Industry Structural Analysis of Hosted Payload Service Array

1
Industry Structural Analysis of Hosted Payload
Service Array
Darrel Cain Jon Card David Dominguez Andy
Frick Joe Jaeckels
2
What does our firm do?

• Accelerate the deployment of payloads and
  experiments in space, reduce cost to payload
  operators by increasing reusability of satellite
  systems common to all payloads.
• Benefit payload operators who require regular
  upgrades or exchanges of the on-orbit hardware.
  (E.g. communication transponders for GEO,
  pharmaceuticals and material science research in
  LEO.)

3
Our Solution

• Provides a serviceable stable platform in GEO
  and/or LEO with power, propulsion, structures and
  communications for multiple interchangeable
  payload modules
• Offers a modular layered approach with easy
  replacement mitigating the chance for "infant
  death"
• payload failures become less consequential GEO
  More payload opportunities in limited GEO slots,
  LEO Higher quality microgravity, less complex

4
Therefore

• Payload modules can be replaced as needed based
  on experiment maturation, age or system failures
• On-orbit servicing (robotic or crewed) made
  feasible by long-lived multiple satellite
  hosting, always-up-to-date payloads
• System is designed from the onset for on-orbit
  servicing and maintenance

5
Business Case

• Current On-Orbit Servicing Concepts focus on
  refueling
• Why bother refueling an aging satellite?
• Worth it to refuel a single satellite
• Difficult to do without built-in provisions
• Although fuel determines orbital lifetime, it is
  the payload (transponders, electronics, imaging
  systems) that ages
• Power systems, propulsion systems and structures
  are not typically limiting of on-orbit lifetime
• GEO slots are limited and in high demand

6
Applications (Markets)

• GEO
• Communications (transponders), imaging (different
  spectra, field of views and resolution cameras
  for different applications)
• LEO
• Low Gravity Research (e.g. pharmaceuticals,
  material science), Imaging potential for
  experiment return via reentry

7
Relay Antennas
Solar Array
Propulsion
Empty Payload Nodes
Payloads
Servicing (Refueling) Node
Robotic Arm for Payload Docking
8
Force 1 Entry by Potential Entrants

• Economies of Scale Low in traditional
  satellites, high for platforms
• Product Differentiation Low, each platform
  provider and satellite manufacturer provides same
  service
• Capital Requirements High, need a lot of money
  to get into orbit
• Switching Costs Low, no customer loyalty
• Access to Distribution Channels High, lots of
  moving parts, lots of time to implement
• Cost Disadvantages Independent of Scale High,
  knowing how to do it
• Government Policy High, difficulty of getting
  and keeping all the permits

9
Force 2 Intensity of Rivalry Among Existing
Competitor

• Should be High Little competition
• Slow industry growth
• Complex switching costs
• Contracts are long and often for multiple
  satellites, but little loyalty between contracts
• Anecdotally, we hear it is low

10
Force 3 Pressure From Substitute Products

• Pressure from Substitute Products
• High - already have satellites, terrestrial
  technologies catch up

11
Force 4 Bargaining Power of Buyers

• Telecomm low with mitigating circumstances
• Telcomm doesnt put downward pressure on price
  because it is a small part of their total cost.
• Research This is a significant part of total
  cost because they dont possess the capital to
  purchase dedicated satellites.

12
Force 5 Bargaining Power of Suppliers

• Bargaining power of suppliers is high
• Specialization of each part means each supplier
  is one of the few who provide the part that is
  properly space rated and has lifetime in space
• This means acquisition cost is high, as there are
  no competitors for each part.

13
Summary

• Force 1 Threat of Entry by Potential Entrants
• Economies of Scale
• Product Differentiation
• Capital Requirements
• Switching Costs
• Distribution Channels
• Cost Disadvantages Independent of Scale
• Government Policy
• Force 2 Rivalry among Competitors
• Force 3 Pressure from Substitute Markets
• Force 4 Power of Buyers
• Telecommunications
• ResearchForce 5 Power of Sellers

High Low High Low High High High Low High HighLo
w High
14
Questions?