Industry Structural Analysis of Hosted Payload Service Array Darrel Cain Jon Card David Dominguez Andy Frick Joe Jaeckels

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.)

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

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

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

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

Payloads Servicing (Refueling) Node Robotic Arm for Payload Docking Empty Payload Nodes Solar ArrayPropulsion Relay Antennas

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

Force 2: Intensity of Rivalry Among Existing Competitor Should be High – Little competition o Slow industry growth o Complex switching costs  Contracts are long and often for multiple satellites, but little loyalty between contracts Anecdotally, we hear it is low

Force 3: Pressure From Substitute Products Pressure from Substitute Products High - already have satellites, terrestrial technologies catch up

Force 4 : Bargaining Power of Buyers Telecomm – low with mitigating circumstances Telcomm doesn’t 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 don’t possess the capital to purchase dedicated satellites.

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.

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 Research Force 5: Power of Sellers High Low High Low High Low High High Low High

Questions?