Commercial Launch Activity in the Next Decade and Its Effect on the Space Transportation Industry

1. Commercial Launch Activity in the Next Decade and Its Effect on the Space Transportation Industry Jeff Foust ISDC 2002 Denver, Colorado 2002 May 25

2. Disclaimer The views expressed here do not represent the official opinions of the Futron Corporation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or any other company, organization, individual, or entity.

3. Overview • Introduction to launch forecasts • Producing forecasts • Results of 2002 forecasts • Implications for commercial space transportation • Expendable launch vehicles • Reusable launch vehicles • Emerging markets

4. Acronym Primer • GSO or GEO - Geostationary orbit • NGSO - Non-geostationary orbit • COMSTAC - Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee • FAA/AST - Federal Aviation Administration’s Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation • ELV - Expendable launch vehicle • RLV - Reusable launch vehicle

5. What Are Launch Forecasts? • An effort to predict approximate number of payloads and launches for a given set of years • Usually 10 years, up to 13 in past • Generic - no attempt to pick particular payloads, launch vehicles, or specify exact launch dates • These forecasts focus on international commercial launch activity only • No military or civilian launches • USAF National Launch Forecast incorporates these launches, but only for US (CCAFS and VAFB)

6. Why Make Launch Forecasts? • Try to spot trends in market • Growth in payload mass, corresponding effect on vehicle size and manifesting • Sharp rise and fall of NGSO market in late 1990s • Provide guidance to industry and government

7. Making Launch Forecasts • Commercial launch forecast broken up by orbit: • GEO: done by COMSTAC with launch vehicle, satellite manufacturer, and operator input • NGSO: done by FAA, with research and interviews of vehicle and satellite manufacturers, operators, and organizations • Attempt to forecast demand for payloads and launches • Either specific satellites or generic demand • Demand can be affected by many factors • Forecasts also called “models”

8. GEO Forecasts • Created by COMSTAC with input from industry • Focus exclusively on communications satellites • Two-part forecast • Near-term (2002-2004): Forecast known payloads scheduled for launch during this time • Far-term (2005-2011): Estimate demand for payloads and launches based on industry input

9. NGSO Forecasts • Based on FAA research of existing and proposed systems in several markets • Telecommunications • Little LEO (ORBCOMM etc.) • Big LEO (Iridium, Globalstar, ICO) • Broadband LEO (Teledesic) • Remote Sensing • International Science/Other • Incorporate only existing or likely systems in model • Use estimates where necessary

10. NGSO Methodology • Model generates two forecasts: • Baseline: systems likely to be deployed during forecast period • Robust: systems that could be deployed if market demand grows • GEO has only one forecast, but with error bars • Forecast covers 10 years: 2002-2011

11. 2002 Forecast - Overall Total payloads and launches for 2002-2011

12. Combined GEO/NGSO Launch Forecast

13. GEO Forecast Details • Payloads vary between 24 (2003-5) and 32 (2002) • Launches vary between 18 (2004-6) and 27 (2002) • 2002 numbers are anomalous because 2001 numbers were low (14 payloads) as many payloads were delayed • Historical “fudge factor” means likely number of payloads in 2002 is 22-27 • Payload and launch numbers will not approach 2002 levels until late in decade

14. GEO Satellite Forecast Comparison

15. GEO Launch and Payloads

16. 2002 NGSO Model Results

17. NGSO Payloads and Launches

18. NGSO Baseline Launch Forecast

19. Forecast Interpretation • 2002 forecast represents modest overall decline over 2001 forecast • 23 percent reduction in payloads • 16.5 percent reduction in launches • Steeper declines for NGSO vs. GEO • Part of multi-year trend • High launch activity in the late 1990s probably will not be seen again until late this decade, barring unforeseen developments

20. Comparison of Combined Forecasts

21. GEO Comparison • Demand for commercial GEO payloads entirely dependant on communications market • Demand for GEO comsats weak now • Current economic climate • Terrestrial competition • Replacement of older systems in last several years

22. NGSO Comparison • 2002 forecast represents 4th consecutive decline in commercial NGSO market • Average of 6.3 launches/year, 7.9 payloads/year • 1998 baseline: 31 launches/year, 92.5 payloads/year • Collapse of LEO telecom market to blame • Remote sensing and international scientific now primary contribution to market • 1998 baseline: 6.4% • 2002 baseline: 68.4%

23. Baseline Forecast Comparison

24. NGSO Market Share - Baseline

25. Implications for ELVs • Supply of existing or upcoming ELVs more than enough to meet market demand • Oversupply of ELVs is forcing down prices • First commercial Delta 4 launch: $25-30M • Could get worse if China reenters market or others (H-2A, GSLV) move into commercial market • National needs (and pride!) will counter any market-driven forces to consolidate ELV market • Possible ESA support for Arianespace • More DoD funding for EELV

26. Implications for RLVs • Collapse of NGSO market deprived RLVs of their major market • Most existing vehicle designs cannot support GSO market • More than enough supply of ELVs means no way for RLVs to crack into this market • SLI-derived “2nd generation” RLV still ≥ 10 years off

27. The NGSO Market and RLVs • Strong interest in RLVs starting in mid-1990s because of growing forecasts for NGSO launches • Spurred creation of an “entrepreneurial” RLV industry to develop small RLVs to serve this market • Rotary Rocket, Pioneer Rocketplane, Kelly Space, etc. • These companies lost their primary market with LEO telecom crash • Some have died (Rotary) or are in limbo (Kelly) • Others have taken a new approach (Pioneer, Space Access LLC, XCOR Aerospace) • See Futron white paper for more details

28. The Four Stages of Coping with the Death of the LEO Launch Market • Denial (1999) • No one believes Iridium, Teledesic, et al. are going away any time soon • Anger (2000) • Blame the telecoms, investors, regulators, NASA, and others for problems developing RLVs • Depression (2001) • The LEO launch market is gone, there’s no hope left for us • Acceptance (2002) • Sure, the LEO launch market is gone, but there are other markets we can pursue that exist and may be easier to do

29. RLVs Go Suborbital • Multiple emerging markets could be pursued by new suborbital RLVs: • Public space travel • Promotion and sponsorship • Microgravity research and qualification • Remote sensing • Potentially much cheaper to develop ($10s of millions) • Generally not well-suited to ELVs • Technically considerably less challenging than orbital vehicles

30. Hurdles to a Suborbital RLV Industry • Markets poorly defined • Realization that CSTS outdated, need something new • Interest in ASCENT • Investment still not forthcoming • Blame on market uncertainties, lack of investor education, and general economic issues • Still technical issues to address • “One rocket engine test equals 100 PowerPoint presentations” – Aleta Jackson, XCOR Aerospace

31. More Information Presentation and other materials (including 2002 forecast) on the web: http://www.jfoust.com/isdc2002/ Email: jfoust@futron.com

32. Gratuitous Plug Spacetoday.net Space news from around the web http://www.spacetoday.net