverages for each of the four mass cate-gories. The highest and lowest inputs(shown by the bars in years 2005 through2011 in Figure 6) represent the single high-est or lowest estimated number of satellitesto be launched in that year from these com-prehensive inputs. This data is also includ-ed in Table 4.

Some of the factors that were consideredby respondents in creating this forecastinclude:

! Firm contracted missions! Current satellite operator planned and

replenishment missions! Projected operator growth ! An estimate of “unidentified growth”! Attrition from launch or in-orbit satellite

failures! Availability of financing for commercial

space projects! Industry consolidation! Competition from terrestrial systems! Regulatory environment

“Unidentified growth” is used to includeinformation that may be proprietary orcompetition-sensitive, such as company-specific plans on future systems and trends,and assumptions on possible new markets.Other factors may have influenced eachindividual company’s specific inputs.

There is a certain amount of difficulty anduncertainty involved in forecasting thecommercial launch market. The satelliteproduction cycle of an existing design is onthe order of two years. Orders within atwo-year window are generally known.Satellites in the third year and beyondbecome more difficult to identify by name,as many of these satellites may be in vari-ous stages of the procurement cycle.Beyond a five-year horizon, new marketsor new uses of satellite technology mayemerge. As seen in the past, entirely newsystems can spring up in less than threeyears from both new and existing compa-nies. The long-term growth shown in thisforecast, therefore, is based on both thereplenishment of existing satellites andassessments of potential new markets andsatellite concepts.


12 FAA and COMSTAC

2002 Mission Model

The 2002 COMSTAC mission model con-sists of three elements. The first element isa forecast of demand for competed launch-es of commercial satellites to GSO from2002 to 2011. The second element is anestimate of the mass distribution of thesesatellites. The third element is a launchvehicle demand projection derived from thesatellite launch demand forecast.

Satellite Launch Demand ModelFigure 7 shows the Working Group’sdemand forecast for commercial satellitelaunches to GSO for the years 2002 through2011. Also plotted in Figure 7 is the actualnumber of satellites launched each yearfrom 1993 to 2001, for reference. The rangeof individual estimates from the variouscomprehensive inputs is shown in Table 4.This information is presented to give asense of the variations in the forecasts forany given year. COMSTAC does not pres-ent “high” or “low” cases for the demand

forecast. The high and low inputs are sim-ply the highest and lowest of all individualestimates provided for any one year.

It is not the intent of the Working Group toproject the actual number of satellites to belaunched. In this report, COMSTAC strivesto provide the user with the best knowledgepossible of the number of satellites thatcould be launched.

The near-term forecast shows 32 satellitesto be launched in 2002, 24 in 2003, and 24in 2004. This year’s mission model predictsan average demand of 27.3 satellites to belaunched per year over the period from2002 through 2011. The COMSTAC aver-age annual demand forecasts of the 2000and 2001 reports were 30.6 and 30.5 satel-lites per year, respectively. This year’s aver-age forecast of 27.3 satellites per year isapproximately 11 percent lower than theaverage forecast of 30.5 satellites per yearin the 2001 report. Several factors areimpacting the demand for commercial GSO


FAA and COMSTAC 13

Figure 7: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Satellite Demand Forecast

Table 4: COMSTAC Commercial GSO Satellite Forecast

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Num

ber

of S

atel

lites

/Lau

nche

s

S atellites

Launches

Actual Forecast

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Average High 30 30 28 30 30 30 30 2002 Satellite Demand 32 24 24 24 25 26 29 30 29 30 273 27.3 Low 20 22 24 25 27 25 27

satellites, including economic conditions,availability of financing for satellite proj-ects, and industry consolidation. The influ-ence of these factors is addressed in moredetail on page 17. Note that the averageannual demand for the 2000, 2001, and2002 reports cover different spans of time.The 2000 report average annual demand isthe average demand from 2000 to 2010, the2001 report from 2001 to 2010, and the2002 report from 2002 to 2011.

Table 5 shows the consensus near-term mis-sion model for 2002 through 2004, which isa compilation of the currently-manifestedlaunches and an assessment of satellites tobe assigned to launch vehicles. This fore-cast reflects a consensus developed by theWorking Group based on the current mani-fests of the launch vehicle providers and thesatellite service providers.


14 FAA and COMSTAC

2002 2003 2004 Total 32 24 24

3 3 4 Below 2,200 kg (<4,850 lbm) Astra 3A - Ariane

e-Bird 1 - Ariane N-Star C - Ariane

AMOS 2 - Ariane BSat-2C - Ariane Galaxy 12 - Ariane

AMC-10 - TBD AMC-11 - TBD Galaxy 5R - Ariane Telkom 2 - TBD

12 5 9 2,200 – 4,200 kg (4,850-9,260 lbm) Asiasat 4 - Atlas

Atlantic Bird 1 - TBD DirecTV 5 - Proton Echostar 7 - Atlas Eutelsat W5 - Delta Hispasat 1D - Atlas Hot Bird 6 - Atlas Hot Bird 7 - Ariane Insat 3C - Ariane JCSAT 8 - Ariane Nimiq 2 - Atlas Stellat - Ariane

Agrani 2 - Ariane Insat 3A - Ariane MBSat - TBD Superbird 6 - Atlas XTAR EUR - TBD

Arabsat - TBD Hot Bird 8 - TBD Insat 3D - TBD Insat 3E - Ariane Spainsat - TBD ST-2 - TBD StarOne C1 - TBD Attrition - TBD Attrition - TBD

17 5 8 4,200 – 5,400 kg (9,260 – 11,905lbm) AMC-9 - Proton

Astra 1K - Proton Chinasat 8 - Long March EchoStar 8 - Proton EchoStar 9 - TBD Estrela do Sul - Delta Galaxy IIIC - Sea Launch Galaxy 8iR - Sea Launch Galaxy XIII - Sea Launch INTELSAT 903 - Proton INTELSAT 904 - Ariane INTELSAT 905 - Ariane INTELSAT 906 - Ariane INTELSAT 907 - Ariane NSS 6 - Ariane NSS 7 - Ariane Optus C1 - Ariane

AMC-12 - Proton AMC-13 - Atlas Cablevision - Atlas Eutelsat W3A - TBD Thuraya 2 - Sea Launch

Amazonas - TBD AMC-15 - TBD AMC-23 - TBD Eurasiasat 2 - TBD Measat 3 - TBD Telstar 130 - TBD XM-3 - TBD Attrition - TBD

0 11 3 Over 5,400 kg (>11,905 lbm)

Anik F2 - Ariane DirecTV 7S - Ariane Inmarsat 4 - Atlas Inmarsat 4 - Ariane Intelsat 10 - Sea Launch Intelsat 10 - Proton NSS 8 - Sea Launch SatMex 6 - Ariane Spaceway 1 - Sea Launch Spaceway 2 - Sea Launch Telstar 8 - Sea Launch

iPSTAR - Ariane Miraxis - TBD Nahuel 2 - TBD

Table 5: Commercial GSO Near-Term Mission Model (as of April 24, 2002)


FAA and COMSTAC 15

Satellite Launch Mass ClassFigure 8 and Table 6 show the forecasteddistribution of the satellite demand by mass.The satellites are forecasted in four massclasses: below 2,200 kilograms (<4,850pounds); 2,200 to 4,200 kilograms (4,850 to9,260 pounds); 4,200 to 5,400 kilograms(9,260 to 11,905 pounds); and above 5,400kilograms (>11,905 pounds). As describedearlier, these mass classes are representativeof the requirements of various satellite mod-els. More specifically, the definition refers tothe separated mass of a satellite to a nominalgeosynchronous transfer orbit. In the near-term forecast, the Working Group tried toplace each satellite in the appropriate classbased on what was known of its mass. Theremainder of the forecast derives from the

estimates provided by each of the respon-dents of the potential breakdown among theclasses for that year. This means the forecastfor each mass class is an average of thedomestic comprehensive inputs for thatmass class for each year beyond the near-term forecast. The prediction of future satel-lite sizes was calibrated by inputs receivedfrom satellite service providers.

Commercial GSO Satellite TrendsIn the early years of publication of thismission model report, commercial satelliteswere not projected to grow much beyondthe 2,200 – 4,200 kg (4,850 to 9,260 lbm)mass class. Over the past five years, how-ever, the mass range of commercial satel-lites has exhibited a profound shift from

Figure 8: Forecast Trends in Annual GSO Satellite Mass Distribution

2,200 to 4,200kg

Over 5,400kg

Below 2,200kg

4,200 to 5,400kg

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Launch Years

Num

ber

of S

atel

lites

Table 6: Forecast Trends in Satellite Mass Distribution

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Average 2002 to

2011 Percent of Total

Below 2,200 kg (<4,850 lbm) 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 5 47 4.7 17%

2,200 to 4,200 kg (4,850 – 9,260 lbm) 12 5 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 75 7.5 27%

4,200 to 5,400 kg (9,260 – 11,905 lbm) 17 5 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 95 9.5 35%

Above 5,400 kg (>11,905 lbm) 0 11 3 5 5 5 7 7 6 7 56 5.6 21%

Total Satellite Forecast 32 24 24 24 25 26 29 30 29 30 273 27.3 100%

this original projection. Very heavy com-mercial satellites, over 5,400 kg (>11,905lbm), have been developed and orderedover the last few years to address somespecific market segments. Satellitesdesigned to provide broadband data com-munication services (such as Spaceway)and mobile communications services (suchas Inmarsat 4) require high levels of powerand sophisticated on-board processing cir-cuitry. These requirements have drivendesigns of these satellites to approach andexceed 5,400 kg (11,905 lbm). Otherheavy-class commercial satellites havebeen developed to serve traditional broad-cast applications with broader scope andgreater efficiency. Many of the next gener-ation of satellites will exceed 4,200 kg(9,260 lbm), such as PanAmSat’s GalaxyIIIC, and even 5,400 kg (11,905 lbm), suchas Telesat’s Anik F2.

This growth has occurred for a few keyreasons. Many global and regional satelliteservice providers are attempting to maxi-mize their capacity and geographic cover-age at prime orbital locations. Many serv-ice providers now provide regional cover-age instead of specific area. Also introduc-ing upward pressure on the mass of tradi-tional satellites is the demand for greateron-orbit lifetime, which generally requiresgreater amounts of station-keeping fuel,which in turn drives up the satellite mass.These types of large satellites typicallyoffer a lower cost per transponder, makingthem more attractive to the serviceprovider’s bottom line.

Enabling such designs to be launched is thenext generation of commercial launch vehi-cles. The Atlas V and Delta IV vehiclefamilies feature GTO lift capability exceed-ing 8,000 kg (>17,635 lbm). The improve-ments in launch vehicle capability haveaided the introduction of these large satel-lites into the market.

Nevertheless, in the last year we have seenat least two stabilizing trends that have mit-igated what appeared to be the swift domi-nance of the >5,400 kg (11,905 lbm) satel-lites. The satellite manufacturers have seena decrease in satellite reliability. This inturn is causing significant changes in theinsurance industry and a more risk-averseattitude. A year ago, the industry saw rapidinfusion of technology to gain more poweror add more transponders. Today, the man-ufacturers are slow-rolling the introductionof their new technology to insure that itwill be reliable once on orbit. The slowerinfusion of new technology could mean aslower growth curve for the mass of satel-lites. Poor financial markets have led to thesecond trend: service providers are pushingout their broadband plans waiting for themarket demand to prove itself. In poorfinancial markets, it is more difficult to getfunding for large satellites and serviceproviders are more concerned with theirbusiness case and meeting market needs.This is reducing the number of large satel-lites being ordered, but many serviceproviders are still buying satellites in the2,200 – 4,200 kg (4,850 to 9,260 lbm)mass class because they are cheaper tobuild and launch and can adapt more easilyto changing market conditions. Evidence ofthese trends is the Boeing Company’s workon a scaled down 702 that will providemore power than the 601HP, but be smallerthan the current 702.

Following last year’s trend, there is stilldemand for the stable niche of small satel-lites in the below 2,200 kg (<4,850 lbm)mass class. These small satellites are attrac-tive to existing and emerging serviceproviders because they often require asmaller up-front investment, and can bebuilt and launched far more quickly thanlarger satellites.


16 FAA and COMSTAC

Comparison with Previous COMSTACDemand ForecastsThe forecasts of the prior two years arecompared to this year’s forecast in Figure 9.They are all characterized by a near-termrise, intermediate-term decline and long-term moderate growth. The near-term riseand fall is, perhaps, inherent in the near-term forecast methodology, which focuseson identifiable programs. The consequenceof this approach, when considering thatprogressively higher attrition in the secondand third years (i.e., 2003 and 2004) is yetto be realized, creates the near-term rise, or“bow wave”.

The average satellite demand over the fore-cast period 2002 to 2011 is approximately11 percent lower than last year’s average.This year’s model has an average demandof 27.3 GSO satellites per year for the peri-od 2002 to 2011, with a modest increase inthe last four years. The average demand inthe 2001 mission model was approximately31 satellites per year between 2001 and2010, with demand being relatively flatafter 2003. With the exception of the fore-cast for 2002, each year in this year’s fore-cast is lower than last year’s forecast. Thisyear’s forecast does not return to previous-ly forecasted levels until 2008.

There are several factors that are affectingthe projected demand for satellites. Thesefactors include global and regional eco-nomic conditions, availability of financing,and industry consolidation. This year theWorking Group included a supplementalquestionnaire asking satellite serviceproviders how certain factors are impactingtheir plans to purchase and launch satel-lites. The results of this questionnaire areshown in Appendix B of this report.

One significant factor in the decrease in thedemand forecast is the continuing deteriora-tion of expectations in the broadband mar-ketplace. Previous forecasts have includednear-term and mid-term demand based onthe expected deployment of several newbroadband satellite systems. During 2001,projects such as Astrolink (4 satellites) andWildblue (2 satellites) were suspended, andseveral other companies that had beenexpected to procure broadband satellitessignaled their intention to defer such pro-grams. These developments are in part fos-tered by satellite service providers’ inten-tions to reduce risk exposures and focus onnear-term financial results.

Also affecting the mid-term decline inlaunch demand is the replacement cycle forexisting geosynchronous satellites. Due to


FAA and COMSTAC 17

Figure 9: 2000 and 2001 versus 2002 COMSTAC Mission Model Comparison

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2000 Demand Forecast2001 Demand Forecast2002 Demand Forecast


18 FAA and COMSTAC

deployment timing and satellite lifetimedesigns, the expectation of requiredreplacements for the 2004-2006 timeframeis below previous expectations. The currentgeneration of satellites is designed forlonger on-orbit life than their predecessors.Longer on-orbit lifetimes cause orders forreplacement satellites to shift further intothe future, which flattens the demandcurve. Increased on-orbit life reduces themagnitude and increases the period of thereplacement cycle for newer spacecraft. Inaddition, many of the major satellite serv-ice providers have recently completed fleetreplacement and expansion efforts.

Finally, there seems to be a more-cautiousview of proposed space-based programsdue to financial problems of some currentspace-based businesses. New business con-cepts using satellites are getting more

financial scrutiny, which has impacted thelaunch of new ventures.

Launch Vehicle DemandSince inception, the COMSTAC missionmodel has provided commercial launchdemand forecasts in terms of the number ofGSO satellites to be launched. However, thenumber of commercial GSO launchesrecorded from 1988 through 2001 is lowerthan the number of satellites launched due todual manifesting on launch vehicles. In thefall of 1997, the Working Group decided toestimate the demand for launch vehiclesbased on the satellite launch forecastbecause of the dual manifesting of a portionof the satellites. Figure 10 presents the satel-lite demand forecast described earlier aswell as actual values for 1993 through 2001.

Figure 10: 2000 and 2001 versus 2002 COMSTAC Mission Model Comparison

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Single Manifest LaunchesDual Manifest LaunchesSatellites

Actual Forecast

Table 7: 2000 and 2001 versus 2002 COMSTAC Mission Model Comparison

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Average Satellite Demand 32 24 24 24 25 26 29 30 29 30 273 27.3 Dual Launch Forecast 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 68 6.8 Launch Demand Forecast 27 19 18 18 18 19 21 22 21 22 205 20.5


FAA and COMSTAC 19

Historically, only Arianespace has beencapable of dual manifesting commercialGSO satellites, and its highest publicly-announced launch capability is approxi-mately eight flights per year. Historically,some portion of Arianespace’s commercialGSO manifest has been launched on a ded-icated or single-manifest basis. Arianespacewill also launch payloads other than com-mercial GSO satellites that must fit withinthis launch capacity.

Other launchers capable of dual manifest-ing will become commercially available ina few years. As these new systems mature,it is believed customers will become morecomfortable with their capabilities and willbegin to use their dual-manifest services.The Working Group feels that this willcause the annual number of dual-manifest-ed satellites to increase gradually. The pre-dicted number of dual launches takes thisinto consideration, as well as the mass ofavailable satellites in a given year. Table 7shows the estimated number of duallaunches forecasted.

Factors That May Affect Future LaunchDemandLast year, the Working Group noted that“several anticipated events and compellingfactors have the potential to impact satelliteand launch demand” that were expected tocontinue for the next few years. Theseevents and factors include inaugural flightsof several new launch vehicles, the trendtoward heavier satellites, and longer satel-lite lifetimes. As discussed earlier in thisreport, a more-cautious view of proposedspace-based programs is impacting demandfor satellites and launches. Current globaland regional economic conditions are con-tributing to this more-cautious view andmay be a factor in accelerating consolida-tion within the industry. Potential newapplications, specifically broadband cou-pled with a focus on utilization of Ka-bandspectrum, that had been expected to spurgrowth in satellite and launch demand have

been impacted by this more-cautious busi-ness environment. The U.S. Governmentregulatory environment has also served as acatalyst for a redistribution of the sourcesof supply of satellites and launches.

This year, inaugural flights of Boeing’sDelta IV, Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V, andthe next generation of the Ariane 5 launchvehicle are all scheduled to occur. If all ofthese new vehicles are successful, twoimpacts can be anticipated. The first is thatthe competition among launch serviceproviders can be expected to be fierce. Thesecond is that the availability of capable andcompetitively-priced launch services willfacilitate a previously observed, if modest,trend toward heavier satellites. However, anearly failure of one or more of these systemswill cause delays in, or migration of, sched-uled launches. To the extent that alternativesare limited, the expected launch demand in aparticular year is likely to be deferred intothe next year if such a failure occurs. It isdifficult to predict the actual “ripple” effectof any one failure on launch demand.

The trend toward heavier satellites isaccompanied by the trend toward satellitescapable of longer lifetimes, as customerpreferences for 15 years or more of usablelifetime on orbit is now routine. This obvi-ously slows the pace of replenishment,thereby delaying demand.

These impacts were expected to have beenoffset by demand for broadband applica-tions, where a satellite’s capability to satis-fy the “last mile” dilemma, among otherattributes, has in the last couple of yearshad a positive effect on the demand forsatellites and attendant launches. However,demand for these Ka-band/broadband satel-lite applications has become impaired by“time to market” concerns versus terrestrialalternatives. Additionally, some of theseinitiatives, as well as future initiatives, arepotentially threatened by the poor results ofvarious satellite projects and general eco-nomic circumstances.


20 FAA and COMSTAC

While probably not affecting absolute satel-lite and launch demand, many observers citethe U.S. Government regulatory environmentas the probable cause of a redistribution ofmarket share from domestic to non-U.S. sup-pliers. U.S. satellite manufacturers andlaunch vehicle providers continue to be ham-pered in meeting the expectations of theirinternational customers due to this environ-ment. The impact is not limited to delays inthe initiation and execution of programs, butnow the actual capture of business. In 2000one satellite contract was cancelled andanother satellite was (and remains) in storagepending receipt of a license in order to deliv-er. There continues to be reason to believethat new orders were lost due to the continu-ation of this environment.

Summary

This year’s COMSTAC CommercialMission Model forecast predicts a decreasein average annual demand for satellites.This change, from 30.5 satellites forecast tobe launched per year, on average, to 27.3,is a reflection of the current environmentfor commercial satellite systems. Globaleconomic conditions, availability of financ-ing for satellite projects, and industry con-solidation are among the factors that haveled to this decrease in forecasted demand.These factors, coupled with trends forlonger satellite lifetimes and heavier satel-lites with increased transponder capacity,have caused forecasted near-term demandto return to levels last experienced in thelatter half of the 1990s.

While the forecasted demand for 2002 hasrisen to 32 satellites and 27 launches, a sig-nificant number of these satellites andlaunches were forecasted to have occurred

last year. The forecasted demand for 2003through 2007 averages 25 satellites peryear, which is the same as the actual aver-age for the period 1996-2000. It is not until2008 that the forecasted demand returns tolevels expected in the last four COMSTACforecasts. The highly-publicized failure ofseveral commercial satellite projects hasresulted in a more-conservative tone withinthe industry, which is expected to continueuntil new projects prove financially-viable.While broadband applications have been,and remain, a source of demand for satel-lites and launches, the expected impact ofthese initiatives on forecasted demand hasdecreased from previous forecasts.

The Working Group continues to foreseemarket events that have the potential ofimpacting the launch industry. Inauguralflights of Atlas V, Delta IV, and the nextgeneration Ariane 5 are scheduled to occurthis year. This portends a significantincrease in the industry’s capacity to launchheavy and extra-heavy payloads at compet-itive prices. This could and does seem toinfluence a modest trend toward heaviersatellites, but any failures could causedelays of planned launches. Also, the U.S.Government regulatory environment con-tinues to have an impact. While this factordoes not necessarily diminish the level ofdemand for satellites and launches, there isevidence that this more-restrictive environ-ment is impacting the distribution and tim-ing of that demand.

Given the prospective nature of these fac-tors, it is expected that the variancebetween forecasted launch demand and theactual number of launches achieved willcontinue to be higher than that experiencedduring the first five years of this report.

Demand Model DefinedThe COMSTAC Demand Model is a countof actual programs or of projected programsthat are expected to be launched in a givenyear. This would be the peak load on thelaunch service providers if all projectedsatellite launches were executed. It is not aprediction of what will actually be launchedin a given year. The satellite programs andlaunches in the demand forecast are affect-ed by many factors, which may cause themto slip or be canceled. The actual launchesconducted in a given year depend on whatfactors come into play during that year.

For example, the participants in the 2002Mission Model Update named actual satel-lite programs that were currently manifest-ed on each of the launch providers for2002. Though 32 satellite programs werenamed for the year 2002, the industry prob-ably will not execute all correspondinglaunches in this year. However, the demandon the launch industry for 2002 is for thelaunch of 32 satellites (27 launches afterdiscounting for dual manifesting).

COMSTAC Demand Projection vs.Actual LaunchesFactors That Affect Launch Execution

Several factors can affect the execution of ascheduled launch. These can include launchfailure, launch vehicle components prob-lems, or manifesting issues. Satellite suppli-ers also have factory and/or supplier issuesthat can delay the delivery of a spacecraft tothe launch site or halt a launch of a vehiclethat is already on the pad.

Other factors influencing the mission modelare regulatory issues, which affect thelaunch and satellite businesses. Export com-pliance problems, Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) licensing issues, andInternationalTelecommunicationsUnion (ITU)registration can slow down or stop progresson a program. The U.S. Government policy

regarding satellite and launch vehicle exportcontrol is hampering U.S. satellite suppliersand launch vehicle providers in their effortsto work with their international customers.This has caused both delays and cancellationof programs. The higher costs and hardshipscaused by these regulations could also causesatellite customers to look to terrestrial sys-tems to provide services previously per-formed by satellite systems.

The customer may also raise issues includ-ing financing or reprioritizing their busi-ness focus, thereby delaying or cancelingsatellite programs and their launches.Satellites can have more than one issueinvolved. It is not uncommon to see, forexample, a satellite delayed due to bothfactory and launch manifesting issues.

2001 Space Industry Performance onLaunch Demand

In the 2001 COMSTAC Commercial GSODemand Model, the Working Group listed24 satellites that were then manifested inthat year. Of the 24 satellites manifested in2001, only 13 were actually launched in2001 along with one satellite that was notincluded in the forecast. And while therewas a demand for 24 satellites to belaunched as forecasted by the COMSTACWorking Group, the execution on the mani-fest was impacted primarily by satelliteproduction delays. A list of the factors thataffected the 11 satellites that did not maketheir launch dates follows: ! 5 satellites were delayed due to satellite

issues! 2 satellites were delayed due to launch

vehicle issues! 1 satellite was delayed due to issues

related to both the satellite and thelaunch vehicle

! 2 satellites were delayed due to regulatoryissues (export control compliance)

! 1 satellite was delayed due to businessissues


FAA and COMSTAC 21

Appendix A. Use of the COMSTAC GSO Launch Demand Model

Projecting Actual Launches

As noted earlier, the first three years of thedemand forecast is based on input from eachof the satellite manufacturers and launchservice providers in the United States.Development of the near-term forecast esti-mate in this way results in a projection ofthe maximum identified demand for satel-lites to be launched each year. Identifieddemand for any particular year is defined asthe number of satellites that customersdesire to have launched, with no adjustmentfor manufacturing or launch schedules. Theconsensus estimate of identified demand for2002 is 32 GSO payloads.

As discussed above, launch schedules canbe delayed by many factors. Given that oneor more of these factors have delayed mis-sions each year that the COMSTAC fore-cast of identified demand has been present-ed, it is very likely that 2002 will alsoexperience delays.

For the convenience of the reader, theWorking Group has provided the compiledlist of 2002 payloads in Table 5 on page14. The participants cannot provide consen-sus guidance on which particular payloadsmay be delayed. Based on the many poten-tial delay factors that are possible, howev-er, the Working Group participants havereached a consensus conclusion that theactual number of commercial GSO satel-lites launched in 2002 will likely fall in therange of 22 to 27.

This number of payloads expected to be real-ized in 2002 is consistent with the historicaldeviation of the actual number of payloadslaunched in a given year and the COMSTACassessment of maximum identified demandfor that year (i.e. the 2001 forecast for year2001, etc.). Over the nine years this reporthas been published, the variance betweenforecasted demand in the first year of theforecast and the actual number of satelliteslaunched has averaged 23 percent. In 1997this variance was only 12 percent while in1999 and 2001 the variance was 42 percent.Over the first five years the variance aver-aged 16 percent while during the last fouryears this variance averaged 32 percent. Ineach instance, multiple types of delay factorshave affected the launch schedule, prevent-ing realization of the identified demand.

Providing guidance on realization of identi-fied demand in 2003 and 2004 is impracti-cal because there are many more variablesin these years. Satellites originally plannedfor 2002 may be delayed into these lateryears; new satellites may add to thedemand for these years as they approach;and some programs may be cancelled.

As described earlier in this report, futureyears of the demand forecast beyond 2004are calculated using the inputs from U.S.satellite manufacturers and launchproviders. Each company providing inputscontributes its assessment of expectedlaunches in future years. The demand fore-cast for future years therefore represents thebest estimate of actual launches based onthe compiled projections of U.S. industry.


22 FAA and COMSTAC


FAA and COMSTAC 23

As part of the 2002 survey of industry participants, the Working Group included a supplemental questionnaire for satelliteservice providers. The questionnaire shownon page 27 asked service providers howcertain factors are impacting their plans topurchase and launch satellites. The WorkingGroup felt that additional input from thecompanies who buy and operate commercialsatellites was important given the currentenvironment. The Working Group receivedinputs from the following 15 satellite serviceproviders:! Asiasat Miraxis! Binariang! Mobile Satellite Ventures! Broadcasting Satellite System Corp.! PanAmSat! Destiny Cable Inc.

! SingTel! Optus! Eurasiasat! Space Communications Corporation! Hispasat! StarOne! Loral Skynet! Telesat Canada! Thuraya TelecommunicationsThe Working group would like to offer spe-cial thanks to these 15 organizations for pro-viding this additional input. While this ques-tionnaire is by no means a scientific instru-ment from which concrete conclusions canbe reached, it does provide some anecdotalinsight into factors that are impacting thedemand for launching commercial GSOsatellites. A summary of the results of thisquestionnaire is provided below.

Appendix B. Supplemental Questionnaire

To what extent have your company’s plans to purchase and/or launch a geosynchronous satellite systembeen impacted by the following:

Not At All Very Little Somewhat Significantly Completely No Response

Regional or global economic conditions 1 = 7% 0 5 = 33% 8 = 53% 0 1 = 7%

Demand for satellite services 0 0 2 = 13% 8 = 53% 4 = 27% 1 = 7%

Ability to compete with terrestrial services 1 = 7% 3 = 20% 6 = 40% 4 = 27% 1 = 7% 0

Availability of financing 0 4 = 27% 4 = 27% 6 = 40% 1 = 7% 0

Availability of affordable insurance 1 = 7% 3 = 20% 7 = 47% 2 = 13% 1 = 7% 1 = 7%

Consolidation of service providers 2 = 13% 3 = 20% 4 = 27% 4 = 27% 0 2 = 13%

Increasing satellite life times 0 6 = 40% 5 = 33% 2 = 13% 1 = 7% 1 = 7%

Availability of satellite systems that meet your requirements 2 = 13% 3 = 20% 3 = 20% 3 = 20% 3 = 20% 1 = 7%

Reliability of satellite systems 1 = 7% 1 = 7% 4 = 27% 5 = 33% 3 = 20% 1 = 7%

Availability of launch vehicles that meet your requirements 2 = 13% 6 = 40% 4 = 27% 1 = 7% 1 = 7% 1 = 7%

Reliability of launch systems 2 = 13% 4 = 27% 5 = 33% 1 = 7% 2 = 13% 1 = 7%

Ability to obtain required export licenses 1 = 7% 1 = 7% 7 = 47% 5 = 33% 1 = 7% 1 = 7%

Ability to obtain required operating licenses 2 = 13% 2 = 13% 1 = 7% 9 = 60% 0 1 = 7%


24 FAA and COMSTAC

Appendix C. Letter from the Associate Administrator

U.S. Department Commercial Space Transportation 800 Independence Ave., S.W, Room 331 of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591 Federal Aviation Administration Ms./Mr. President President XYZ Space Company 1234 Street Address Anytown, State, Country 12345 Subject: Request for Input Dear , The Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commissions an annual update to the Commercial Satellite Mission Model for geo-synchronous satellites. The Mission Model update is developed for the FAA by the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). COMSTAC is a chartered industry advisory body that provides recommendations to the FAA on issues that affect the U.S. commercial launch industry. Last year’s report can be viewed on-line at http://ast.faa.gov/comstac_info/reports/. The Commercial Spacecraft Mission Model is now in the process of being updated for 2002. In support of this effort, our office hereby requests inputs from your company based on your forecasts of future spacecraft and launch needs. The COMSTAC Technology and Innovation Working Group will then develop the comprehensive mission model update based on your and other industry inputs. The FAA and the industry use this report to identify projected commercial space launch user requirements. It is also used to facilitate the planning of FAA support of the commercial space transportation industry. Your participation is important and we request your response be returned by February 23, 2002. Attached is a table that shows the different launch mass ranges and the years that will be forecasted. Please complete this table with your forecast of potential commercial geo-synchronous satellite launches from 2002 through 2011. In addition, we ask that you comment on the extent to which your company’s plans to purchase and/or launch a geosynchronous satellite system have been impacted by various factors (see ‘Demand Questionnaire’). This will provide useful insight to underlying causes for increasing shortfalls between the demand for launches and the number of launches actually realized. Responses should be comprehensive and represent your organization's projection of a forecast of your company’s needs and/or a regional market view. Your inputs will be integrated with the inputs from other companies to create the updated mission model.


FAA and COMSTAC 25

Again, your response is needed by February 23, 2002 to ensure that the mission model update is available to the FAA and the Space Industry in May 2002. Please forward this request to the department most appropriate within your organization (e.g., market analysis, marketing, contracts). The attachment will give you more detailed information on how and where to respond as well as contact points. Of course you may also contact my office with any questions or comments at your convenience. Thank you for your support of this activity. Sincerely, Patricia G. Smith Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation Enclosures: (1) 2002 Commercial Geo-Synchronous Satellite Mission Model Update Instructions (2) Satellite Demand Forecast by Payload Mass (3) COMSTAC 2002 Commercial GSO Launch Demand Questionnaire


26 FAA and COMSTAC

2002 Commercial Geo-Synchronous Satellite Mission Model Update Instructions As with the 2001 and previous year efforts, the goal for the 2002 COMSTAC geo-synchronous mission model update is to forecast the demand for worldwide commercial space launch requirements. This demand is based on the projected sales of geo-synchronous satellites and the size, in terms of mass, of those satellites. We are requesting your assistance in this effort by filling out the attached table with your forecast. The forecast will be of the addressable commercial geo-synchronous satellites sales through 2011. “Addressable” payloads in this context are those payloads that are open for internationally competitive launch service procurement. For reference purposes, if possible, please identify specific missions by name. In addition, if your forecast has changed significantly from the forecast that you submitted last year, please provide a brief explanation of the changes. A projection of the addressable payloads in the low and medium earth orbit market (i.e., nongeo-synchronous orbits) will be completed by the FAA separately and a combined projection will be published. In addition, we ask that you comment on the extent to which your company’s plans to purchase and/or launch a geosynchronous satellite system have been impacted by various factors (see ‘Demand Questionnaire’). This will provide useful insight to underlying causes for increasing shortfalls between the demand for launches and the number of launches actually realized. Your inputs, along with those of other satellite manufacturers, launch vehicle suppliers, and satellite services providers will be combined to form a composite view of the demand for launch services through 2011. We ask you to forecast the part of the market that your company knows best. It may be a forecast of your company’s needs and/or a regional market view. Data from all of these types of inputs are essential to assuring a complete and comprehensive forecast of the future commercial satellite and launch needs. Please indicate in your response what type of forecast you are submitting. This information will be used by corporations in their planning processes and governments in the administration of international space launch policy and decisions. As such, an accurate and realistic projection is vitally important. We are looking forward to receiving your response by February 23, 2002 in order to support our update schedule. Your responses should be sent directly to Mr. Douglas Howe at the following address: Douglas Howe The Boeing Company MC H014-C424 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2099 Phone: 714-896-1150 Fax: 714-372-0886 Email: [email protected] If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Howe directly.


FAA and COMSTAC 27

To what extent have your company’s plans to purchase and/or launch a geosynchronous satellite system been impacted by the following:

Not At All Very Little Somewhat Significantly Completely

Regional or global economic conditions

Demand for satellite services

Ability to compete with terrestrial services

Availability of financing

Availability of affordable insurance

Consolidation of service providers

Increasing satellite lifetimes

Availability of satellite systems that meet your requirements

Reliability of satellite systems

Availability of launch vehicles that meet your requirements

Reliability of launch systems

Ability to obtain required export licenses

Ability to obtain required operating licenses

Additional factors which have impacted your company’s plans:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________ Any other comments you would like to include:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________


28 FAA and COMSTAC

Executive Summary

Since 1994, the Federal AviationAdministration’s Associate Administratorfor Commercial Space Transportation(FAA/AST) has prepared annual assess-ments of the non-geosynchronous commer-cial satellite launch market. The 2002Commercial Space Transportation Forecastfor Non-Geosynchronous Orbits (NGSO)covers commercial launch demand forglobal space systems expected to bedeployed in orbits other than geosynchro-nous orbit (GSO), including low Earthorbit (LEO), medium Earth orbit (MEO),and elliptical orbits (ELI).

This year’s 2002-2011 AST forecast showsa 21 percent decrease in demand for com-mercial launches as compared to last year’sforecast. Conditions have not improved formany companies seeking financial backingto deploy satellites in NGSO. Bankruptciesand business restructuring by high-profilesystems, coupled with the high cost ofentering the market, continue to negativelyimpact investor confidence in most of theNGSO telecommunications sector. TheNGSO market peaked in 1998-1999 whenthe number of launches per year rivaled thatof the GSO market.

International science and remote sensing sectors together account for 68 percent ofNGSO payloads seeking commerciallaunches on the open market. However, thetotal numbers of payloads in these two sec-tors have also declined slightly from previ-ous years.

As with previous forecasts, AST has devel-oped two scenarios assessing satellite andlaunch services demand: a "baseline" sce-nario for payloads likely to be launched anda “robust” scenario that assumes greatermarket demand.

Baseline Scenario: AST is forecasting anaverage of 6.3 launches per year during2002-2011. This includes about two and ahalf launches per year for medium-to-heavylaunch vehicles and about four launches peryear for small vehicles.

A total of 63 launches throughout the 2002-2011 forecast are divided into the followingsectors:! 33 launches of international science and

other satellites! 16 launches of remote sensing satellites! 14 launches of telecommunications satellites

A total of 79 payloads are forecast to seekcommercial launches during 2002-2011.About 43 percent of the payload market iscomprised of international science and othersatellites (such as digital audio radio servic-es), 32 percent is telecommunications(including deployment of one Big LEO sys-tem) and 25 percent is remote sensing. Thisyear’s total baseline is down 48 percent com-pared to last year’s forecast of 151 payloads.

Robust Scenario: A more favorable marketcould see an increase to 84 total launchesthroughout the forecast period, or an averageof about three medium-to-heavy vehiclelaunches per year and five small vehiclelaunches per year.

The robust payload market expands to a total of 132 payloads during 2002-2011. Anincrease of 44 payloads in the telecommuni-cations sector (with one new Broadbandsatellite system and one Little LEO satellitesystem) are forecast in addition to the base-line. Under the robust scenario, telecommu-nications accounts for about 52 percent ofthe market, followed by 30 percent for inter-national science/other and 17 percent forremote sensing. Only a few additional pay-loads are projected in the robust scenario forremote sensing and internationalscience/other sectors.

2002 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts: NGSO Forecast

FAA and COMSTAC 29

2002 Commercial Space Transportation Forecast for Non-Geosynchronous Orbits

Introduction

In 1990, the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) received six applica-tions for LEO satellite constellations. Thesesystems, later dubbed “Big LEO” systemsbecause of their high-frequency band, repre-sented a wave of interest in mobile telecom-munications on a global scale. Developmentcapital from investors was relatively plenti-ful during the 1990s, a time marked by thelongest sustained growth period in U.S. eco-nomic history. By the end of 1997, applica-tions for follow-on Big LEO systems hadbeen filed even as the first generation beganlaunching. In addition to mobile communi-cations, other new services such as commer-cial remote sensing, broadband “internet inthe sky”, and digital radio were envisioned.Prior to this, the market for commerciallaunches to LEO and other NGSO orbitswas practically non-existent beyond theoccasional launch of a scientific payload fora foreign country. This dynamic changed in1997 with the deployment of Iridium, thefirst Big LEO system.

In 1998, at the apex of NGSO activity,FAA/AST projected a remarkable 1,202payloads would be launched between 1998and 2010. An average annual launchdemand of 19 medium-to-heavy launchvehicles and nine small launch vehicleswas also forecast during this period.

Despite the many FCC applications andproposals for a variety of telecommunica-tions systems, the bulk of NGSO launchactivity to date has come from three satel-lite systems: ORBCOMM, Iridium, andGlobalstar. Together, these three systemsaccounted for 37 launches, or 86 percent ofworldwide commercial NGSO launchesduring 1997-1999. Launches to NGSO dur-ing this period also accounted for 44 per-cent of the overall launch market, justbehind launches of traditional geosynchro-nous orbit (GSO) satellites.

Since the completion of the ORBCOMM,Iridium and Globalstar deployments, NGSOactivity has decreased. No new Little LEO,Big LEO, or any Broadband systems havebeen fully deployed and many systemsunder development have stalled.

Iridium, ICO Global, ORBCOMM, andGlobalstar all declared bankruptcy becausethe number of customers needed to payback the capital investment on these NGSOsystems did not appear. Nevertheless, thenew owners of Iridium and ORBCOMMcontinue to operate their existing satelliteconstellations successfully. Globalstarplans to emerge from bankruptcy and isalso currently serving customers. ICO con-ducted one launch in 2001 and plans tolaunch its full system in the near future.Although no second-generation systems areexpected at this time, this forecast includesa limited number of replacement satellitelaunches, which will occur before the endof the three active constellations’ lifespans.Some of the companies that have notdeployed constellations now face the riskof losing their assigned frequency spectrumif FCC progress milestones are not met.

Regardless of the difficulties experienced bydeployed NGSO systems thus far, severalcompanies still plan to deploy NGSO sys-tems to take advantage of the value of theirlicensed spectrum. One Big LEO systemawaits a crucial FCC frequency determina-tion, while seven broadband Ku-band appli-cants await their licenses and Little LEOcompanies without satellites in orbit are stillactive. Three Digital Audio Radio Services


30 FAA and COMSTAC

NGSO GSO Total 1996 2 21 23 1997 13 25 38 1998 19 21 40 1999 18 18 36 2000 9 20 29 2001 4 12 16

2002 est. 5 27 32

Table 8: Commercially-Competed Launches

Includes payload missions open to international launch servicesprocurement and other commercially sponsored payloads. Doesnot include government captured or dummy payloads launchedcommercially.

(DARS) are currently operating(Worldspace, XM Radio and from NGSO,Sirius) and early success of U.S. marketoperators has inspired other entrants.

International science payloads, manybelonging to nations with fledgling spaceprograms but without a domestic launchprovider, continue to have a steady effecton launch demand. Remote sensing sys-tems are also continuing to develop as themarkets and interest in using imagery ofthe Earth taken from space increases.

In order to assess demand for internationalcommercial launch services resulting fromthe deployment of NGSO satellites, ASTcompiles the Commercial SpaceTransportation Forecast for Non-Geosynchronous Orbits (NGSO) on anannual basis.

Market Scenarios

There are two market scenarios used toassess NGSO launch demand through2011: a “baseline” scenario and a “robust”scenario.

The baseline scenario covers the launchesrequired to launch those systems likely to bedeployed within the forecast period. Thebaseline scenario represents AST’s assess-ment of how many systems will actually bedeployed, not how many would attractenough business to prosper after deployment.

The robust scenario covers the launchesrequired in the event that market demand forNGSO satellite services is sufficiently greatto support the entrance of additional serviceproviders or expanded follow-on systems.

The results of this forecast do not indicateFederal Aviation Administration support orpreference for any particular satellite system.The report does not forecast the businesssuccess of the systems. Rather, the infor-mation provided reflects an FAA/ASTassessment of overall trends in the NGSOsatellite markets, with the ultimate purposeof projecting future commercial spacetransportation demand. The satellites in theforecast are (or were) open for internationallaunch services procurement or were spon-sored by commercial entities for commer-cial launch.

The following sections review each marketsegment and present baseline and robust sce-narios to address launch services demand.


FAA and COMSTAC 31

Satellite Service First Satellite Launch

Beginning of Formal Service

Narrowband Data Messaging 1995 1998

Mobile Satellite Telephony 1997 1998

High Resolution Remote Sensing 1999 1999

Digital Audio Radio Services 2000 2002

Table 9: Commercial Services Debuted in NGSO

NGSO Satellite Systems

“Little LEO” TelecommunicationsSystems“Little LEO” satellite systems were dubbed“Little” by the FCC because they are atcomparatively lower frequencies than BigLEO systems. The Little LEO systems pro-vide narrowband data communicationssuch as e-mail, two-way paging, and sim-ple messaging using frequencies below 1GHz. Target markets include automatedmeter reading, vehicle fleet tracking andother kinds of remote data monitoring.

A wide variety of commercial and quasi-commercial organizations have proposedLittle LEO systems. Some use a store-and-forward approach (storing received mes-sages until in view of a ground center)while others function as more conventionalrelay systems. Two-way communicationbetween the satellite and the ground ismaintained through small mobile or fixedtransmitter/receivers, using low-poweromni-directional antennas. Costs to deployLittle LEO systems vary between $2 mil-lion and $650 million, depending on sys-tem design. Operational and proposedLittle LEO systems are shown in Table 10.

In addition, a number of proposed constel-lations of mini- and micro-satellites, aswell as communications payloads on othersatellites, exist to serve narrowband datamarkets. These systems are typically notdrivers of demand for commercial launchservices as they will be deployed as sec-ondary payloads or as piggybacks on othersatellites and, thus, will not require a dedi-cated launch. However, some Russianlaunch vehicles are small enough that thesesecondaries can become primaries.

Recent Developments

ORBCOMM remains the only Little LEOsystem that is fully deployed. The ORB-COMM constellation is comprised of 35satellites in orbits of 825 kilometers (513

miles) in altitude. Before the last deploymentlaunch in 1999, ORBCOMM intended tolaunch another series of satellites into a zero-degree plane but later opted not to do so.

ORBCOMM’s services are marketedthrough its global network of 17 servicedistribution partners, which are licensed tooperate in 194 countries. Its largest cus-tomers are trucking companies. Foundedby Orbital Sciences Corporation (lateradding major investor Teleglobe Canada),ORBCOMM was first successfully testedwith the launch of two satellites in April1995. Full operations began in November1998. The existing system was deployed byone standard Pegasus, four Pegasus XLlaunches, and one Taurus launch. A small22-kilogram (48-pound) ORBCOMM-Xdemonstration satellite was unsuccessfulshortly after launch by Ariane 4 in 1991.

While ORBCOMM has secured a wide vari-ety of subscribers for its service and shippedsome 30,000 units, two years of operationgrowth was slower than expected and ORB-COMM filed for U.S. Bankruptcy Court pro-tection in September 2000. InternationalLicensees, LLC obtained ORBCOMM aftera bankruptcy auction in April 2001. The newcompany changed its name to ORBCOMMHoldings, LLC and received permissionfrom the FCC to transfer ORBCOMMlicenses to the new company in March 2002.

The new firm is comprised of serviceproviders in Europe and Asia and at leasttwo investment firms. While OrbitalSciences no longer has a stake in the newORBCOMM, it does have the rights toacquire up to 40 percent of the equity if itdesires. Whether or not ORBCOMM willbe able to launch replacement satellites isunclear.

Other potential providers of low-data-ratesatellite services have struggled to gainnecessary funding and in 2002 face meet-ing FCC milestones to retain their licensesgranted in 1998.


32 FAA and COMSTAC

Final Analysis, Inc. (FAI) filed for Chapter 7bankruptcy in September 2001. In January2002, New York Satellite Industries, LLC(controlled by an original founder) purchasedthe assets of Final Analysis, which includedcontrolling shares and the FCC license ofFinal Analysis Communications Services,Inc. (FACS). As of April 2002, the FCC hasyet to act on a milestone waiver request filedby FACS. Originally, the FAISat constella-tion was to consist of 26 satellites plus 4orbiting spares. The FCC allowed the num-ber of spares to be increased to 6 inNovember 2001. In April 2000, Raytheonjoined General Dynamics as an equity part-ner in FACS, bringing total equity invest-ment to $125 million. A launch servicesagreement was signed with Polyot of Omsk,Russia, for launches on Cosmos 3M fromeither Plesetsk or Kapustin Yar for six satel-lites per launch. If conditions improve, FinalAnalysis could launch around 2004. The firsttwo FAISats were launched separately byCosmos 3M in 1995 and 1997 and were builtby Final Analysis with General Dynamics.

E-Sat was formed in 1994 and is currentlycomprised of DBSI and Echostar Communi-cations Corporation. The company foreseesfuture interest in data messaging from theU.S. Government for homeland security. E-Sat’s parent company, DBS Industries(DBSI), signed a seven-year agreement withIridium Satellite in June 2001 to gain accessto a space-based relay for a ground data mes-saging service provided by the company.Meanwhile, DBSI still plans a future launchof its own six-satellite constellation knownas E-Sat on two Rockot launches. A piggy-back payload called New Star to test out E-Sat technology was launched in 2001 aboardSurrey Satellite, Ltd’s SNAP-1, a 6.5-kilo-gram (15-pound) satellite.

Competition

Most proponents believe the data messagingmarket is big enough for several providerswith specialized niches and different datarates and/or real vs. delay timing. However,competition comes from many poviders onthe ground and from orbit. In dense urbanareas, terrestrial providers are expected todominate the market because the weaker


FAA and COMSTAC 33

Table 10: Little LEO Satellite Systems

Little LEO Systems

Mass kg (lbm)

OperationalORBCOMM 43 (95) LEO

FAISat 151 (332) LEOLeo One Worldwide

125 (275) LEO

E-Sat 113 (250) LEO

Courier/Convert 502 (1,107) LEOGonets-D 231 (510) LEOLEO One Panamericana

150 (330) LEO

LEOPACK TBD LEO

CanceledStarsys 75 (165) LEOGE Americom 15 (33) LEOGEMNet 45 (100) LEO

Mass kg (lb)

VITASat TBD LEOSAFIR 60 (132) LEOIRIS 60 (132) LEOTemisat 40 (88) LEOElekon TBD LEO Status unknown; comm package piggybacks on Tsikada

i iNPO PM/Elbe Space

(R i /G )NPO PM 7 TBD

In development; derived from SAFIR; comm payload on Resurs-O1 i 1998Telespazio (Italy) Kayser Threde 7 TBD On hold; Temisat 1 launched in 1993.

SAIT RadioHolland (B l i )

SAIT Systems 6 TBD

FCC licensed, 1995; communications package piggybacked on FAIS 2 lli l h i 199 b f il dOHB Teledata (Germany) OHB Systems 6 TBD Status unknown.

Volunteers in Technical A i

Surrey Satellite Technology, Ltd. 2 1993

Orbit Type

First Launch

StatusNumber +

Spares

System Operator Prime Contractor Satellites"Micro" LEO Satellite and Payload Proposals

CTA bought by OSC; GEMNet canceled.CTA CTA 38 --

FCC licensed, 1995; canceled 1997.GE Americom -- 24 -- Merged with Starsys in 1996.

GE/Starsys Alcatel 24 --

Unfunded.Space Agency of Ukraine TBD 28 TBD

Status unknown; 6 test sats launched in 1996 and 1997 based ilit t G t D1 7 9 l h d i l t 2001LEO One Pan. (Mexico) TBD 12 TBD Status unknown; licensed for operations by the Mexican

government.

Smolsat (Russia) NPO PM 36 TBDELAS Courier (Russia) Moscow Inst. Thermotechnics 8 to 12 TBD Status unknown.

Proposed

FCC licensed, February 1998; launch contract signed with Eurockot.

E-Sat, Inc. Alcatel 6 TBD FCC licensed, March 1998; launch contract signed with

LEO One USA Dornier 48 TBDFinal Analysis Final Analysis 26 + 6 2004 FCC licensed, March 1998; two test satellites launched in 1995

d 1997

Under DevelopmentORBCOMM Global LP Orbital 48 1997 Operational with 35 satellites on orbit; FCC licensed, October

Orbit Type

First Launch

StatusNumber +

Spares

System Operator Prime Contractor Satellites

satellite signals do not easily penetratebuildings. Little LEO systems are expectedto be competitive with conventional wirelesstechnology in less-densely built-out andhard-to-reach areas. Big LEOs also competewith Little LEOs for similar types of datamessaging services. Inmarsat, TMI andMotient (formerly American MobileSatellite Company or AMSC) currently offerdata messaging via GSO satellites.

In addition, new companies developingvery small secondary payloads (that do notnecessarily generate launch demand) alsocompete with Little LEOs.

One such small payload system is proposedby Aprize Satellite, Inc. (owned bySpacequest, Ltd.), which plans to launchtwo AprizeStar satellites weighing 23 kilo-grams (51 pounds) each on Russia’s Dnepras early as 2003. Up to 48 additional satel-lites are planned, depending on businessdevelopment. These could be the first U.S.satellites to launch on Dnepr.

Licensing Status

In November 2001, the FCC approvedORBCOMM’s request to increase the alti-tude of satellites in the equatorial planefrom 825 to 975 kilometers (513 to 606miles) and decrease the number of satellitesin that plane from eight to seven. The sameapproval allows ORBCOMM to operate afourth inclined plane of eight satelliteslaunched in 1999, while reducing the num-ber of satellites in its two near-polar planesfrom eight to four each.

Final Analysis has applied for an FCCsatellite construction waiver.

E-Sat is attempting to get a two-year exten-sion of its FCC license. It faces FCCprogress milestones during 2002.

During 2000, ORBCOMM, Final Analysisand LEO One petitioned the FCC forauthority to use additional spectrum at 1.4GHz for feeder links. The 6 MHz of spec-trum would be used for backhaul and satel-lite control functions. Although the UnitedStates secured this allocation at the ITUWorld Radio Conference 2000, the FCClater granted operators of wireless medicaltelemetry services half of the segmentLittle LEOs seek to use.

Five Little LEO systems have receivedlicenses from the FCC: ORBCOMM, E-Sat, Final Analysis, Leo One, and VITASat.Licenses were issued in two rounds, in1995 and 1998. Both licensing decisionswere preceded by sharing agreementsamong the systems. Orbital SciencesCorporation, Starsys, and Volunteers inTechnical Assistance (VITA) first filedapplications with the FCC to operate LittleLEO systems in 1990, receiving licenses in1995 following spectrum allocation by theInternational Telecommunications Union(ITU) and agreement on spectrum sharing.

In 1995, a second round of filings attractedfive new applicants - E-Sat, CTA, Leo OneUSA, Final Analysis, and GE Americom.CTA’s GEMNet and GE Americom, whichmerged with Starsys, were withdrawn priorto being licensed. Following a second spec-trum sharing agreement, licenses wereawarded in 1998 to Leo One USA, FAISat,and E-Sat. ORBCOMM and VITA receivedauthority for modest system expansions.

Market Demand Scenarios

It is AST’s assessment that under the base-line scenario, no new Little LEO systemwill be deployed during the forecast periodthat will generate launch demand. Underthe robust market scenario, AST projectsdeployment of one Little LEO system.


34 FAA and COMSTAC

“Big LEO” and MSS Voice SystemsBig LEO systems provide mobile voicetelephony and data services in the 1-2 GHzfrequency range. Also known as MobileSatellite Services (MSS), two Big LEO sys-tems have been deployed to date–Iridiumand Globalstar–and a third, ICO, has onesatellite in orbit while it awaits an FCCdetermination on ground signal repeaters.Big LEO systems are detailed in Table 11.

The initial business failures of Iridium andGlobalstar continue to have a detrimentalimpact on other commercial space ventures,including new entrants into the NGSOsatellite market and the launch industry. BigLEO systems do have market niches andtheir orbiting operations are expected tocontinue for the rest of the decade.

Recent Developments

In February 2002, Globalstar declaredChapter 11 bankruptcy after disappointingcustomer growth since operations began inSeptember 1999. Globalstar is expected toemerge from bankruptcy after reorganiza-tion and continue to maintain service for its69,000 subscribers. Regional expansioncontinues with service introduced through-out Central Asia, including all of the for-mer Soviet Union republics.

Globalstar introduced data modem servicesin December 2000 and in February 2001opened its 25th international gateway sta-tion. The company signed an agreementwith AeroAstro to provide a relay for low-cost sensor and data tracking services inMarch 2002.

Globalstar has reported only two satellitefailures (out of 48 satellites) in the opera-tional constellation as of April 2002. Withsome seven satellites experiencing anom-alies, three of four spares have been acti-vated. There are eight satellites in storageon the ground with two launches alreadypaid for on Delta II launch vehicles. Theselaunches can be “called-up” if needed.

Iridium Satellite purchased all the assets ofbankrupt Iridium, LLC for $25 million andbegan operations in April 2001. Originallyconceived by Motorola in 1991, develop-ment and deployment of the Iridium systemof 66 operational satellites cost around $5billion. In the length of time it took to get tomarket, the cellular telephone industryexpanded rapidly and costs, capability, andhandheld phone size decreased. After onlyone year of operational service, Iridium,LLC filed for bankruptcy protection inAugust 1999 after gaining some 63,000subscribers. The constellation was poisedon the brink of forced reentry in 2000 whenIridium Satellite stepped in. Under therestructuring arrangement, Iridium Satelliteis operating debt free. The Department ofDefense (DoD) awarded Iridium Satellite acontract worth $72 million for at least twoyears with unlimited minutes for up to20,000 users. DoD also agreed to indemnifyIridium from any potential future damagescaused by satellite reentry.

In February 2002, five new replacementsatellites were launched by Boeing’s DeltaII and two more satellites are scheduled forlaunch on Russia’s Rockot in June 2002.These launches were largely paid for priorto Iridium’s bankruptcy filing.

Two additional satellites will bring the totalorbiting system to 80 satellites (14 satelliteswill be orbiting spares). Thus far, 14 satel-lites have failed. Two partially-assembledsatellites are available for launch if needed.The Iridium constellation is expected to lastuntil 2010, longer than originally advertised.Although it is unclear yet whether IridiumSatellite can fund a follow-on system, thecompany has indicated it is seriously consid-ering a second-generation system. Originallyseen as primarily a voice system, about 25%of Iridium’s customer traffic is now made upof data.

ICO launched the first satellite in its planned10-satellite constellation (plus two spares) onan Atlas IIAS in June 2001. The satellite is


FAA and COMSTAC 35

operating in a circular orbit at an altitude of10,390 kilometers (6,450 miles). ICO is anabbreviation for Intermediate Circular Orbit.

ICO has upgraded its satellites to targetdata communications and plans to offermedium-rate wireless Internet access (up to144 kilobits per second) in addition tovoice service.

ICO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy pro-tection in August 1999 after raising $3.1billion, which was insufficient to completeits constellation and ground business sup-port systems. In December 1999, the U.S.bankruptcy court overseeing ICO’s restruc-turing approved an investment of an addi-tional $1.2 billion in the company by agroup of investors led by Craig McCaw, asuccessful wireless cellular telephone net-work owner. McCaw’s group also holdscontrolling interest in Teledesic, a broad-band satellite company. The first ICO satel-lite was lost in a Sea Launch vehicle failurein March 2000. In September 2000, thecompany announced that Boeing wouldmodify 11 ICO satellites and build threeadditional ones. With one satellite in orbitas of spring 2002, at least 10 satellites wereunder construction at Boeing SatelliteSystems: two satellites are in storage, fiveare nearly complete, and another three are invarious stages of assembly. Two additionalsatellites are planned as ground spares.

Although ICO made a rapid recovery fromChapter 11 and has invested heavily in satel-lite construction, its future is unclear. InMarch 2001, ICO petitioned the FCC for arule amendment that would allow use of itssatellite frequencies for thousands of groundantenna repeaters, enabling a better connec-tion to data users and callers indoors and inurban “canyons” or obstructed areas. Thepublicly-available letter to the FCC statedthat without a favorable ruling, 2-GHzmobile satellite systems are not economicallyviable. The request has caused concernamong cellular telephone companies whobelieve spectrum for ground use should be

competitively bid in an auction. While cellu-lar companies are paying for spectrum, satel-lite companies are not. Under the 2000“Orbit Act” (Public Law 106-180) the FCC“shall not have the authority to assign bycompetitive bidding orbital locations or spec-trum used for the provision of internationalor global satellite communications services.”

Other satellite companies, including Iridium,are interested in using ground repeaters butrules governing the use of ground repeatershave not yet been established. The FCCcould rule on the issue in the summer of2002. If the decision is favorable to ICO andadditional funding becomes available, ICOcould resume launches around 2004 andbegin rollout of services thereafter. The FCClicense for 2 GHz requires the first two satel-lites to be launched by January 2005.

After lengthy debate, a merger between ICOand Teledesic was officially called off inNovember 2001. The companies are nowconsidered independent, yet complementary.

Although Big LEOs have been proposed byRussian organizations and by other interna-tional companies, they appear to remainunfunded.

Licensing Status

In July 2001, the FCC issued licenses toeight companies, allowing them to deploymobile satellite systems operating in the 2-GHz range. Under the terms of theselicenses, satellite construction contracts forthese satellites must be signed by July2002. The companies that received theselicenses are Constellation Communications,Globalstar, Iridium Satellite, ICO, MobileCommunications Holdings, Celsat, TMIand Boeing. Iridium and Globalstar haveindicated they continue to plan to use thesefrequencies.

Big LEOs began in 1990 when the FCCreceived applications from six companiesfor Big LEO systems to provide mobilesatellite services. Following a spectrum


36 FAA and COMSTAC

sharing plan, licenses were granted toIridium, Globalstar, and Odyssey inJanuary 1995. AMSC (Motient) withdrewits application prior to the granting oflicenses for ECCO and Ellipso in the sum-mer of 1997.

In September 1997, the FCC receivedapplications for 2-GHz systems, includingIridium Macrocell, Globalstar GS-2, ECCOII, Ellipso 2G, and Boeing’s 16-satelliteMEO system for the commercial airlineindustry. At the same time, ICO GlobalCommunications filed a letter of intentwith the FCC to operate a 2-GHz system inthe United States. Following the September1997 application, TRW withdrew its

Odyssey application and joined with ICO.

In August 2000, the FCC released a“Report & Order” concluding that suffi-cient spectrum would be available for 2-GHz mobile satellites systems. The reportstated that the FCC will allocate spectrumbased on the number of systems deployed,not the number of systems licensed.


It is AST’s assessment that under the base-line scenario, one new Big LEO systemwill be deployed in addition to Iridium andGlobalstar. No additional systems under therobust scenario are anticipated.


FAA and COMSTAC 37

Number + Spares

Mass kg (lb)

OperationalGlobalstar Alenia Spazio 48 + 8 447 (985) LEO 1998 Constellation on-orbit and operational; FCC licensed, January 1995.

Iridium Motorola 66 + 14 680 (1,500) LEO 1997 Assets acquired in December 2000 bankruptcy proceeding. Data operations started in 6/1/01.

Big LEO

ECCO Orbital 46 + 81 703 (1,550) LEO 2001 FCC license granted July 1997; Orbital chosen as satellite, launch contractor, May 1998.

Ellipso Boeing 16 + 1 998 (2,200) LEO & ELI 2001 FCC license granted July 1997, which was subsequently revoked in May 2001 for failure to meet required milestones. MCHI is appealing the decision.

2.0 GHz

ICO Boeing 10 + 2 2,744 (6,050) MEO 2001 FCC license granted July 17, 2001. Company emerged from bankruptcy in May 2000 after $1.2 billion investment by Eagle River Investments, LLC. Company now focused on packet-switched data delivery. ICO F-2, the first satellite in system, was launched in 2001. ICO Z-1 was lost when launch vehicle failed in 2000.

2.0 GHz

Boeing 2.0 GHz Boeing 16 2,903 (6,400) MEO 2005 est. FCC license granted July 17, 2001. System will be used for air traffic management. Must sign construction contract by July 2002 to retain FCC license.

ECCO II TBD 46 + TBD 585 (1,290) LEO 2005 est. FCC license granted July 17, 2001. Must sign construction contract by July 2002 to retain FCC license.

Ellipso 2G TBD 26 + TBD 1,315 (2,900) LEO & ELI 2004 est. FCC license granted July 17, 2001. Must sign construction contract by July 2002 to retain FCC license.

Globalstar GS-2 TBD 64 + 4 830 (1,830) LEO2 2004 est. FCC license granted July 17, 2001. Must sign construction contract by July 2002 to retain FCC license.

Iridum/Macrocell TBD 96 + TBD 1,712 (3,775) LEO 2005 est. FCC license granted July 17, 2001. Iridium also interested in ground repeater system for urban canyons. Must sign construction contract by July 2002 to retain FCC license.

International

ECO-8 TBD 11 + 1 250 (550) LEO TBD Study resumed in August 1998; frequency use coordinated with ITU.

Gonets-R NPO PM 48 953 (2,100) LEO TBD Status unknown.Koskon AKO Polyot 45 862 (1,900) LEO TBD Status unknown; payload tested in 1991.

Marathon/Mayak NPO PM 10 2,510 (5,533) ELI3 TBD Status unknown.Rostelesat TBD 115 839 (1,850) LEO & MEO TBD Concept definition complete; awaiting funding.

Signal NPO Energia 48 308 (680) LEO TBD Status unknown.

Tyulpan TBD 6 1,089 (2,400) - 1,179 (2,600)

MEO TBD Status unknown.

CanceledAMSC -- 12 2,495 (5,500) MEO -- FCC application withdrawn, January 1997.Odyssey TRW 12 2,214 (4,880) MEO -- FCC licensed; system canceled in 1997.

(1) ECCO to initially consist of 12 satellites in equatorial orbit; 42 satellites in inclined orbit to follow.(2) Globalstar GS-2 also requested authority to operate 4 GEO satellites in conjunction with the LEO.(3) Marathon is also proposed to include three Arcos GEO satellites, in conjunction with the ELI.

NPO Lavotchkin (Russian)

American Mobile S t llitTRW

Koskon Consortium (Russian)

Informkosmos (R i )Kompomash (Russian)

KOSS Consortium (Russian)

Iridium Satellite LLC

Brazilian Space Agency

Smolsat (Russian)

Boeing

Constellation Communications Mobile Comm.

Holdings (MCHI)Globalstar LP

New ICO Global Communications (Holdings), Inc.

Proposed

Under Development

Constellation CommunicationsMobile Comm.

Holdings (MCHI)

Status

Globalstar LP

Iridium Satellite LLC

First Launch

Orbit Type

System Operator Prime Contractor

Satellites

Table 11: Big LEO Satellite Systems

“Broadband LEO” SystemsThe broadband satellite market is perhapsthe most speculative. While a tremendousmarket for high-speed data services is evi-dent, based on growing demand for suchservices by businesses and consumersalike, the satellite industry has yet to capi-talize on this interest. The race to providebroadband connectivity has accelerated asthe Internet emerged into the mainstreamaround 1997. While satellites do not havesufficient bandwidth to service the entirebroadband user population, they are play-ing a growing role in the delivery of high-data-rate information. Satellites can serviceurban areas that are unwired and can alsoreach remote customers that conventionallandline services may not even attempt toaccess (because of high installation expens-es). In some cases, satellites and landlinesare complementary, using each other asconduits to reach end users.

Proposed “Broadband LEO” systemswould provide high-bandwidth data linksusing Ku-band (12/17 GHz), Ka-band(17/30 GHz), V-band (36/45 GHz), and Q-band (46/56 GHz) frequencies. The term“broadband” encompasses a variety of mul-timedia services funneled at high dataspeeds. Large amounts of audio, video, anddata can be transmitted rapidly in compari-son to low-bandwidth pathways such ascopper telephone wiring. Applications suchas video teleconferencing and high-speedInternet access are possible usingBroadband LEO systems.

Currently there are no NGSO systemsdelivering broadband services. There areseveral GSO transponders serving dataroles between gateways and internet serv-ice providers (ISPs) and more operatorsplan to include broadband capabilities infuture plans. However, two planned Ka-band systems, WildBlue and Astrolink, sus-pended activity by early 2002 because of alack of funding, although another dedicatedsystem, Spaceway, plans to launch in 2003.

While NGSO systems can provide morefocused coverage, offer higher data rates,reuse spectrum efficiently and have nolatency (signal delay which could impactinteractive users) compared to GSO-basedsystems, high start-up costs of $4-10 bil-lion or more have slowed NGSO develop-ment. Another problem faced by NGSOsystems (and not just broadband) is rapidchange of communications technology: bythe time a space system is designed andorbited, it may be obsolete or the con-sumer/business market may have shiftedaway from it.

Although some commercial NGSO satelliteventures have been damaged by the emer-gence of more-competitive terrestrial alterna-tives, generally the problems and uncertaintyencountered by Broadband LEO systems aresimilar to those experienced by terrestrialbroadband providers. One example is GlobalCrossing, a fiber optic network serviceprovider which filed for Chapter 11 bank-ruptcy protection in January 2002; the $24billion bankruptcy was the fourth-largestever to be filed by a U.S. company.Excite@Home, a company that offeredbroadband data services to cable televisionsubscribers, filed for Chapter 11 protectionin 2001 and ceased operations in February2002. Several other terrestrial broadbandcompanies, including Flag Telecom, Metro-media, and Williams Communications, haveeither filed for Chapter 11 or considereddoing so.

Broadband systems are summarized inTable 12.

Recent Developments

In January 2002, on the eve of their FCCmilestone deadline, Teledesic LLCannounced satellite contracts for the firsttwo of a planned 30-satellite MEO constel-lation. Teledesic must launch the first satel-lite by September 2004 and have a full sys-tem operational by 2007 in order to protectits FCC license.


38 FAA and COMSTAC

Formed in 1990, Teledesic was granted anFCC license in 1997 for an 840-satellitesystem that was eventually reduced to 288satellites in early 1999. The ITU allocatedsignificant spectrum for NGSO fixed satel-lite systems (FSS) such as Teledesic in1997. The current plan is to begin servicefor fixed users in 2005 with 12 satellitesweighing around 1,000 kilograms (2,200pounds) each. The cost of the system,including launch services, will be around$1 billion. The satellites are less complexthan previous designs. Later, the constella-tion will be expanded with an additional 18

larger satellites. The full 30-satellite con-stellation will provide global coverage.

Teledesic is considering launching its firsttwo satellites on two separate launch vehi-cles. A Request For Information was sentto industry launch providers in April 2002for the first 2 satellites and an option on thenext 10 satellites. Previously, in 1999, alaunch services agreement was signed withInternational Launch Services (ILS) forthree Atlas launches and three Proton Mlaunches plus options.


FAA and COMSTAC 39

Mass kg (lbm)

Teledesic Alenia Spazio1 1,000 (2,205) and 3,455 (7,617)2

MEO 2004 est3 FCC licensed, March 1997; license amended Jan 1999 for 288-sat system; firm milestones assigned by FCC in January 2001. Application to amend system to 30 sats filed with FCC February 2002.

SkyBridge Alcatel Espace 1,247 (2,750) LEO TBD FCC license applied for, February 1997.

Proposed

@Contact TBD 3,175 (7,000) MEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, December 1997

LM-MEO4 Lockheed Martin 2,177 (4,800) MEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, December 1997SkyBridge II Alcatel Espace 2,654 (5,850) LEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, December 1997Spaceway NGSO Hughes Space &

Comm. (HSC)2,858 (6,300) MEO5 2005 est. FCC license applied for, December 1997

Boeing NGSO FSS TBD 3,862 (8,515) MEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, January 1999.

HughesLINK Boeing Satellite Systems

2,937 (6,475) MEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, January 1999.

HughesNET Boeing Satellite Systems

1,996 (4,400) LEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, January 1999.

Teledesic Ku-Band Supplement

TBD 1,325 (2,920) MEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, January 1999.

Virtual GEO Satellite (VIRGO)

TBD 3,030 (6,680) ELI 2005 est. FCC license applied for, January 1999.

Globalstar GS-40 TBD 1,225 (2,700) LEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, September 1997GESN (Global EHF Satellite Network)6

TRW 5,965 (13,150) MEO7 2005 est. FCC license applied for, September 1997

LM-MEO4 Lockheed Martin 2,177 (4,800) MEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, December 1997Orblink Orbital 2,019 (4,450) MEO 2005 est. FCC license applied for, September 1997

Pentriad8 TBD 9 + 3 1,996 (4,400) ELI 2005 est. FCC license applied for, September 1997Starlynx Boeing Satellite

Systems3,493 (7,700) MEO9 2005 est. FCC license applied for, September 1997

Teledesic V-Band Supplement (VBS)

TBD 612 (1,350) LEO 2006 est. FCC license applied for, September 1997

(1) Alenia Spazio is only contracted for the first two satellites in constellation.(2) First 12 satellites are approximately 1,000 kg (2,205 lb), next 18 will be 3,455 kg (7,617 lb)(3) Teledesic launched the T-1 experimental satellite in February 1998. (4) Lockheed Martin’s MEO application is for both Ka- and V/Q-band.(5) Spaceway NGSO to be operated with 16 Spaceway GEO satellites.(6) The GESN system will also use Ka-band frequencies for downlinks.(7) TRW plans to operate 4 GEO sats with the 15 GESN MEO satellites.(8) Denali Telecom's application for Pentriad also includes a Ku-band component.(9) Starlynx plans to operate 4 GEO satellites in conjunction with its MEO system.

Denali Telecom

Lockheed Martin 32

Teledesic LLC 30 + 6

Hughes Comm. (HCI) 24


Lockheed Martin 32Orbital 7 + TBD

Globalstar LP 80 + TBDTRW 15

Virtual Geosatellite LLP 15 + 3

V/Q-Band



Ku-BandBoeing 20

SkyBridge LP 96Hughes Comm. (HCI) 36

Ka-Band@Contact LLC 16 + 4

SkyBridge LP 80


Ku-Band

Under DevelopmentKa-Band

Orbit Type

First Launch StatusNumber System Operator

Prime Contractor

Satellites

Table 12: Broadband LEO Satellite Systems

SkyBridge plans an 80-satellite constella-tion with 140 earthstations capable of sup-porting 20 million users. The French-ledcompany requires an estimated $6-7 billionin capital. In February 2001, Skybridgeannounced it would enter the broadbandmarket by leasing transponders on existingGSO satellites, calling into question thedevelopment of a dedicated NGSO system.The move was made because of the inabili-ty to attract investment from telecommuni-cations companies. As of April 2002,SkyBridge GSO activity has not beenannounced.

Prior to its decision to lease GSO transpon-ders, SkyBridge signed a contract inDecember 1999 with Boeing to launch 40satellites on two Delta III launch vehiclesand four Delta IVs. Five months later,SkyBridge signed a second launch dealwith Starsem, the French-Russian jointlaunch company, for launch of 32 satelliteson 11 Soyuz/Fregat vehicles. Both Boeingand Starsem took equity positions in thecompany.

SkyBridge’s plans were first announced in1997 after a consortium was formed in1993. Partners include Alcatel, the Frenchspace agency (CNES), and Loral Space &Communications. Alcatel has stoppeddevelopment work on SkyBridge satellitesuntil more equity is obtained. Loral’s con-tribution began with a 14 percent invest-ment. The satellite design phase has beencompleted.

Licensing Status

Currently, only one applicant, Teledesic, hasreceived a license from the FCC to operatea Broadband LEO system. In February2002 Teledesic filed an application to modi-fy its system license to reduce the size of itsconstellation to 30 satellites; that modifica-tion is currently under review by the FCC.

The FCC has yet to issue any licenses forKu-band NGSO systems, but has been mak-ing progress on the several existing applica-tions and is expected to render a decision byend of 2002. In April 2002 the FCC releaseda Report and Order describing spectrum-sharing rules to avoid interference amongNGSO and GSO Ku-band systems. At thesame time the FCC released a FurtherNotice of Proposed Rulemaking on measur-ing limits on transmission power of Ku-band systems. Previous concerns about Ku-band interference between NGSO and GSOsystems were overcome when the WorldRadio Conference 2000 approved technicaland regulatory parameters to allow NGSOsystems to share Ku-band spectrum withGSO systems. One Ku-band NGSO system,SkyBridge, did receive a license from theFrench equivalent of the FCC, the Autoritéde Régulation des Télécommunications, inFebruary 2000.

Currently there are three application “pro-cessing rounds” pending at the FCC forproposed broadband systems. More than 20applications involving satellites in NGSOorbits or with GSO systems have been sub-mitted. An application filing windowclosed for use of the V-band (36/45 GHz)and Q-band (46/56 GHz) frequencies inSeptember 1997. In December 1997, appli-cations were filed in the Ka-band and, inJanuary 1999, applications were filed forthe Ku-band.


It is AST’s assessment that, under the base-line scenario, no Broadband LEO systemwill be deployed through 2011. This is theresult of lost investor confidence in NGSOsystems, high start-up costs, competitionfrom terrestrial services, competition fromGSO broadband services, slow customeracceptance of existing broadband GSOs,and general uncertainty in business strate-gies thus far. Under the robust scenariohowever, AST projects that one BroadbandLEO system will be deployed.


40 FAA and COMSTAC

Remote Sensing SystemsWorldwide, the number of commercialremote sensing systems is slowly increasing.The availability of sophisticated optical sen-sors capable of distinguishing objects assmall as a half-meter, coupled with the rapiddevelopment of the Internet and other com-puter technologies needed to distribute anddownload large imagery data files, has madesatellite imagery available to a growing cus-tomer base. More governments and privateorganizations around the world will becomeremote sensing consumers to fulfill theirresource management and intelligence gath-ering requirements.

Over the next ten years, remote sensingactivity will include launches of satelliteswith sub-meter-resolution sensors, the intro-duction of commercially-available hyper-spectral imagery, and the deployment ofsmall constellations of satellites designed toincrease temporal frequency of observation,or revisit time.

As of early 2002, five dedicated remotesensing satellites are being operated by com-mercial organizations (OrbView 1, OrbView2, IKONOS, EROS A1, and QuickBird),with more commercial imagery provided bysystems funded by government agencies.The United States is well-positioned to com-pete in the commercial remote sensing satel-lite industry, with ORBIMAGE, SpaceImaging, and DigitalGlobe all offering high-resolution images to clients around theworld. However, since the industry is still in its infancy and commercial demand is relatively low, these companies depend onanchor tenants to maintain their viability. Toachieve this end they seek to acquire andmaintain relationships with both governmentand commercial clients. Commercial remotesensing companies have had a difficult timesecuring anticipated government clients inthe U.S. because of the continuing evolutionof remote sensing law and policy and thegovernment’s highly successful remote sens-ing and intelligence programs. Terrorist

activity during 2001 has, however, increasedgovernment interest in potential relation-ships with commercial providers.

Remote Sensing systems are summarizedin Table 13.

The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) has been delegatedby the Department of Commerce to ensurethat commercial remote sensing satellitesmeet certain legal and technical criteria.NOAA’s licensing program was initiated in1984, although the first license was notgranted until 1993. NOAA has issued 18licenses for remote sensing operations. Themost recent license was issued on March 6,2002 to TransOrbital, a U.S. company thatplans to image both the Earth and the Moon.A NOAA license is required only for theEarth-imaging portion of the mission. Thereare no progress milestones required to keep aNOAA license. See Table 14 for a list oflicensees.

Remote Sensing Companies

ORBIMAGE was the first company tolaunch a commercial remote sensing satel-lite. Both OrbView 1, launched in 1995, andOrbView 2, launched in 1997, continue tooperate, providing images with 10-kilometerand 1.1-kilometer resolution, respectively.OrbView 3, delayed due to technical prob-lems, is planned for launch in late 2002.OrbView 4 was lost to a launch failure in2001. It is unclear what ORBIMAGE plansas a follow-on system, but because of finan-cial difficulties, it is believed no furthersatellites will be launched during the forecastperiod. The company filed Chapter 11 bank-ruptcy in April 2002 and is expected toreemerge before the launch of Orbview 3.

Space Imaging, founded in 1994, providescommercially-available imagery from itsIKONOS satellite. Launched in 1999,IKONOS was the first commercial spaceplatform with image resolution of one meter.On December 6, 2000, Space Imaging wasgranted authorization by NOAA to develop


FAA and COMSTAC 41

a satellite capable of generating 0.5-meterimagery. The satellite, currently referred toas Block 2, is planned for launch in 2005.Block 2 is expected to have a design life ofseven years like its predecessor, IKONOS.In addition to imagery from its own satellite,Space Imaging also markets images fromLandsat 7, India’s IRS satellites, andCanada’s Radarsat 1.

DigitalGlobe, formerly EarthWatch, wasestablished in 1993 and was granted the firstNOAA license (under the name WorldViewImaging Corporation) in the same year. Thecompany contracted with Boeing for thelaunch of QuickBird, aboard a Delta II onOctober 18, 2001. QuickBird is capable ofimaging objects 0.6 meters in size or greater,and became available for commercial servicein early 2002. While DigitalGlobe has notannounced plans for follow-on satellites, it isassumed that a replacement for QuickBirdwill be launched in 2005 or 2006, shortlybefore the end of QuickBird’s design life. InMarch 2002, DigitalGlobe won one of twostudy contracts under the Landsat DataContinuity Mission (LDCM), a programestablished by NASA in lieu of the govern-ment-funded Landsat 8 project. DigitalGlobewill explore concepts for a 2005-2006Landsat follow-on mission.

Resource21 was established by Boeing,BAE Systems, Farmland and the Institutefor Technology Development. It is intendedto provide information services to cus-tomers in the agriculture, national securityand science application sectors. LikeDigitalGlobe, Resource21 was awarded a$5 million study contract under the LDCMin March 2002. While its satellite plansremain in the conceptual stage, Resource21plans to develop and launch at least oneLEO satellite with 10-meter resolutionregardless of the winner of the LDCM.

GER, founded in 1980 as a provider ofinstruments and aerial imagery for a varietyof mapping applications, recently estab-lished a space division responsible for

developing the GEROS remote sensing sys-tem. GEROS will consist of six LEO remotesensing satellites designed to obtain imagesof the Earth in panchromatic, infrared, andmultispectral bands ranging from 1.5-meterto 10-meter resolution. As of 2002, however,GER had not yet secured funding for theconstellation, and it remains unclear if thecompany will launch their first satellite bythe planned 2005 milestone.

ImageSat, founded as West Indian Space in 1997, provides commercial imagerythrough its EROS remote sensing satellite.Headquartered in Cyprus, its three share-holders are Israel Aircraft Industries, ElectroOptics Industries, and Core SoftwareTechnology. ImageSat currently operatesonly one satellite, EROS A1, which waslaunched from Russia in the winter of 2000.It is to be followed by the EROS B series,consisting of five satellites, with the initiallaunch of EROS B1 expected in 2003. Allthe satellites have a standard resolution of1.8 meters, but can be programmed to obtainimages with resolution less than a meter.

Radarsat International, formed in 1989 tooperate Radarsat 1, is now a subsidiary ofMacDonald Dettwiler and Associates. Bothcompanies are based in Canada. Radarsat 1,launched in 1995 aboard a Delta II, has gath-ered radar data covering most of the Earthand provides radar imagery with resolutionsbetween 8 and 100 meters. Radarsat 2,planned for launch in 2003, will continue themission of its predecessor, and is expected towork in tandem with Radarsat 3, which iscurrently in the early development stages.Despite substantial support from theCanadian Space Agency (CSA) in the begin-ning, Radarsat and its ground support infra-structure are now operated commercially byMacDonald Dettwiler and Associates.


AST projects that the remote sensing sectorwill yield about 20 payloads in the baselineforecast with three additional payloads in therobust forecast.


42 FAA and COMSTAC


FAA and COMSTAC 43

Table 13: Commercial Satellite Remote Sensing SystemsSystem Operator Manufacturer Satellites Mass

kg (lb)Highest

Resolution (m)

Launch Year

Status

EROS ImageSat International

Israel Aircraft Industries

EROS A1 EROS B1-B5

280 (617) 350 (771)

1.51.5

2000 2003 EROS A1 continues to operate.

IKONOS Space Imaging Lockheed MartinIKONOS 1 IKONOS

IKONOS Block II

816 (1800) 816 (1800)

TBD

11

0.5

1999 1999 2005

IKONOS 1 lost due to launch vehicle malfunction. IKONOS continues to operate.

OrbView ORBIMAGE Orbital Sciences Corp.

OrbView 1 OrbView 2 OrbView 3 OrbView 4

74 (163) 372 (819) 185 (408) 185 (408)

10,0001,000

11

1995 1997 2002 2001

OrbViews 1 and 2 continue to operate. OrbView 4 lost due to launch vehicle failure.

QuickBird DigitalGlobe Ball Aerospace QuickBird 1 QuickBird

815 (1797) 909 (2004)

0.60.6

2000 2001

First QuickBird launch failed in 2000. QuickBird started commercial operations in 2002.

Radarsat

MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (Radarsat International)

MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates

Radarsat 1 Radarsat 2 Radarsat 3

2,750 (6,050) 2,195 (4,840)

TBD

83

TBD

1995 2003 TBD

Radarsat 1 continues to operate. Radarsat 3 will launch "a few years after Radarsat 2" and will work in tandem.

GEROS GER Corp. GER GEROS 1-6 800 (1,760) 12 2005 Company is seeking funding and launch provider for system.

RapidEye RapidEye AGSurrey Satellite Technology Limited

RapidEye 1-4 380 (837) 6.5 2004RapidEye part of DLR Earth monitoring mission, but will be operated by commercial entity.

RS Resource21 Boeing RS 1 1,200 (2,646) 10 2005 Will proceed with program regardless of LDCM status.

Landsat Follow On TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 2005

Phase One Landsat Data Continuity Mission contract awarded to DigitalGlobe and Resource21.

Operational

Development and Proposed

Table 14: Commercial Satellite Remote Sensing Licenses

Licensee Date License Granted

Remarks

EarthWatch 1/4/1993 Originally issued to WorldViewSpace Imaging 6/17/1993 Originally issued to EOSATSpace Imaging 4/22/1994 Originally issued to Lockheed ORBIMAGE 5/5/1994 Originally issued to Orbital Sciences Corp.ORBIMAGE 7/1/1994 Originally issued to Orbital Sciences Corp.EarthWatch 9/2/1994AstroVision 1/23/1995 Only license issued so far for commercial GEO systemGDE Systems Imaging 7/14/1995Motorola 8/1/1995Boeing Commercial Space 5/16/1996 License for Resource21 systemCTA Corporation 1/9/1997

RDL Corporation 6/16/1998 License for Radar1 system, which has since been cancelled

STDC 3/26/1999 Acquired by ESSI, license issued for operation of NEMO system

Ball Aerospace 11/21/2000EarthWatch 12/6/2000

Space Imaging 12/6/2000 First license issued to commercial operator for 0.5 meter resolution

EarthWatch 12/14/2000 Second license issued to commercial operator for 0.5 meter resolution

TransOrbital 3/6/2002

International Science and OtherPayloadsAs an increasing number of countries establish civil space science programs, thedemand for commercial launch servicesremains somewhat constant since severalnations lack domestic launch services.International governments and researchorganizations launch small spacecraft to con-duct scientific research in LEO, includingmicrogravity, life sciences, and communica-tions experiments. Typically, the scientificcommunity is on a modest budget, so thedemand leans toward low-cost, small launchvehicles. In the past three years, science ordemonstration payloads have been launchedcommercially for operators in Sweden,Germany, Malaysia, Italy, South Korea, and Taiwan. The 1994 National SpaceTransportation Policy generally restricts U.S. Government payloads from launchingon non-U.S.-built vehicles so demand forthese payloads is not included in this report.

Digital Audio Radio Services

Sirius Satellite Radio (formerly CD Radio)launched three satellites to elliptical orbit(ELI) in 2000 and rolled out service in2002. Its main U.S. rival, XM Satellite,operates two satellites in GSO. Early sub-scriber successes and enthusiastic respons-es from users have generated interest fromat least two other companies in providingservice to the European continent. GlobalRadio, based in Luxembourg, announced in2002 it hoped to begin service in 2005 withsatellites in ELI. World Space has beenproviding radio service from GSO to listen-ers in Africa and is considering addingservice to Europe as well.


AST projects that approximately 34 pay-loads of international science or other originwill be launched under the baseline sce-nario. This is the largest single market sectorof the baseline satellite and launch demandforecast. In the robust scenario, AST proj-ects a slight increase to 40 payloads.

Future Markets

With a reduction in the number of telecom-munications satellites bound for NGSO, thequestion arises, what will be the next newmarket? When 2001: A Space Odyssey wasreleased in 1968, the film depicted PanAmerican Airlines flying commercial lowEarth orbit flights to a space station with aHilton hotel. During 1968, there were onlysome eight total geosynchronous satellitesin orbit of which two or three were quasi-commercial.

Fast forward to the year 2001, with over220 commercial satellites operating in GEOand the world’s first paying space tourist,Dennis Tito, launched to the InternationalSpace Station (ISS) for a one-week visit. Asecond tourist, Mark Shuttleworth, waslaunched in April 2002 and more touristmissions are planned at a rate of about twoper year. With customers willing to pay $20million per launch, clearly, there is an exist-ing market for public space travel. Withregards to the NGSO forecast, however, theSoyuz tourist activities involve selling thethird seat on regularly-scheduled returnvehicle exchange missions and would havebeen launched with or without a payingpassenger. Since the paying customer didnot generate the primary demand for thelaunch, public space travel is not yet a partof this NGSO forecast.

Another potential market is commercialISS resupply missions. It is unclear if othermarkets such as space-based manufacturingor orbiting hotels will emerge with associ-ated launch demand by 2011.


44 FAA and COMSTAC

Methodology

This report is based on FAA/AST researchand discussions with industry, includingsatellite service providers, satellite manu-facturers, launch service providers, andindependent analysts.

The forecast considers progress in financ-ing, design maturity, licensing, partnerships,target market development, spacecraftdevelopment, launch services contracts, anddeployment plans for publicly-announcedsatellites. Equally important considerationsinclude investor confidence in service mar-kets, competition from terrestrial and spacesectors (including GSO satellites and cur-rently operating NGSO systems), andnational and global economic conditions. Inaddition, the status of orbiting systems andtheir business histories were evaluated.Interviews with system operators and theFCC were conducted for this report.

The satellite systems considered likely tobe launched are entered into an Excel-based “traffic model.” The model generatesdeployment schedules by year based oneither known or estimated launch activityand number of satellites in a constellation.The model also delineates market seg-ments, assigns small or medium-to-heavyvehicles based on satellite mass (unlessvehicles are already designated), and calcu-lates total payloads and launches through-out the forecast period.

Follow-on systems and replacement satel-lites for existing systems are evaluated on acase-by-case basis. (This is a change fromprevious NGSO forecasts although, inmany cases, future activity was beyond thetimeframe of the forecast.) At this time, forBig and Little LEO satellite systems, it isunclear that market conditions will allowfor follow-on systems. Previously-pur-chased launches of replacement satellitesfor systems that emerged from bankruptcyare included.

Finally, international launch providers weresurveyed for the latest available near-termmanifests. For the remote sensing and for-eign science markets, near-term primarypayloads that generated individual com-mercial launches were used in the modelwhile future years were estimated based onhistorical activity.

Vehicle Sizes and OrbitsSmall launch vehicles are defined as thosewith a payload capacity of less than 2,268kilograms (5,000 pounds) to LEO, at 185kilometers (100 nautical miles) altitude and28.5° inclination. Medium-to-heavy launchvehicles are capable of carrying more than2,268 kilograms (5,000 pounds) to a 185kilometers (100 nautical miles) altitude and28.5° inclination.

Commercial non-geosynchronous systemsuse a variety of orbits, including:

! Low Earth orbits (LEO) range from 160-2400 kilometers (100-1,500 miles) inaltitude, varying between 0° inclinationfor equatorial coverage and 101° inclina-tion for global coverage;

! Medium Earth orbits (MEO) begin at2,400 kilometers (1,500 miles) in alti-tude and are typically at a 45° inclinationto allow for global coverage using fewerhigher-powered satellites. However,MEO is often a term applied to orbitsbetween LEO and GSO; and

! Elliptical orbits (ELI, also known ashighly-elliptical orbits (HEO)) haveapogees ranging from 7,600 kilometers(4,725 miles) to 35,497 kilometers(22,000 miles) in altitude and up to116.5° inclination, allowing satellites to“hang” over certain regions on Earth,such as North America.


FAA and COMSTAC 45

Payload and Launch Forecast

In the 2002 Commercial Space Transpor-tation Forecast for Non-GeosynchronousOrbits, payload and launch projections arelower than in the 2001 forecast. These num-bers reflect reduced expectations in thetelecommunications sector and a slightdecline in international science and remotesensing activity.

Baseline ScenarioThe baseline scenario anticipates thedeployment of:

! No new Little LEO systems in additionto the already-deployed ORBCOMM.This is one less than the 2001 forecast.

! One additional Big LEO system to jointhe already-deployed Iridium andGlobalstar systems. The latter two areplanning some replacement launches butnot full system replenishment at thistime. This is the same number of sys-tems projected in 2001.

! No new Broadband LEO systems.

! International science and other payloadswill comprise about 43 percent of pay-load market.

! Remote Sensing will encompass about25 percent of the market with about 20payloads.

Table 15 and Figures 11 and 12 show thebaseline forecast in which 79 payloads willbe deployed between 2002 and 2011. Thistotal, accounting for multiple manifestingon launch vehicles, yields a commerciallaunch demand of about 63 launches overthe forecast period. This demand breaksdown into about 2.5 launches annually onsmall launch vehicles and 4 launches annu-ally on medium-to-heavy launch vehicles.In comparison to last year’s forecast of 151total payloads (2001-2010), this year’s pro-jections are down 48 percent. The 2000baseline forecast covered 11 years (2000-2010) and contained 440 payloads. Thecurrent launch count is down 21 percentfrom last year’s prediction of 80 launchesover 10 years.

The combined telecommunications sectors(Little LEO, Big LEO and Broadband)together account for only 32 percent of thetotal payload market, a dramatic decreasefrom previous forecasts. Allowing for mul-tiple manifesting, the launch demand fore-cast from the remote sensing sector isslightly higher than the demand from thetelecommunications sector (16 launchescompared with 14, respectively). With 33launches projected, international scienceand other payloads such as digital audioradio account for about 52 percent of thelaunch demand through 2011.


46 FAA and COMSTAC


FAA and COMSTAC 47

0

10

20

30

40

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sate

llite

s

Broadband LEOBig LEOLittle LEOInt'l Scientific/Remote Sensing/Other

Figure 11: Baseline Market Scenario Payload Forecast

Table 15: Baseline Market Scenario Payload and Launch Forecast

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL AvgPayloadsBig LEO 7 0 10 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 25 2.5Little LEO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0Broadband 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0International Scientific/Other 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 34 3.4Remote Sensing 1 2 8 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 20 2.0Total Payloads 10 6 22 12 5 7 4 4 5 4 79 7.9

Launch DemandMedium-to-Heavy Vehicles 1 1 11 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 24 2.4Small Vehicles 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 3 39 3.9Total Launches 5 5 15 12 5 4 4 4 5 4 63 6.3

Figure 12: Baseline Market Scenario Launch Demand Forecast

0

10

20

30

40

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Laun

ches

Small (<2,268 kg LEO)

Medium to Heavy (>2,268 kg LEO)

Robust ScenarioThe robust scenario reflects payloads andlaunches that could be deployed undermore positive market conditions, in addi-tion to those already included in the base-line forecast. Under the robust scenario,AST projects:

! One additional Little LEO constellation,in addition to ORBCOMM. This is areduction of one from the 2001 robustscenario.

! No additional Big LEO systems to jointhe baseline total, the same as 2001. Nosecond-generation systems are currentlyidentified or expected to be deployed inthe forecast period.

! One Broadband NGSO system, which isthe same as last year’s robust scenario.

! About six additional international scienceor other payloads will be deployed

! Three additional remote sensing systemswill be deployed.

The robust scenario projects in Table 16and Figures 13 and 14 that 132 payloadswill be deployed between 2002 and 2011.This total is down 36 payloads from lastyear’s forecast.

The telecommunications sector sees anincrease of about 44 payloads in the robustforecast over the baseline, translating to 10additional launches.

For launch demand under the robust sce-nario, a total of 84 launches is projected,translating into an average of five smalllaunch vehicle launches annually and aboutthree launches annually for medium-to-heavy launch vehicles. The 2001 ten-yearlaunch demand projected 104 total launch-es, or 10.4 per year, split between sevensmall launch vehicles and three medium-to-heavy launch vehicles. The robust launchdemand is down 19 percent from last year.

Despite the presence of more overalltelecommunications payloads compared tointernational science/other in the robustscenario, 69 vs. 40, respectively, the result-ing number of launches in the internationalscience/other sector is higher than the num-ber of launches for telecommunications, 39vs. 24, because of the tendency for moremultiple manifesting of telecommunica-tions payloads.


48 FAA and COMSTAC


FAA and COMSTAC 49

0

10

20

30

40

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sate

llite

s

Broadband LEOBig LEOLittle LEOInt'l Scientific/Remote Sensing/Other

Figure 13: Robust Market Scenario Payload Forecast

Table 16: Robust Market Scenario Payload and Launch Forecast

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL AvgPayloadsBig LEO 7 0 10 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 25 2.5Little LEO 0 0 6 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 32 3.2Broadband 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1.2International Scientific/Other 2 4 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 40 4.0Remote Sensing 1 2 8 5 1 1 0 2 1 2 23 2.3Total Payloads 10 6 36 40 8 9 5 6 6 6 132 13.2

Launch DemandMedium-to-Heavy Vehicles 1 1 15 10 1 1 1 1 0 1 32 3.2Small Vehicles 4 4 5 8 6 5 4 5 6 5 52 5.2Total Launches 5 5 20 18 7 6 5 6 6 6 84 8.4

Figure 14: Robust Market Scenario Launch Demand Forecast

0

10

20

30

40

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Laun

ches

Small (<2,268 kg LEO)

Medium to Heavy (>2,268 kg LEO)

Historical NGSO Market Assessments

A historical comparison of AST baselineforecasts from 1998 to the present is inFigure 15. Actual launches to date are alsodisplayed. Since publication of the first pro-jections for NGSO/LEO launches in 1994,there has been tremendous growth in thenumber of proposed NGSO systems. In1998, AST forecasted a demand of 1,202payloads over a 13-year period (1998-2010), with a peak year of 59 launches in2002. However, since 1999, AST hasreduced its annual forecasts as demand inthe marketplace fell. This year’s forecastestimates only 5 launches during 2002.NGSO activity peaked with 19 launches in1998 when Iridium, Globalstar, and ORB-COMM were active. It should be pointedout that the 1998 projections were reason-able at that time based on demand and thatmarket conditions in NGSO change rapidly.

For the first time since AST began fore-casting, the number of baseline internation-al science payloads and remote sensingpayloads combined are more than those inthe telecommunications sector throughoutthe entire forecast.

Table 17 lists actual payloads launched bymarket sector and total commercial launchesthat were internationally-competed from1994-2001. Medium-to-heavy vehicles had36 launches during this period while smallvehicles had 31. The 2002 forecast estimateslaunch demand for more small vehiclelaunches (39) than medium-to-heavy vehiclelaunches (24) from 2002-2011.

Historical payload and launch data for theperiod 1993 to 2001 are shown in Table 18.Secondary and piggyback payloads on laun-ches with larger primary payloads were notincluded in the payload or launch tabulations.


50 FAA and COMSTAC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Laun

ches

Historical Forecast

Actual 2002 Projections

2001 Projections

2000 Projections

1999 Projections

1998 Projections

Table 17: Historical Commercial NGSO Activity*1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

PayloadsBig LEO 0 0 0 46 61 42 5 1Little LEO 0 3 0 8 18 7 0 0Remote Sensing/Int'l Science/Other 0 2 2 3 4 7 13 3Total Payloads 0 4 2 57 83 56 18 4LaunchesMedium to Heavy vehicles 0 0 1 8 9 11 6 1Small vehicles 0 2 1 5 10 7 3 3Total Launches 0 2 2 13 19 18 9 4

*Includes payloads open to international launch services procure-ment and other commercially-sponsored payloads. Does not includedummy payloads. Also not included in this forecast are those satel-lites that are captive to national flag launch service providers (i.e.,USAF or NASA satellites, or similar European, Russian, Japanese,or Chinese government satellites that are captive to their ownlaunch providers). Does not include piggy-back payloads. Only pri-mary payloads that generate a launch are included unless combinedsecondaries generate the demand.

Figure 15: Comparison of Past Baseline Launch Demand Forecasts


FAA and COMSTAC 51

Table 18: Historical NGSO Payload and Launch Activities (1993-2001)*

Summary Market Segment Date Payload20014 Payloads Big LEO 6/19/01 ICO F-2 Atlas 2AS Medium-to-Heavy1 Big LEO2 Remote Sensing Remote Sensing 9/21/01 OrbView 4 Taurus Small1 Foreign Science 10/18/01 QuickBird Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy

4 Launches Foreign Science 2/20/01 Odin START 1 Small2 Medium-to-Heavy2 Small200018 Payloads Big LEO 2/8/00 Globalstar (4 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy5 Big LEO 3/12/00 ICO Z-1 Zenit 3SL Medium-to-Heavy2 Remote Sensing8 Foreign Science Remote Sensing 11/21/00 QuickBird 1 Cosmos Small3 Other 12/5/00 EROS A1 START 1 Small

Foreign Science 7/15/00 Champ Cosmos SmallMitaRUBIN

9/26/00 MegSat 1 Dnepr 1 Medium-to-HeavySaudiSat 1-1SaudiSat 1-2Tiungsat 1Unisat

9 Launches Other 6/30/00 Sirius Radio 1 Proton Medium-to-Heavy6 Medium-to-Heavy 9/5/00 Sirius Radio 2 Proton Medium-to-Heavy3 Small 11/30/00 Sirius Radio 3 Proton Medium-to-Heavy199956 Payloads Big LEO 2/9/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Soyuz Medium-to-Heavy42 Big LEO 3/15/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Soyuz Medium-to-Heavy7 Little LEO 4/15/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Soyuz Medium-to-Heavy2 Remote Sensing 6/10/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy5 Foreign Science 6/11/99 Iridium (2 sats) LM-2C Small

7/10/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy7/25/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy8/17/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy9/22/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Soyuz Medium-to-Heavy10/18/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Soyuz Medium-to-Heavy11/22/99 Globalstar (4 sats) Soyuz Medium-to-Heavy

Little LEO 12/4/99 ORBCOMM (7 sats) Pegasus Small

Remote Sensing 4/27/99 IKONOS 1 Athena 2 Small9/24/99 IKONOS 2 Athena 2 Small

Foreign Science 1/26/99 Formosat 1 Athena 1 Small4/21/99 UoSat 12 Dnepr 1 Medium-to-Heavy

18 Launches 4/29/99 Abrixas Cosmos Small11 Medium-to-Heavy MegSat 07 Small 12/21/99 Kompsat Taurus Small

Launch Vehicle

*Includes payloads open to international launch services procurement and other commercially-sponsored payloads. Does not include dummypayloads. Also not included in this forecast are those satellites that are captive to national flag launch service providers (i.e., USAF or NASAsatellites, or similar European, Russian, Japanese, or Chinese government satellites that are captive to their own launch providers). Does notinclude piggy-back payloads. Only primary payloads that generate launch demand are included unless combined secondaries generated thedemand.


52 FAA and COMSTAC

199883 Payloads Broadband LEO 2/25/98 Teledesic T1 (BATSAT) Pegasus Small1 Broadband LEO61 Big LEO Big LEO 2/14/98 Globalstar (4 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy18 Little LEO 2/18/98 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy3 Foreign Science 3/25/98 Iridium (3 sats) LM-2C Small

3/29/98 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy4/7/98 Iridium (7 sats) Proton Medium-to-Heavy4/28/98 Globalstar (4 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy5/2/98 Iridium (2 sats) LM-2C Small5/17/98 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy8/20/98 Iridium (2 sats) LM-2C Small9/8/98 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy9/10/98 Globalstar (12 sats) Zenit 2 Medium-to-Heavy11/6/98 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy12/19/98 Iridium (2 sats) LM-2C Small

Little LEO 2/10/98 ORBCOMM (2 sats) Taurus Small8/2/98 ORBCOMM (8 sats) Pegasus Small9/23/98 ORBCOMM (8 sats) Pegasus Small

19 Launches9 Medium-to-Heavy Foreign Science 7/7/98 Tubsat N & Tubsat N 1 Shtil Small10 Small 10/22/98 SCD 2 Pegasus Small199757 Payloads Big LEO 5/5/97 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy46 Big LEO 6/18/97 Iridium (7 sats) Proton Medium-to-Heavy8 Little LEO 7/9/97 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy2 Remote Sensing 8/20/97 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy1 Foreign Science 9/14/97 Iridium (7 sats) Proton Medium-to-Heavy

9/26/97 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy11/8/97 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy12/8/97 Iridium (2 sats) LM-2C Small12/20/97 Iridium (5 sats) Delta 2 Medium-to-Heavy

Little LEO 12/23/97 ORBCOMM (8 sats) Pegasus Small

Remote Sensing 8/1/97 OrbView 2 Pegasus Small13 Launches 12/24/97 EarlyBird 1 START 1 Small8 Medium-to-Heavy5 Small Foreign Science 4/21/97 Minisat 0.1 Pegasus Small19962 Payloads Foreign Science 4/30/96 SAX Atlas 1 Medium-to-Heavy2 Foreign Science 11/4/96 SAC B Pegasus Small

2 Launches1 Medium-to-Heavy1 Small19954 Payloads Little LEO 4/3/95 ORBCOMM (2 sats) Pegasus Small3 Little LEO 8/15/95 GEMStar 1 Athena 1 Small1 Remote Sensing

Remote Sensing 4/3/95 OrbView 1 (Microlab) Pegasus Small2 Launches2 Small19940 Payloads0 Launches19932 Payloads Little LEO 2/9/93 CDS 1 Pegasus 1 Small1 Little LEO1 Foreign Science Foreign Science 2/9/93 SCD 1 Pegasus 1 Small

1 Launch1 Small

2002 commercial space transportation forecasts · commercial space launches worldwide will occur...

Documents