Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Trends in Small Satellite Technology and the Role of the
NASA Small Spacecraft Technology Program
Final Update to the NASA Advisory Committee Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee
March 28, 2017 Bhavya Lal, Asha Balakrishnan, Alyssa Picard, Ben Corbin,
Jonathan Behrens, Ellen Green, Roger Myers
Reviewers: Brian Zuckerman, Mike Yarymovych, Iain Boyd, Malcolm MacDonald
Project Goal
Given investments outside STMD, and NASA’s mission needs, what is the “the appropriate, discriminating role for STMD vis-à-vis all the
other organizations that are developing small satellite technology?”
2
Overall Approach • Examined smallsat developments
– State-of-the-art and activities outside STMD
– Evolution of the ecosystem: players and markets
– Drivers of future activities: infrastructure, policies, investment
• Analyzed STMD’s current and emerging smallsat portfolio
• Identified NASA’s small spacecraft needs, both user driven (tech pull) and technology driven (tech push)
• Identified gaps and made recommendations
• Scope – STMD’s Small Spacecraft Technology
Program (SSTP) supplemented by other STMD efforts
– Did not conduct an evaluation • No comment on adequacy of funding
levels
• Definition of a small spacecraft or smallsat
– Considered several metrics – mass, cost, innovation approach (“lean satellite”)
– Settled on mass with upper limit ~200 kg
• With exceptions up to 500 kg as needed
3
Data Sources • Reviewed the literature
– National Academy of Sciences CubeSat Report (2016)
– SSTP/Ames State of the Art Report (2015)
– Trade Association/Other Reports • EuroConsult SmallSat Market Analysis
• Satellite Industry Association Annual Reports
• Space Works
• Frost & Sullivan Small Satellite Reports
• NSR Reports
– Additional Literature • STPI Report: Role of Microsatellites
• STPI Report: Global Trends in Space
• Journal articles from Smallsat conference, IAC meetings
• Conducted 57 stakeholder discussions
– Industry representatives (32) – NASA HQ and Centers(11) – DoD and other government (4) – Academia (5) – Non-profit (5)
• Identified smallsat organizations worldwide
– Assembled database from literature, interviewees, conferences
– Analyzed database
4
BACKGROUND – SMALLSAT INDUSTRY
5
Term “Industry” is Misleading – Ecosystem has a Large and Complex Value Chain
66
Sector is Globalized and International
7~70 countries have smallsats or are part of the smallsat ecosystem
Sector is Globalized and International
• Companies have global supply chains and customers
• Anyone (government, bank) can purchase turnkey service – Surrey Satellite
Technology Ltd. (SSTL) designed, built, and launched a constellation of Earth observation satellites for their China-based client Twenty-First Century Aerospace Technology
8
Ecosystem Growth Driven by Expectations of Market Demand
• Expected >3,600 small satellites will be launched in the coming decade
– Overall remote sensing market large • Weather related disruptions cost
businesses almost $3 trillion
• Commercial smallsat imaging market expected to grow from $15 million in 2015 to $164 million in 2020
– SpaceX alone expects to earn $30B annually from its constellation
– RPO, satellite servicing and other markets unknown
– New applications continually emerging – the UAS market expected to be a $20B opportunity for satellites
9
Adapted from Prospects for the Small Satellite Market, Euroconsult 2016. Figure does not include number for SpaceX and Boeing Constellations.
Satellite usage has knock-on effects: $22 billion in revenues expected by 2025 from smallsat launch and manufacturing alone
Private Funding for Smallsats Exceeds Government Funding
• Private funding may exceed government funding by an order of magnitude or more – Nearly twice as much venture capital
was invested in space in 2015 than the previous 15 years, combined
– Non-traditional investors – Coca Cola in OneWeb
10
Company
Venture Capital and Equity Financing
through 2016 (Millions)
OneWeb constellation $1,719
SpaceX constellation $1,185
Planet constellation $171
Kymeta $144 Spire $67 Spaceflight Industries/ Blacksky
$45
Astroscale $43
FINDINGS – STMD PORTFOLIO
11
STMD Smallsat Programs • “Develop and demonstrate new
small spacecraft technologies and capabilities for NASA’s missions in science, exploration and space operations”
• “Promote the small spacecraft approach as a paradigm shift for NASA and the larger space community”
• Since 2013, STMD’s smallsat programs including SSTP have disbursed about $80 million
– Systems and constellations, communications, and mobility and propulsion make up 85 percent of funding
• 60% funds to industry
12
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Industry NASA Centers Universities
Fund
ing
in M
illio
nU
SD
Industry 60%
NASA Centers35%
Universities5%
STMD’s Smallsat Programs Support Upstream Activity in the Smallsat Ecosystem
13
Primarily supported by STMD
Much of Other Government Funding Focuses on Mid/Downstream Actors
• National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) – Purchasing multispectral imagery from Planet
• NOAA – NOAA buying space-based radio occultation data from GeoOptics and Spire
Global • National Science Foundation
– Focus on science missions for Geospace and Atmospheric Research (program may be cut by 1/3)
• DARPA – Grant to Descartes Labs to demonstrate automated food security capability to
analyze, monitor and forecast wheat crop across the Middle East/North Africa • NASA
– SMD planning to purchase Earth science data – HEO spends ~$21M on missions and ~$2M on launch
14
Private Investment May Not Overlap with STMD Investment
Private Investment Focuses on Mid- and Downstream Actors • Private funds typically go to
operators (OneWeb, SpaceX, Spire) and downstream analytics firms (MapBox, Orbital Insight)
• Companies that focus on upstream technologies do not do well with private funds (e.g., VC) as they cannot project large markets and customer bases that downstream companies can
Privately-funded Technology Tends To Be Proprietary • Companies that do work on
platform technologies (e.g., SpaceX on smallsat lasercom) tend to keep the data proprietary
15
“Startups focusing on component-level technologies are challenging to fund, despite having good ideas, just because of the size of their addressable customer base” - Will Porteous, RRE Ventures
16
Even When Supporting Upstream Firms, VCs Invest in Late Stage Activities
www.nvca.org
Note: Data represents all VC – not space-specific VC funding
STMD’s Support of Industry helps build a Broader Industrial Base [that eventually serves NASA]
17
Upstream Industry
(components, manufacturing,
system integration)
Funders
SSTP and other STMD
Investments
SMD/HEO Technology
Development Investments
Center IRAD
Industry IRAD, VC and Other Private
Investment
Performers
University (Tech Development and
Mission Operations for
NASA)
Center (Tech Development and
Mission Operations for
NASA)
Industry Operator ((Tech
Development and Data Provider for
NASA)
Example - Funding of Private Companies Supports NASA Goals
18
Company, Project
Bus (if whole
procured) ACDS Propulsion
Radio or Communi-
cations Payload Ground
Station Launch
RAVAN (APL)
Blue Canyon Technology (BCT)
BCT BCT BCT NASA/APL United Launch Alliance
MinXSS (LASP) LASP BCT N/A LASP LASP ULA/Orbit al ATK; ISS
CYGNSS (NASA/SwRI) Orbital Draper
Labs Unknown Surrey Satellite Technology
DDMI (Surrey) USN/SwRI
Orbital ATK Pegasus
19
$ M
$5 M
$10 M
$15 M
$20 M
$25 M
$30 M
$35 M
STMD Focuses on the Needed Technical Areas
Technology Areas identified by stakeholders
STMD smallsat funding, 2013 to 2016
STMD Focuses at the Needed Stage -Valley of Death
20
Note: Bubble size represents dollar values; bubble location corresponds to TRL and number of projects.
CHALLENGES FACED BY STMD’S SMALLSAT PROGRAMS
21
Challenge 1 – STMD Constituents have Varying Needs
• Upstream firms providing technology to NASA missions and commercial operators have a range of needs
– NASA needs technology to be state-of-the-art and de-risked
– Commercial customers mostly need proven technology that is more affordable
• NASA centers co-fund STMD projects with internal IRAD funds to make themselves competitive for missions
• Commercial operators either develop technology in-house, or purchase derisked, mature and affordable components and systems from upstream operators.
– Would prefer government to be buyers of their data rather than support the front-end technology development
– Have a near-term horizon; often do not see that the affordable technology they are purchasing from upstream firms were initially developed with NASA and other government funds
• Downstream firms are source-agnostic, do not even distinguish between data coming from smallsats vs large satellites vs drones vs social media
22
Challenge 2 – SSTP has not Articulated a Clear Strategy
• SSTP has not articulated a clear mission – Mission is not clearly communicated to stakeholders either within
NASA or in the private sector – Lack of communication creates challenges to infusion of STMD-
developed technology
23
Challenge 3 – Organizational and Management
• Absence of metrics or evaluation to assess if program is being managed effectively, or meeting expectations
RECOMMENDATIONS
24
Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17
Smallsat Ecosystem is Multilayered Technology Element Model
Strategic planning
System integration
Market development
Value added Production
Science base
Strategic System Market Value Productionplanning integration development added
Entrepreneurial Risk activity reduction
Proprietary technologies
Technology platforms
Science base
Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17
Smallsat Ecosystem is MultilayeredTechnology Element Model
Strategic System Market Value Productionplanning integration development added
Entrepreneurial Risk activity reduction
Proprietary technologies
Technology platforms
Science base
Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17
Areas STMD Should Fund Technology Element Model
Adapted from Tassey, https://www.nap.edu/read/18812/chapter/3#17
Market Joint targeting industry- assistance and government Scale-up procurement planning incentives incentives
Strategic System Market Value Production planning integration development added Interface standards
Technology Entrepreneurial Risk transfer- activity reduction Acceptance diffusion
test Intellectual property standards,
rights national test
Proprietary facilitiesTax incentives technologies
Incubators
Technology National labs, consortia
National platformsLabs
Direct funding of Science basefirms and universities
Role for Other Entities Technology Element Model
Recommendation 1: Areas to Fund
Platform Technology/Risk Reduction
• Continue support for what is considered pre-competitive R&D – Mobility and propulsion, constellations and autonomy, thermal control, communications, etc.
• If additional funds are available, include – Technologies related to deep space systems and avionics, debris mitigation and control
– Technologies that interface between the bus and specialized payloads (e.g. small cryogenic coolers for infrared instruments)
– In particular, support development of technologies to support launch (challenge is not as much cost as it is availability)
Industrial Commons
• Add critical industrial commons and infratechnologies to the investment portfolio – Database curation, reliability testing, and others
– In creating industrial commons, to the extent possible, leverage existing organizations and learn from successful models
29
Recommendation 2: Develop and Communicate a SSTP Mission Statement
• SSTP should develop a mission statement, and communicate it, addressing
1) What is the basic purpose of SSTP 2) What makes it unique 3) Who are the principal customers 4) How are priorities determined (see proposal below)
• Communication may need to be formalized and regular
30
Recommendation 3: Maintain Independence from Users
31
To ensure funding high risk, high payoff technologies Program should be managed from HQ, not centers with parochial interests
ISLAND S T A Y S M A L L
F E E L F R E E
H E R D N E R D S
B E B E T T E R
DO IT ELSEWHERE
DO IT FOR A TIME
DRIVE CHANGE
SIMPLIFY MANAGEMENT
NAVIGATE BUREAUCRACY
HAVE TECHNICAL CHOPS
LEAD ORCHESTRAS
DESERVE TRUST
DO WHAT OTHERS WON'T
SHOW THE WORLD
BRIDGE MAKE IT MATTER
MEET AND GREET
KEEP CLEAR
LISTEN AND LEARN
TARGET STRATEGIC INTERESTS
TARGET SPECIFIC USES
TARGET OPERATIONS
CREATE A COMMUNITY
GATHER SUPPORT
SPECIFY VISIONS
SPECIFY METRICS
SEEK INPUT
TRY AND ERR
LANDFARM FACTS
MAKE SAUSAGE
SERVE SCIENCE
KNOW BETTER
HEED NERDS
MANIFEST DESTINY
SHARE POWER
PLAY NICE
Recommendation 4: Require Transition Partners
• Will ensure the relevance and diffusion of the technology after SSTP’s involvement with it has finished.
• Transition partners will also be advocates for the project and the program, and help shepherd technologies through the valley of death and beyond.
• The criteria for what makes for a successful transition will differ according to the TRL of the project.
• A transition partner would play a different role for technology push projects as distinct from technology push ones, but be relevant to both.
32
Industrial Commons/Transition Partners can Further Support STMD’s mission
33
Infrastructure support
Higher TRL STMD funding
Support by transition partners
Valley of Death
Additional Recommendations
• Develop metrics for accountability, – Metrics could be qualitative, and process-oriented
• Ensure continual monitoring and evaluation • Support autonomy for program managers
– Allow use of alternative contracting approaches – Make awards based on the skills rather than
administrative requirements
34
Summary: Findings/Conclusions • STMD is one of many investors in the smallsat ecosystem; its funding may
be dwarfed by other public and private sources by 1-2 orders of magnitude – STMD is one of a small number of government organizations that has the
mandate to support upstream, far-term, high pay-off platform technologies – Private funding focuses on operations and near-term almost-mature
technologies or on high pay-off technologies that will remain proprietary
• STMD is supporting what stakeholders view as the most important technologies (systems/constellation, propulsion, communication) but not industrial commons to the degree needed
• Primary challenges faced by STMD are not related to technology areas selected but to lack of effective communication and coordination with stakeholders
35
Summary: Recommendations • STMD could add funds to program to increase focus on deep space systems and
avionics, launch and debris mitigation and control technologies, as well as support of industrial commons
• Smallsat programs in STMD must keep their unique value in the ecosystem, and maintain independence and a degree of separation from users (to prevent short-termism)
• Better communication and coordination would require: – A mission statement [(1) what is the basic purpose of SSTP; (2) what makes it unique; (3)
who are the principal customers; and (4) how are priorities determined] and continual communication
– A transparent framework for decisionmaking that explains how each project fits with mission
– Transition partners to promote infusion, even for push technologies – another way to ensure greater transparency/formality of communication
– Program autonomy, metrics for program success, and continual evaluation to ensure course correction
36
ADDITIONAL SLIDES
37
INTERVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES
38
Case Studies Completed
Ecosystem Sector Organization Interview Date Location
Upstream Accion Systems 10/26/2016 US Upstream Berlin Space Technologies 10/21/2016 Foreign Upstream Blue Canyon Technology 12/8/2016 US Upstream Busek Co. 12/12/2016 US Upstream Clyde Space 11/17/2016 Foreign Upstream Ecliptic Enterprises 10/20/2016 US Upstream GomSpace 10/19/2016 Foreign Upstream NovaWurks 11/3/2016 US Upstream Pumpkin 12/16/2016 US Upstream SSTL 12/6/2016 Foreign Up & Midstream Planetary Resources 11/21/2016 US Up & Midstream SpaceX 11/1/2016 US Up & Midstream Tyvak International 12/8/2016 US Midstream Chandah Space
Technologies 11/3/2016 US
Midstream Hawkeye 360 10/31/2016 US Midstream KSAT 10/28/2016 Foreign Midstream OneWeb 12/21/206 Foreign Midstream USRA/VALT 10/26/2016 US Mid & Downstream Blacksky (Spaceflight) 11/8/2016 US Mid & Downstream Spire 11/1/2016 US Mid & Downstream Terra Bella 11/28/2016 US
39
Interviews Conducted - Industry
40
Organization Name Point Person Interview Date Arianespace Aaron Lewis 12/13/2016 Berlin Space Technologies Tom Segert 10/21/2016 Clydespace Pamela Anderson 11/17/2016 GomSpace Igor Alonso Portillo 10/19/2016 KSAT Stig-Are Thrana 10/28/2016 OneWeb Mike Lindsay 12/21/2016 SSTL John Paffet 12/6/2016 Accion Natalia Brikner 10/26/2016 Blue Canyon Tech John Carvo 12/8/2016 Busek Peter Hruby 12/12/2016 Chandah Helen Reed 11/3/2016 Cubecab Adrian Tymes 1/4/2017 Draper Labs Seamus Tuohy 12/9/2016 Ecliptic Rex Ridenoure 10/20/2016 ExoTerra Resource Mike Van Woerkom 12/7/2016 Hawkeye 360 Chris DeMay 10/31/2016 NovaWurks Talbot Jaeger 11/3/2016 Planetary Resources Peter Marquez 11/21/2016 Pumpkin Andrew E. Kalman 12/16/2016 Rocket Crafters Sid Gutierrez 1/4/2017 Space Systems Loral Al Tadros 4/26/2016 Spaceflight/Blacksky Peter Wagner 11/8/2016 SpaceX Matt Dunn 11/1/2016 Spire Peter Platzer 11/1/2016 Terra Bella John Fenwick 11/28/2016 Tyvak Dave Williamson 12/8/2016 VALT/USRA Dan Mosequeda 10/26/2016 York Space Systems Dirk Wallinger 10/13/2016 Bessemer Venture Partners Sunil Nagraj 10/21/2016 Lux Capital Shahin Farshchi 10/25/2016 Space Angels Networks Chad Anderson 10/31/2016
Interviews Conducted – NASA, Other Government
41
Organization Name Point Person Interview Date NASA Ames Bruce Yost 9/22/2016 NASA Goddard - Roundtable Round Table 9/2/2016 NASA HQ David Pierce 11/7/2016 NASA HQ Garrett Lee Skrobot 10/28/2016 NASA HQ Jason Cruzan 10/24/2016 NASA HQ Ellen Stofan 9/14/2016 NASA HQ Michael Seablom 8/24/2016 NASA Johnson Daniel Newswander 11/3/2016 NASA JPL Norton Charles 10/5/2016 NASA JPL - Roundtable Round Table 10/24/2016 Formerly NASA Lori Garver 1/30/2017 AFRL David Voss 11/29/2016 NOAA Steve Volz 11/2/2016 NSF Thyagarajan Nandago 11/29/2016 NSF Therese Jorgenson 8/29/2016
Interviews Conducted – Academic/Other
42
Organization Name Point Person Interview Date Aerospace Corporation Rich Welle 10/18/2016 Aerospace (Space Quality Improvement Council)
Marilee Wheaton 1/12/2017
APL Bill Swartz 9/1/2016 Cornell Mason Peck 10/11/2016 LASP Tom Woods 9/2/2016 MIT Paulo Lozano 8/30/2016 Montana State University David Klumpar 10/31/2016 SDL Pat Patterson 8/26/2016 UC Berkeley Ned Wright 8/30/2016 University of Michigan M-BARC Team 10/12/2016
43
Topic area Critical Need
Comparative Advantage for Government
Comparative Advantage for
NASA
Comparative Advantage for
STMD Payloads --General investment in instruments High High High ? --Small calibration sources High Medium Medium ? --Hyperspectral imaging instruments High Medium Medium ? --Microwave instruments High Medium Medium ? --Instruments for science/ non-commercial missions (exoplanets, astronomy)
High High High ?
--Synthetic aperture radar Medium Medium Medium ? Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control --< 3 arcsec pointing for optical communications High Medium Medium Medium --< 0.4 arcsec pointing for precision astronomy/astrometry missions
High High High High
--Navigation systems for deep space where GPS not available High High High High Communication --Optical communication system for satellites High High High High --Ground stations/ infrastructure to support optical communication
High High High High
--Higher data rates at higher frequencies at lower cost High Medium Medium Medium Mobility and Propulsion --More flight demonstrations for existing technology High High High High --Electric propulsion with 100s-1000s m/s impulse High Medium Medium Medium --Cheaper propulsion systems (<$10k) Medium Low Low Low --Hall thrusters Medium Medium Medium Low --(General) novel miniaturized efficient hybrid, chemical, or electric systems
High High High High
--Green propellant systems High High High High --EDL systems for planetary science High High High High --Mechanisms and actuators High High Medium Medium
Downselecting Investment Areas for STMD (1/3)
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 44
Downselecting Investment Areas for STMD (2/3)
Topic area Critical Need
Comparative Advantage for Government
Comparative Advantage for
NASA
Comparative Advantage for
STMDElectrical Power Generation and Storage --Cheaper, more efficient (>30%) solar cells High High Medium Medium --Longer lasting batteries Low Low Low Low --Radioisotope power systems High High High Low Thermal control --Miniaturized cryocoolers for detectors (IR, bolometers) High High High High --Heat dissipation for large amounts of power in small volume High High High High --More active thermal control system High High High Medium Deployable systems --Cheaper miniaturized deployables for antennas, radiators, and solar panels
High Low Low Low
--Deployable technology to increase aperture diameters Medium Medium Medium Medium --CubeSat deployer attached to small satellite mothership High High High High Data Handling, Processing, and Autonomy --Chips to process large amounts of data onboard High High Medium Low --Clever onboard data handling (e.g. Higher compression rates) Medium Medium Low Low --Improved analytics for new data sources (i.e. SAR) or data fusion, change detection, aperture synthesis interferometry
High Medium Medium Low
System integration --Mass or large-scale manufacturing capabilities High Low Low None --Additive manufacturing of cubesats/smallsats Low Low Low None --Concurrent design engineering* High Medium Medium Low --Optimal concept selection methods* High High High High Constellations --Swarm or constellation with propulsion for science missions High High High High --Constellation mission designs/ management systems High High High High --Ground infrastructure for constellations High Medium Medium Low --Intersatellite links High Medium Medium Medium --Frequent revisit/low latency constellations to replace large satellites
Low None None None
--Constellation for space-based broadband Low Low None None
45
Topic area Critical Need
Comparative Advantage for Government
Comparative Advantage for
NASA
Comparative Advantage for
STMDOther technology --Deep space systems and avionics High High High High --Debris removal technology development High High Medium Medium Industrial commons --Database with testing and performance history of COTS parts High High High High --Reliability/certification standards High High Medium Medium --Testing facilities, support for space simulation/radiation testing of components
High High High Medium
--Open up ISS as platform for testing High High High Medium --Operation of shared ground system for academia/small players High High Medium Medium --Training and workforce development High High High Low --Affordable, high frequency launch opportunities High High High High Other --Streamline licensing process and/or reduce ITAR burden High High Low Low --Improve SSA or STM system High High Low Low --Streamline and speed NASA funding process Medium Medium Medium Medium --Coordinate Centers’ roles High High High High --Have transition partner High High High High --Debris removal policy Low Low Low Low --Have NASA/STMD be a data buyer High High High High
Downselecting Investment Areas for STMD (3/3)
What are SmallSats and What they Enable • Risk taking
– Experimentation [e.g., use of COTS components]
– Lesson-learning -- “fly-learn-refly” paradigm
• Faster deployment – Take advantage of new breakthroughs – faster tech refresh
– Speedy development to observe transitory phenomenon
• Expendable platforms (high risk orbits) • New mission types
– Secondary lines of sights
– Targeted science – simple, focused short duration missions
• Lower-cost spatially/temporally distributed data collection platforms – Instrument space
• Platform for de-risking technology for small and non-small S&T
Small Shorter
development cycles, smaller teams, lower
cost/timeliness of launch
(CubeSats) Standardized
Mass production,
easier launch vehicle
integration (can lower cost)
Applications driven by expectation of profit making and other societal benefit
• Using satellite observations of the total number of trucks per day for 6,000 industrial facilities as a proxy for economic activity, SpaceKnow suggests that China’s manufacturing index was 46.9 while the government’s figure stood at 50.2
• The World Bank has estimated global poverty at around 30%, while Columbia University professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin states that satellite imagery of light pollution suggests it may only be around 6%
48
Describing Change Detection
Signs of water pooling on glaciers in Tibet (left) preceded a pair of avalanches (right)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/flotilla-tiny-satellites-will-photograph-entire-earth-every-day?utm_source=sciencemagazine&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=planet-11360
Planet’s Doves will permit daily images of the entire Earth
Recommendation: Ensure a Robust Pipeline Across the TRL Spectrum
49
• SSTP should ensure low TRL revolutionary, high payoff technologies move up the innovation pipeline through formalized partnerships within and outside NASA
Smallsat Launchers
• United States leads with respect to the number of smallsat launchers under development
• Of the 36 launchers we know of, 34 are under development
• All focus on LEO, 16 categorized as serving sun-synchronous markets
• Most focus on cubesats (11) or 201-500 kg smallsats (13) with very few in the 51-100 (2) 101-200 (5) categories
50
Sources: Adapted from company websites, D. Lim, “Small launcher market survey – where are we and where are we going?” Room, October 2016, and D. Messier, “A Plethora of Small Satellite Launchers” Parabolic Arc, October 2016
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1-50 Kg 51-100 Kg 101-200 Kg 201-500 Kg Unknown
Role of funders for smallsat start-ups
Source: https://www.spacenewsmag.com/capital-contributions/the-next-wave-of-space-investors/
52
Smallsat Companies do not Make the VC Cut
http://nvca.org/pressreleases/2017-nvca-yearbook-highlights-busy-year-venture-industry-nvca/
VC raised in 2016 $41.6B Funding received by VC-backed companies $69.1B
• Software companies attracted 48% • Pharma/biotech - 11%
53
Proportion of U.S. LEO VC Investments 2008 thru January 20, 2015
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/economic-development-of-low-earth-orbit_tagged_v2.pdf
Models in other sectors
• The first digital computer — built in the mid-1940s to calculate the trajectories of artillery shells and used to design the first hydrogen bomb — cost about $500,000 (around $4.7 million today), operated billions of times more slowly than modern computers, took up the space of a small bus, and had no immediate commercial application
• By subsidizing engineering development and the construction of manufacturing facilities ... the military catalyzed the establishment of an industrial base” — helping to create the technological and industrial backbone for the information age
54
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 55
Company, Project
Satellites planned (as of
12/2016) Bus (if whole procured) ACDS Propulsion
Radio or Communi-
cations Payload Ground Station Launch
Priv
ate
Sect
or
OneWeb 648 OneWeb Satellites (Airbus and OneWeb)
OneWeb Satellites
External (Hall Thrusters, undisclosed)
Qualcomm and MDA
MDA and Other Undisclosed Vendors
Hughes Network Systems
Arianespace and Virgin Galactic
SpaceX 4,425 (800 to be operational)
In-house (payload, undisclosed) In-house
Planet targeting 210 In-house In-house? SSTL (for Rapideye)
SSTL (for Rapideye)
Optical (in-house)
In-house Nanoracks (ISS), PSLV, SpaceX, Spaceflight
Spire 100 by 2017 In-house (solar panels from Clyde Space) All except China
BlackSky 60 In-house COTS, integrated in-house
In-house In-house Optical (Harris Corp.)
In-house (hardware from RTLogic, Orbit)
PSLV
Planetary Resources (Ceres)
10 (6 by 2017) In-house In-house In-house In-house (optical)
In-house (IR, hyperspectral)
Nanoracks (ISS)
Terra Bella 21 by end of 2017
Space Systems Loral (SSL) Space Systems Loral (SSL)
ECAPS (part of SSC)
Unknown Unknown KSAT and in-house
PSLV, Arianespace, Orbital ATK
HawkEye 360 21 Utias SFL Utias SFL DSI GomSpace GomSpace TBD (e.g., KSAT or internal)
SpaceX (Spaceflight)
NAS
A
RAVAN (APL) 1 Blue Canyon Technology (BCT)
BCT BCT BCT NASA/APL United Launch Alliance
MinXSS (LASP) 3 LASP BCT N/A LASP LASP ULA/Orbital ATK; ISS
CYGNSS (NASA/SwRI)
8 Orbital Draper Labs Unknown Surrey Satellite Technology
DDMI (Surrey) USN/SwRI Orbital ATK Pegasus
Private/Commercial Space
56
Ris
k Ta
ker
Priv
ate
Entit
ies/
M
arke
t Tak
e R
isk “Emerging” Private
(Referred to as Commercial Space)
[e.g., Orbital Sciences, Boeing Corporation,
SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace]
“True” Private Space [e.g., Virgin Galactic,
Bigelow (future) Iridium, Intelsat,
Trimble (current)] G
over
nmen
t Ta
kes
Ris
k “Traditional” Space [e.g., Orbital Sciences,
Boeing Corporation, Lockheed Martin]
[e.g., Roscomos, Arianespace]
Government Only/Primary
Customer
Government One of Many Customers
Customer Base
Note: The porous boundaries imply the movement of firms within quadrants.
57
Approaches Used by Private and Public Investors
Type of Investor or Mechanism Overview of Investor
Example (Investor, Company)
Priv
ate
Sect
or
Angel Investors Often high-wealth investors that invest early in a company’s life. Elon Musk, SpaceX; Space Angels, Accion Systems
Venture Capital (VC) A dedicated group of investors that identify high-risk, high-return companies to invest in; usually based off a managed fund
Bessemer Venture Partners, Spire
Corporate Venture Capital and Investors
A subsect of VCs; may support relevant R&D efforts of interest to the company, or to develop strategic partnerships
Coca Cola and Bharti Enterprises, OneWeb
Private Equity Investors Large investment houses that often invest in relatively established companies, either through equity or debt financing.
Google and Fidelity, SpaceX
Public Markets Companies raise money once they “go public” (IPO), allowing for a portion of the company to be owned publically.
Public Market (Nasdaq First North Premier), GomSpace
Internal Funds Funds secured through contracts, non-equity partnerships and other means. SpaceX, proposed broadband constellation
Publ
ic S
ecto
r
Grants (i.e., SBIRs in the United States )
Grants are awarded by government institutions to support both private and public (i.e., academia) endeavors
Air Force SBIR, Blue Canyon Technologies
Contracts and Public-Private Partnerships
Contracts are often awarded by governmental and academic actors to companies across all sectors.
NGA, Planet
Internal Funds Internal funds (i.e., IR&D) are used within public agencies to support technology and mission development
NASA IR&D funds, NASA Centers
Indirect support (i.e., tax incentives)
Governments support actors through in-direct investments including subsidized launch options and tax incentives for manufacturing facilities
India (subsidized launch), Berlin Space Technologies (potentially opening manufacturing plant in India)
Smallsat Sector Incorporates Technology from Other Sectors
Source: L. Summerer, Evaluating research for disruptive innovation in the space sector, Acta Astronautica, Volume 81, Issue 2, 2012, 484 – 498
Evolution from space-only to space-led and space-also
• (Unnamed) adapting parallax algorithms from automobile collision avoidance systems for RPO
• Phase Four using high density electronics miniaturized by the cell phone industry
• Other • inertial measurement units from video
games • radio components from cellphones • processors meant for automobiles and
medical devices • reaction wheels meant for dental tools • cameras intended for professional
photography and the movies • open-source software available on the
Internet
58
Government’s Comparative Advantage
59
Correct for Market Failures
Non-appropriability of investing in R&D
Non-appropriability of investing in
“industrial commons”
Uncertainty of outcome and time
horizons
Correct for Systemic Failures
Coordination within and outside NASA
Maintaining international
competitiveness of U.S. smallsat sector
Driving disruptive technology innovation
• STMD’s comparative advantage is in areas not funded by other government agencies and other parts of NASA
PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 60
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 61
SSTP University Partnerships: Supports partnerships between universities and NASA centers to collaborate on smallsat technologies. Managed by Ames Research Center. Solicitations go out every 2 years. Core SSTP SSTP Flight Demonstration Projects: flight demonstration projects for new mission capabilities involving both competitive contracts and directed NASA efforts. Early Career Initiative: An initiative administered through STMD that is intended for early career NASA technologists to partner with external innovators. Projects are funded for up to $1 million a year plus up to 4 FTE for 2 years.*
SSTP Participation in STMD Initiatives
Tipping Point Selections: Public-private partnerships for companies to mature technologies past the “tipping point,” so that private industry will develop and qualify them for market. The goal is to stimulate the commercial space industry and also to deliver technologies and capabilities needed for future NASA missions. Administered through STMD.† Partnership with Flight Opportunities: Provides flight testing opportunities for promising new space technologies from industry, academia, and government. Two primary objectives: to mature technology payloads from TRL 4 to 6, and to foster growth in the commercial space industry. Part of STMD’s Commercial Partners Portfolio.‡
Partner STMD Technology Development Programs
Small Business Innovation Research: A government-wide program run by the Small Business Administration—every federal agency with an extramural R&D budget over $100,000,000 must participate.§ Each Phase I award is for up to 6 months and $150,000 to explore the feasibility or merit of a new technology. Phase II awards are given to promising technologies to expand upon Phase I results, for up to $1 million over 2 years. Within NASA’s SBIR awards, there are many funding topics available (28 topics in 2016), and some of the awards have been for smallsat-relevant projects.#
*NASA, “NASA Partners with leading Technology Innovators to Enable Future Exploration,” Release 14-290, October 24, 2014. †NASA, “NASA Announces New Public-Private Partnerships to Advance ‘Tipping Point,’ Emerging Space Capabilities,” Release 15-225, November 19, 2015. ‡*NASA. “About Flight Opportunities.” 2017. §Small Business Administration. “Small Business innovation Research (SBIR) Program: Policy Directive.” February 24, 2014. #Small Business Administration. “NASA SBIR 2016 Program Solicitation.” November 12, 2015.
Actual and Requested SSTP Funding by Year, 2012–2021
62
$11.2M
$15.2M
$17.M $18.M
$20.4M
$26.8M $26.8M $26.8M $26.8M $26.8M
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18* FY 19* FY 20* FY 21* Request
Source: Program Executive
SSTP Projects across STMD, 2013–2016
STMD Programs Number of Awards
Total Funding for 2013–2016 (in Millions)
% Funding
Core SSTP Flight Demonstrations 7 $55.4 70% University Partnerships 29 $8.3 10%
SSTP Participation in STMD Initiatives Tipping Point* 4 $3.8 5% Early Career Initiative (ECI) 2 $5.9 7%
Partner STMD Technology Development Programs FO: Flight Opportunities 6 $1.2 2% SBIR: Phase I 12 $1.5 2% SBIR: Phase II 3 $3.4 4%
Total Number of Awards 63 $79.4 100%
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 63
STMD Smallsat Investments by Technology Area and Associated Funding, 2013–2016
Technology Area
Number Projects in
Technology Area
Total Funding 2013–2016 (in Millions)
Number of Flight Demonstration
Projects in Technology Areas
Funding for Flight Demo
Projects (in Millions)
Mobility and Propulsion 20 $15.6 8 $10.0
Communications 16 $19.1 2 $15.0 Electrical Power Generation and
Storage 10 $4.7
Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control
8 $4.0 1 $0.5
Payloads 5 $0.7 Systems and Constellations 5 $32.7 2 $29.5 Thermal control 2 $0.8
System Integration 2 $1.0 1 $0.5
Flight and Ground Systems Software 2 $0.4
Data Handling, Processing, and Autonomy
2 $0.4
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 64
Note: We identified 72 technologies in 63 projects and assigned them to one of 10 technology areas. Some projects were coded to have 2 technology areas. The funding was assigned to each project’s primary technology area with the exception of the Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator (PTD) Project. Funding for PTD was assigned 3/5 to Mobility and Propulsion, 1/5 to Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control and 1/5 to Communications.
Technology Readiness Level Ranges for STMD’s 63 Smallsat Projects
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Technology Readiness Level for STMD’s Smallsat Projects
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 66
2
33
16
42
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
$.0M
$10.0M
$20.0M
$30.0M
$40.0M
$50.0M
$60.0M
2 to 5 3 to 5 3 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 7 5 to 7
Num
ber o
f Pro
ject
s
Fund
ing
in M
illio
ns $
TRL Level
Funding Number of Projects
Starting and Ending TRLs for STMD Smallsat Projects
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 67
STMD Smallsat Project Breakdown by Sector
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 68
STMD Smallsat Funding Breakdown by Sector
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 69
Industry 60%
NASA Centers35%
Universities5%
Total = $79.4 Million, 2013–2016
Approximate Smallsat Funding to Centers, 2013–2016
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
JPL Ames Marshall Glenn Langley Goddard Johnson Kennedy
Fund
ing
in M
illio
n U
SD
Funding by Sector and Technology Area (millions of dollars)
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 71
Technology Areas Funding to Industry
Funding to NASA Centers
Funding to Universities Total Funding
Systems and Constellations $25.3 $5.6 $1.7 $32.7 Communications $9.2 $9.2 $0.7 $19.1 Mobility and Propulsion $8.1 $7.3 $0.2 $15.6 Electrical Power Generation and Storage $2.3 $2.1 $0.3 $4.7
Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control $2.5 $1.2 $0.4 $4.0
System Integration — $0.8 $0.1 $1.0 Thermal control — $0.6 $0.2 $0.8 Payloads — $0.5 $0.2 $0.7 Data Handling, Processing, and Autonomy — $0.3 $0.1 $0.4
Flight and Ground Systems Software — $0.3 $0.1 $0.4 All Technology Areas $47.5 $27.8 $4.1 $79.4 Funding Percentage 60% 35% 5% 100%
