Table of Contents for Appendix D

Appendix D
D.1 Remote Sensing Sat. Deployments
D.2 Summary of Deployments
D.3 Remote Sensing Sat. Forecast
D.4 Remote Sensing Sat. Equip. Forecast
D.5 Market Assessment Approach
D.6 Field Research Reports
The Full Section Index is at the end of this Section

Commercial Space Transportation Study


Appendix D Remote Sensing Appendix

D.1 World Remote Sensing Satellite Deployments

The CSTS researchers assessed several data sources to consolidate a list of remote sensing satellites. A data base of the satellite deployments was prepared for the 1991 through 2005 time frame. By inspection and analysis several significant conclusions were determined from the data base.

The majority of remote sensing satellites are deployed to low earth polar orbits. A small quantity of satellites are deployed to geostationary orbits, primarily for global weather forecasting. There will also be a few heavy government satellites to LEO, in the 3,500 to 6,000 kg range, that combine large suites of sensors for multiple missions.

Low earth orbit satellites' mass to orbit are classified in four ranges:

Mass (kg) to Polar OrbitComments
200 to 1,000Mostly commercial deployments
1,000 to 1,500Government and International deployments
1,500 to 2,200Government and International deployments
2,400 to 2,800Predominately International deployments

Worldwide deployments of remote sensing satellites for government, international and commercial applications will reach seven deployments in 1995, and fluctuate between six to eleven through the end of this decade. Commercial operators who will begin deploying satellites in 1995 and ramp up to five deployments in 1997 before reaching an average of three per year for the 1996 through 2000 time frame. Commercial deployments will reach four annually, as illustrated in theFigure D.1-1below, by the year 2005. The share should climb to six, or 50-percent of the total launches by 2010.



Combined deployment of government, international and commercial remote sensing satellites.
Source: CSTS remote sensing data base, Appendix D.1 and D.3.

Figure D.1-1. Remote Sensing Satellite Deployments

D.2 Summary of World Remote Sensing Satellite Deployments

Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
PrognozRussiaRussiaOperational1002.51600G E OE O1200Earth Observation02/91Proton SL-1243
AlmazRussiaRussiaOperational1001.5600030072.7Radar15-30240Oil pollution & ice monitoring03/91Proton43
Meteosat 5 MOP-2ESAEuropeOperational3005681G E O4 WRadar2500MeteorologyDual Manifest03/91Ariane V4261
NOAA - 12 (NOAA-D)NOAAU.S.Operational602170082599E O, Microwave1100Earth Observation05/91Atlas E42
ERS - 1ESAEuropeOperational8504238478098.5Radar20100Global ocean07/91Ariane 4121
EOSNASAU.SOperational252250705E O50Earth Observation08/91Pegasus13
NimbusNASAU.S.Operational5052000740polarE O5Ozone watch08/91SL-1416
IRS IBNational Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA)IndiaOperational50397590099E O36148Earth Observation08/91SL-3 Vostok28
GOMS ElektronRussiaRussiaOperational1002.52400G E O40-50E O1200240Meteorology12/91Proton SL-1243
JERSNASDAJapanOperational2752 yrs134056898SAR1875Meteorology02/92H190
INSAT 2IndiaIndiaOperational753875G E O74E O2000Communication and Earth ObservationDual Manifest03/92Ariane61
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
NOAA - 13 (NOAA - I)NOAAU.S.Failed602171287099E O, Microwave1100Earth Observation06/92Atlas E42
LAGEOS - IINASAU. S.1003406595052E OEarth Observation06/92Titan - 4250
Okean Platform BRussiaRussia10011600670Polar SunsynchRadar15002100Ice monitoring06/92Zenit SL-1634
The Ocean Topography Experiment (Topex) / PoseidonNASA/JPLUSA / France55052380133666Radar10 (0.03)Ocean Topography08/92Ariane 42P121
Modified Okean-ORussiaRussia502.5200090082.5 SunsynchRadar15002100Ice monitoring01/93SL-1416
Meteor 2RussiaRussiaOperational502.5200095082.5E O20002100Meteorology03/93SL-1416
FY 2ChinaChinaDevelopment10011250G E O105Radar & EO1200120Meteorology06/93CZ-340
RESURS-02RussiaRussia501240070098SAR & E O451200Earth Observation06/93SL-16 Zenit 234
SPOT 3FranceFranceOperational2505187082098.7E O20/10117Earth Observation09/93Ariane 40118
NOAA 14 (NOAA-J)NOAAU.S.Operational672170083599E O, Microwave1100Earth Observation09/93Titan 247
Landsat 6NOAA (EOSAT)U.SFailed2203275070598E O30/15Earth Observation09/93Titan 247
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
IRS 1ENRSAIndiaFailed150585081799E O20Earth Observation09/93PSLV60
Meteor 3RussiaRussiaOperational502.52215120082.5E O5002100Meteorology09/93SL-1416
Meteosat 6ESAEuropeOperational4005700G E O4 WRadar2500MeteorologyDual Manifest11/93Ariane V42LP61
GOMS 2RussiaRussiaPlanned1002.52400G E O40-50E O1200240Meteorology01/94Proton SL-1243
TOMS-EPNASAU.S.Planned602.5380TBD90E O1130Ozone Mapping03/94Pegasus13
GOES - I (GOES-8)NOAAU.S.Planned20052000G E O75WEO1000Weather, Earth Observation04/94Atlas 170
HeliosCNESFranceDevelopment3504250085099E O3Surveillance05/94Ariane 4110
SeaStarNASAU.S.Planned605363705PolarE O10001500Ocean color data07/94Pegasus13
IRS 1(E)NRSAIndiaPlanned150585081799E O20/10Earth Observation (replaces IRS-1E)09/94PSLV60
China/Brazil Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS)China/BrazilChinaDevelopment1502140077898.5 SunsynchRadar & EO1100120Remote Sensing09/94CZ-4A45
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
ERS 2ESAEuropeDevelopment5005238578099.5Radar30100Global Ocean MonitoringGlobal ozone monitoring03/95Ariane 5143
GOES-J (GOES-9)NOAAU.S.Planned20052000G E O75WEO1000Weather, Earth Observation04/95Atlas 170
RadarsatCanadaCanadaDevelopment4005275074398.6 SunsynchRadarvariablevariable (45 - 500)Global data on ice, crops, forests, oceans, geological forms04/95Delta 250
EOS-SARNASAU. S.Planned2505130062097.5 sunsynchradarEarth Observation06/95Titan 247
GS-01South AfricaSouth AfricaPlanned30431646072E O2Earth Observation08/95Taurus25
NOAA 15 (NOAA-K)NOAAU.S.Planned753170083399E O, Microwave1100Earth Observation09/95Titan 247
Com'lWorldviewU.S.Development305350460polarE O3Commodity markets management10/95Taurus25
Modified Okean Platform BRussiaRussiaPlanned1003 yrs2500670polar sunsynchRadar15002100Ice monitoring01/96SL-16 Zenit34
Meteosat 7ESAEuropePlanned5005700G E O4 WRadar2500MeteorologyDual Manifest03/96Ariane V4261
Com'lWorldviewU.S.Development305350460polarE O3Commodity markets management03/96Taurus25
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
NOAA 16 (NOAA-L)NOAAU.S.Planned753170083399E O, Microwave1100Earth Observation09/96Titan 247
Com'l (Eyeglass)Orbital Science,GDE and Litton OSU.S.Planned1505500926polarE O1Commodity markets management10/96Taurus25
AdEOSJapanJapanPlanned2502320079799EO & SAR8Earth Observation12/96H2120
IRS 1DNRSAIndiaPlanned505100090099E O20/10Earth Observation03/97PSLV60
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning30720575098E O15120Commodity markets management2 satellites per launch06/97Delta 250
SPOT 4FranceFrancePlanned1755250082098.7E O20/10120Earth Observation06/97Ariane122
TRMM (Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission)NASAUSA / JapanDevelopment2005350035035RadarPrecipitation measurment08/97H2120
Com'lUnannouncedU.S.Planning1707100070098E O3Commodity markets management09/97Taurus25
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning30720575098E O15Commodity markets management2 satellites per launch10/97Delta 250
Polar Orbit Earth Observation Mission (POEM)ESAEuropePlanned30052400780PolarRadar2500Meteorology, ocean, climate12/97Ariane 4122
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning30720575098E O15Commodity markets management2 satellites per launch02/98Delta 250
Landsat 7NASA-DODU.SPlanned4115280070598E O5Earth Observation03/98Titan 247
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning15720575098E O15Commodity markets managementsingle satellite launch04/98Taurus25
HeliosCNESFrancePlanned3504250085099E O1Surveillance04/98Ariane 4122
Com'l (Eyeglass)Orbital Science,GDE and Litton OSU.S.Planned1505500926polarE O1Commodity markets management05/98Taurus25
EOS AM 1NASAU.SPlanned1005545070598E O?Earth Observation06/98Atlas 2AS140
Com'lUnannouncedU.S.Planning1707100070098E O3Earth Observation06/98Taurus25
SeaWiFS IINASAU.SPlanned1005236705polarE O5Earth Observation08/98Pegasus20
NOAA -MNOAAU.S.Planned753170083399E O, Microwave1100Earth Observation10/98Titan 247
GOES - K (GOES-10)NOAAU.S.Planning20052000G E O75WEO1000Weather, Earth Observation04/99Atlas 170
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
Com'lUnannouncedU.S.Planning1707100070098E O3Commodity markets management05/99Taurus25
SPOT 5FranceFrancePlanned2005250082098.7E O560Earth Observation06/99Ariane122
EOS Aerosol 1NASAU.SPlanned50325070557E O5Earth Observation01/00Pegasus20
EOS PM 1NASAU.SPlanned505558070598E O5Earth Observation01/00Atlas 2AS140
GOES - LNOAAU.S.Planned25052000G E O75WEO1000Weather, Earth Observation04/00Atlas 280
NOAA-NNOAAU.S.Planned753170083599E O, Microwave1100Polar Meterology05/00Titan 247
Com'lWorldviewU.S.Potential305350460polarE O3Commodity markets management10/00Taurus25
Com'lWorldviewU.S.Potential305350460polarE O3Commodity markets management03/01Taurus25
EOS-SARNASAU. S.Planned2505130062097.5radarEarth Observation06/01Titan 247
Com'l (Eyeglass)Orbital Science,GDE and Litton OSU.S.Potential1505500926polarE O1Commodity markets management09/01Taurus25
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
EOS AltimetryNASAU.SPlanned5052700705polarRadar5Earth Observation01/02Delta 245
EOS ChemistryNASAU.SPlanned5055450705polarE O5Earth Observation06/02Atlas 2AS140
EOS AM 2NASAU.SPlanned5055450705polarE O5Earth Observation01/03Atlas 2AS140
EOS Aerosol 2NASAU.SPlanned50325070557E O5Earth Observation01/03Pegasus20
NOAA - N'NOAAU.S.Planned753170083399E O1100Earth Observation05/03Titan 247
LAWSNASAU.SPlanned100440082598.7E OPolar Atmosphere06/03Pegasus20
GOES - MNOAAU.S.Planned25052000G E O75WEO1000Weather, Earth Observation04/04Atlas 280
NOAA-ONOAAU.S.Planned753170083399E O1100Polar Meterology05/04Titan 247
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning30720575098E O15120Commodity markets management2 satellites per launch06/04Taurus25
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning30720575098E O15120Commodity markets management2 satellites per launch10/04Taurus25
Program
Name
OwnerCountry
of Origin
Satellite StatusValue (M94$ U.S.)Design Life (yrs)Mass
(kg)(a)
Altitude (km)Incl.Sensor TypeAvg Res(m)Swath (km)Primary MissionNotesILC DateLaunch VehicleLaunch Costs
Com'lUnannouncedU.S.Potential1707100070098E O3Commodity markets management11/04Taurus25
EOS PM 2NASAU.SPlanned5055600705polarE O5Earth Observation01/05Atlas 2AS140
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning30720575098E O15120Commodity markets management2 satellites per launch02/05Taurus25
Com'lITD/SRSCU.S.Planning15720575098E O15Commodity markets managementsingle satellite launch04/05Pegasus15
GOES - M'NOAAU.S.Planned25052000G E O75WEO1000Weather, Earth Observation04/05Atlas 280
SPOT 6FranceFrancePlanned2505250080099E O260Earth Observation06/05Ariane122
EOS-SARNASAU. S.Planned2505130062097.5radarEarth Observation09/05Titan 247
EOS Aerosol 3NASAU.SPlanned50325070557E O5Earth Observation06/06Pegasus20
GOES - M"NOAAU.S.Planned25052000G E O75WEO1000Weather, Earth Observation04/07Atlas 280
NOAA-PNOAAU.S.Planned753170083399E O1100Polar Meterology05/07Titan 247
EOS AltimetryNASAU.SPlanned5052700705polarE O5Earth Observation08/07Delta 245
EOS ChemistryNASAU.SPlanned5055450705polarE O5Earth Observation09/07Atlas 2AS140

D.3 Long-Range Remote Sensing Satellite Deployment Forecast

Mass to LEO By User, Conservative Estimate

19919293949596979899200012345Extension
Government3950449844508743110001700010186400015530130081507800970014900105907
International2335938151538514350545185009400125001500096008200835012635119008200166645
Commercial0000350850182016151650350126016003700820161515630
Total27309831319835230931680111050112202430120650254801076018100241352242024715288182
(5-Year Total)9535192701100130288182


Satellites Deployed By User Group, Conservative Estimate
19919293949596979899012345Extension
Government33233104141242336
International63843345643355365
Commercial1254333354437
Total9610776913101178141110138
(5-Year Total)394950138


Long Range Deployment Summary

1991-51996-02001-5Total
Government14101236
International24221965
Commercial1171937
Total394950138


Mass to LEO Summary (X1000)

1991-51996-02001-5Total
Government333142106
International625549167
Commercial0.356916
Total9593100288


Totals

Gov'tInt'lCom'lTotalGov'tInt'lCom'lTotalGov'tInt'lCom'lTotal
1991-514241391996-0102217492001-512191950

D.4 Remote Sensing Satellite Equipment Worldwide Forecast

9192939495969798
Government33233114
Commercial00001335
International63843254
Total launches9610776913
9192939495969798
P/L Costs ($M)16351160138710701485110510151431
LV Costs ($M)410598455354407312549501
Total ($M)20451758184214241892141715641932
0304050607
P/L Costs ($M)27532584550425
LV Costs ($M)22712742920312
Total ($M)502452127470737
No of launches42414
Commercial Remote Sensing Investment95969798Extension
P/L Costs ($M)30180290245745
LV Costs ($M)2550225150450
Total ($M)552305153951195
Government & International Remote Sensing Investment95969798Extension
P/L Costs ($M)145592572511864291
LV Costs ($M)3822623243511319
Total ($M)18371187104915375610

D.5 Market Assessment Approach

The Alliance used a common and proven approach for performing the market assessment of the space remote sensing market. As illustrated in
Figure D.5-1, several preliminary steps were performed before conducting the field surveys with the end users.

Figure D.5-1. Research Methodology and Issues

A literature search of trade literature to assess the current status of market, primary market forces, and primary market players were performed. Secondary sources were contacted to acquire similar data, to assess the major issues of the market, and to collect information on the key primary contacts, or users. Several field surveys and many telephone discussions were made with the primary contacts.

These meeting and discussions with users attempted to assess potential future changes in the market if the cost of the launch system were lowered. Additional data was collected on the form factors for the payloads, and the potential business for a new generation low cost launch system.

D.6 Field Research Reports

D.6.1 Ball Space & System Engineering Division

  • Date 30 September 1993
  • Organization Contacted
  • Ball Space & Systems Engineering Division
  • P. O. Box 1235
  • Broomfield, CO 80038
  • Telephone: 303/460.3636
  • Researcher - Bill Walsh, Lockheed
  • Summary

    The researcher held a telephone conference with Neal Anderson, Director, Commercial Programs, at Ball Aerospace in Broomfield, Colorado. The company is a major developer of satellites for government applications. The firm has developed a small satellite platform referred as QuickStar, which can be configured to integrate a broad range of payloads, including: remote sensing, communications, technology demonstrations, probes, science research, radiation testing, R & D testing, and others.

    Mr. Anderson says that Ball does not have any plan to build , deploy and operate a remote sensor satellite for commercial applications. They have done some preliminary business assessments in the remote sensing market and decided that it was not feasible for them to pursue the market.

    1. What is the maturity of the commercial remote sensor market? There is not a commercial market today. There maybe a market emerging, since companies like Worldview Imaging have announced their plan to deploy satellites and market the imagery.

    2. What are the form factors of the space remote sensing payloads? The companies Quickstar satellite is the type of satellite that they would use for the remote sensing type applications. Typical mass would be in the 300 to 400 kg range, altitude of 400 to 800 km, and inclination would be polar.

    3. What infrastructure and support to the user must the launch system company provide? No answer, since they are not pursuing commercial remote sensing business.

    4. What is the end user market infrastructure? The infrastructure that the end user sees includes a satellite builders and operators, launch system companies, and second tier (value added) type companies who enhance satellite imagery to the end users unique applications.

    5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce the costs of space produced products? Companies such as Ball would like to know a lot more about the end users and their product needs. Ball thinks that the second tier companies that are part of the supplier infrastructure which supports the processing and enhancement of images, and distribution to end users, should be more clearly defined and expanded.

    6. When will user(s) begin deploying commercial space remote sensors? Mr. Anderson mentioned the recent Worldview Imaging announcement of deploying two satellites, beginning in 1995.

    7. What are their current and near term costs associated with using space? He does not have any data to provide.

    8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost? How many more times will they use space if the launch costs is reduced: 35 %, 50 %, 75 %, or 90 %?

    Launch System Demand Elasticity: Launch Frequency:The prevailing price is the launch costs for a Pegasus, which is currently at $13 to $15 million per launch.

    Launches per Year
    Product< 5 years< 10 years
    Prevailing Price24 note a
    66% ($8 to $10 million)36 note a
    33% ($5 million)note bnote b
    10% ($1.5 million)note bnote b

    Note a.The increase launches per year is based upon -- the need for replenishment satellites as well as growth satellites. Typical remote sensing satellite lifetimes are in the three to five year range today. Future technologies will increase lifetimes to five to seven years.

    Note b.Launch vehicle costs are no longer a driver at this price level. Other elements of the supplier infrastructure, such as the value added companies and their costs would be a larger share of investment and operating expenses.

    9. What decision making business process is used to decide on the use of space? No specific answer. Ball has done a preliminary look at the market and decided not to pursue at this time. In general, the market must generate enough revenue to afford a return on the companies investment. Companies entering the commercial field will find considerable competition between airborne and space remote sensors. Airborne are more responsive to real time, high resolution applications where long dwell time is needed.

    To compete, satellite sensors must be able to provide 1 to 2 meter resolution in multi-spectral electro-optic wavebands. Then they must find niche markets, or applications and users that need that kind of imagery. An example of an application is crop investation. A multi-spectral sensor, with three colors, would be able to detect the infestation over large areas.

    The hypothesis is that satellites could collect the data faster and more frequently that airborne platforms, and for less cost.

    10. What are titles and names of executive managers who make the business decisions to invest their resources into deploying space remote sensors? Mr. Anderson thought Worldview is the only company pursuing the market.


    D.6.2 Bechtel Corporation

  • Date 16 August 1993
  • Organization Contacted
  • Bechtel Corporation
  • 50 Beale St.
  • P.O. Box 193965
  • San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
  • ContactS: Dr. H. A. Franklin, Space Programs; Dr. Sandra Feldman, Senior Geologist; Mr. Peter Mote, Manager, Geotechnical/Hydraulic Engineering Services
  • By whom - Don Barker Debra Tonnemacher Lockheed CSTS
  • Summary

    Bechtel, as a private company, does use imagery derived from remote sensing orbital assets owned and operated by US or foreign governments.

    Maximum purchase is 30/year each in response to support a unique customer requirement. Image enhancement and interpretation is conducted in-house as a proprietary value added function. Bechtel company policy of minimum asset ownership precludes the consideration of owning and operating a remote sensing asset. They see great potential for higher resolution imagery and currently commit resources to keep track of new sensing technology under development.

    Remote sensing data must be augmented by ground truth and therefore they are dubious about the prospect of lunar exploration.

    The company will not be a customer of the launch systems provider. Bechtel doubts whether commercial activities could produce the remote sensing raw data at a lesser price than that offered by government agencies.

    Their use of data from a space asset depends on the requirements of their customer. Some data collection may be achieved more cost effectively from aircraft surveillance. Each of Bechtel's contract opportunities is evaluated on an individual basis with reference to the use of data from a space asset.

    1. What is maturity of users' space application? Bechtel has been purchasing selected satellite imagery derived from US or foreign government space assets for a number of years. Bechtel operates on a contract basis, i.e. will obtain and analyze imagery when funded by a specific customer. A recent example is their involvement in management support to the extinguishing of the Kuwait oil-fires following the Gulf War (Desert Storm).

    They have also used satellite imagery for large area surveying purposes associated with the management and planning of urban development and large scale facilities at specific sites.

    Bechtel company policy is to minimize asset ownership (even their office building in San Francisco is not a company asset) and therefore they would not consider owning an orbital asset for proprietary remote sensing purposes.

    Bechtel has purchased a maximum of 30 images a year from government sources but strictly only in the execution of a customer contract. Value added from the company is that of image enhancement using mainly procured computer and software facilities and also enhanced image interpretation. They consider the enhancement and interpretation as a proprietary asset.

    Bechtel is also actively involved in becoming cognizant about advanced imaging and multi-spectral detection technologies and sees great potential for the application of higher resolution capabilities. They stated that they are not actively involved in space research other than independent evaluation of new technology capabilities.

    Bechtel also emphasized that remote sensing data must be augmented by ground truth (i.e. actual physical samples). Whilst the latter may be difficult to obtain for earth terrestrial scenarios, the corresponding requirement for lunar surface evaluations might well be impossible or at least prohibitively expensive for potential commercial opportunities.

    2. What are payload form factors? Bechtel as a private company has zero interest in procuring an independently owned and operated remote sensing satellite. This concept would conflict with their policy of minimum asset ownership. They therefore anticipate no requirement (and therefore no form factors) for a payload to be launched on a commercial launch system.

    3. What infrastructure and support to user must launch system company provide? Bechtel has not been and will not be in the future a customer of the launch system company. This question is therefore not applicable.

    4. What is end user market infrastructure? Bechtel purchases 15-30 remote sensing images per year in performance of contract obligations to their customers. These images are purchased from government sources subsequent value added of image enhancement and interpretation is conducted in-house. Bechtel views NASA and other government agencies as responsible for the provision of remote sensing data.

    5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce costs of space produced products? Higher resolution imagery and advanced technology possibly available in the future from DoD and other unspecified government agencies may reduce the data processing and interpretation cost but Bechtel will continue to conduct this value added function in-house. They doubt whether commercial activities could produce the imagery product at less cost than offered by government agencies.

    6. If users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space. Bechtel has no plans to produce a product in space. They are tracking advanced technology development targeted for remote sensing applications but do not fund experimental research. They are also tracking the development of smart software for data processing and interpretation.

    Bechtel expressed advocacy for lunar remote sensing but only on the basis of contractual involvement in data processing and expert analytical interpretation.

    7. What are current and near term costs associated with using space? Bechtel's costs are image purchasing (~ $5,000/image from Landsat and Spot) and in-house processing hardware, software and labor. These costs are compensated from contracts with specific customers.

    8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost. How many more times will they use space if launch costs are reduced? Bechtel advised that even if the cost of launch for an asset were totally free they still would not plan to own a remote sensing asset which would require a launch service.

    9. What decision making process is used to decide on the use of space? Use of space is predicated on the requirements of any particular customer. The Kuwait oil fire management contract required remote sensing data which was an obvious candidate for satellite remote sensing. Other area scanning requirements may be achieved more cost effectively by aircraft over flight.

    Each contract opportunity is evaluated on an individual basis with reference to the use of data from a space asset.

    10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space? Dr. Andy Franklin and Mr. Peter Mote make recommendations directly to the executive management of Bechtel with reference to the use of space assets to accommodate customer requirements.


    D.6.3 BHP Minerals

  • Date 16 August 1993
  • Organization contacted
  • BHP (Broken Hills Proprietary) Minerals
  • 550 California Street
  • San Francisco, CA 94104-1020
  • Dr. Cory Williams, Manager, Exploration Administrative Services; Ms. Marion Rose, Senior Geophysicist
  • CSTS Researchers - Don Barker & Debra Tonnemacher, Lockheed CSTS
  • Summary

    BHP Minerals is a major bulk commodities mining company with corporate headquarters in Melbourne, Australia. They commit about $75M (15% of profit) annually to exploration and are currently evaluating about thirty areas worldwide. Discovery to mining production is about a ten year time span. They have been purchasing raw imagery derived from remote assets owned and operated by US and foreign governments for many years.

    They do not appear to be interested in obtaining higher resolution imagery. Data processing, analysis and interpretation of the purchased data is an in-house activity supported by about $500K of internal research funding. BHP has zero interest in owning an orbital remote sensing asset and therefore would not be a customer of the launch system provider. Main problems experienced by BHP during exploration activities are communications from remote geographic locations, inaccuracies of geological and geographical reference material, preclusion from use of precision navigation capabilities of the GPS system, inaccuracies of topographical data and ground obscuration by vegetation and clouds.

    Improved remote sensing technology would increase their utilization of capable space assets and probably lead to more efficient and less costly exploration programs. BHP demand for use of remote sensing space assets is not directly related to launch costs rather it is a function of technology capabilities. Lunar mining is not being considered as a viable proposition since the bulk commodities market is strongly price dependent and the cost for recovery of lunar bulk material would be prohibitively expensive. The exploration personnel interviewed by CSTS representatives report directly to the company executive management in Melbourne, Australia.

    1. What is maturity of users' space application? BHP Minerals are in the business of providing bulk commodities including copper, iron ore, gold, platinum, etc. They are currently involved in exploration in about 30 areas worldwide. They have been purchasing "raw" imagery derived from foreign and U.S. governments for many years. This imagery is processed in house. Typical geological signature of a potentially profitable mineral deposit would be about 1.5 x 5 km. They compared the task of exploration for mineral deposits as "looking for a needle in a haystack."

    Main problems with exploration are communications from remote locations (Iridium will help); accuracy of existing worldwide geological datum and geographic maps; navigational accuracy commercially available (have to use GPS-Y code rather than the higher precision P code which is limited to government agencies only); inaccuracy of altimeter based topographic data and finally observation through vegetation cover (trees) and atmospheric constituents (clouds). These problems are related to technology or administrative policy. BHP spends about 15% of profit on exploration i.e. about $75M of which about $500K is spent on research involving processing technology, geological interpretation and data processing enhancements.

    Typical process time line from exploration to production for the bulk commodity market is about 10 years and involves sequentially exploration, discovery, confirmation, business evaluation, government negotiations, investment procurement, site development and production.

    2. What are payload form factors? BHP have zero interest in owning a remote sensing asset which would require launch therefore the question is mute.

    3. What infrastructure and support to user must launch system company provide? BHP will not be a user of the launch system company. They do not appear interested in higher resolution imagery data processing and interpretation is an in-house activity.

    4. What is end user market infrastructure? BHP currently purchase raw imagery from the government agencies which own and operate the remote sensing asset. They also anticipate use of the global mobile communications systems currently being planned (Iridium, etc.) but only from the purchase of portable ground access equipment. They also need other sensing capabilities but would purchase such data, if available, from the agencies which own the asset.

    5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce costs of space produced products? Improved technology to overcome the limitations of current technology would increase their utilization of capable space assets. They would retain current in-house activities of image enhancement and analysis. More accurate data would tend to improve the process of exploration and possibly reduce time scales with incumbent cost savings.

    6. If users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space. BHP has no plans to produce a product in space. They are anticipating the availability of improved space borne sensing technology, possible relaxation of current restrictions on P-code access for GPS navigation and the orbital placement of mobile communication assets. These refinements and additions will certainly lead to their increased use of space based facilities within their normal business operations. The prospect of lunar mining is not being considered as a viable proposition since the bulk commodities market is strongly price dependent and the cost for the return of lunar bulk materials would be prohibitive.

    7. What are current and near term costs associated with using space? BHP's only cost is the purchase of raw data, implementing the data processing and interpretation function and the procurement of appropriate ground support equipment for navigation and communications. $75M is the current annual cost of exploration which represents 15% of profit from mining operations.

    8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost. How many more times will they use space if launch costs are reduced? BHP assumes that launch costs are amortized in some way within the price of raw data and communications access rates. Their demand for utilization is not directly related to launch costs rather it is a function of space asset capabilities.

    9. What decision making process is used to decide on the use of space? The use of space assets appears to be a routine part of mineral exploration although BHP emphasized that they need increased confidence that any apparent deposit location identified is worth developing to mining production. The decision process appears to reduce to that of confidence in the capability of the remote sensing technology.

    10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space? Dr. Cory Williams supported by Marion Rose, the resident Senior Geophysicist report directly to the executive management of BHP in Melbourne, Australia. They intend to communicate directly to the corporate office with reference to our prepared question list and CSTS data.


    D.6.4 Center for Mapping

  • Date 16 August 1993
  • Organization Contacted
  • Dr. John Bossler
  • Center for Mapping
  • 1216 Kinnear Road
  • Columbus, OH 43212
  • Tel: 614/292.1600 FAX: 614/292.8062
  • CSTS Researchers - Bill Walsh, Lockheed; and Henry Hillbrath, Boeing
  • Summary

    The researchers met with Dr. John Bossler, director, Center For Mapping (CFM), on 8/3/93 to discuss the commercial markets for space remote sensing. Also attending the meeting were CFM associates, Michael Varner, Dr William Anderson, Dale White, and Dr Carolyn Merry. The CFM organization is affiliated with the Ohio State University and is a member of the NASA/CCDS (Commercial Centers for Development of Space). They began business operations in 1986. The two hour meeting focused on applications for space remote sensing.

    The CFM provides research and demonstration projects for commercial users in the area of land, water and farm management, in energy and power production, digital mapping, information systems and disaster management. Their research efforts have ranged from forecasting storm surge levels to analyzing the impact of drought conditions in the Midwest, from anticipating satellite orbits to monitoring gas leaks, and from predicting the effects of erosion to tracking ocean currents.

    The CFM's mission includes advancing the conceptualization, design, testing, and evaluation of a commercially relevant total mapping system. Their primary areas of expertise are in: digital image mapping, GPS real time mapping, image processing and image enhancement. They provide expertise to industrial affiliates in the extraction of scene features from imagery, interpreting raster-scanned map data, and extracting three dimensional information from aerial imagery. The CFM takes a direct interest in promoting the development space remote sensors for commercial markets. However, they do work with other CCDSs, such as the ITD/SRSC at Stennis, which has a charter for space remote sensing commercialization.

    1. What is the maturity of the commercial remote sensor market? The "private satellite" commercial remote sensing system market is in the business development stage. Several entrepreneurial type companies are assessing the market for deploying relatively small satellites in sun synchronous orbits, which could produce imagery from low cost electro-optic sensors.

    There is a trend in the remote sensing market that indicates only a small number of satellites will be put in LEO annually by companies that are set up to build, deploy, and operate the satellites; and to either: sell the raw images to commercial end users or Value Added (VA) companies (i.e., companies who process and enhance raw imagery); or sell enhanced images to the end users.

    The need for small launch vehicles to deploy the satellites should require only a few flights per year. Follow-on launches for replacement purposes should be on intervals of between three to five years for today's remote sensing satellites. However, in the future, a broad range of new technologies will incorporated in satellite design to improve resolution, data latency, improved reliability, which will extend on-orbit operational lifetimes to five to seven years.

    The reason for only a few commercial launches per year is because the government will continue to provide a broad range of satellite imagery from existing and new remote sensor satellites for the foreseeable future. Government remote sensors, such as the DoD/NASA's Landsat 6 & 7, and for the future, the NASA's EOS satellites, will provide a broad range of electro-optic and radar earth sensing and earth limb data from space to most government users. Additionally, recent legislation, i.e., Landsat Act of 1992, directed that commercial end users and third party VAs will be able to purchase the imagery at the government's marginal cost.

    A typical Landsat Thematic Mapper full scene image costs approximately $4400.00. The CFM respondents believe that the Landsat act of 1992 requires these prices to be substantially reduced. A ball park estimate of $800 per image was mentioned. There is also a two-tiered pricing structure, where government researchers receive a lower price, while others pay a higher price.

    Commercial end users with an in-house processing capability will purchase the imagery directly from the government. Other users without an in-house image processing capability will purchase processed imagery from VAs for their unique applications. The VAs will acquire Landsat and EOS images directly from the Earth Observation Satellite (EOSAT) company.

    Another trend is the availability of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) imaging software that will operate on high end PC and MAC based personal computers (workstations). Dr Carolyn Merry said that such software is commercially available now and that it will become more plentiful in the future. This trend has already migrated into the end users and VAs areas. They can buy government images and COTS software to produce their own enhanced images.

    Writers Comment:the overriding trend in the remote sensing market indicates that commercial end users will be able to purchase adequate satellite imagery from government sources and COTS software to process remote images themselves at relatively low costs. This will attenuate the demand to purchase processed imagery from entrepreneurial companies who plan to fill the growing demand for remote earth imagery produced by their own private satellites and in-house image enhancement equipment. However, there should continue to be demand for custom image products in niche markets. Some other possible remote sensing applications include:

    1. commodity assessments
    2. environmental dumping and monitoring
    3. news and public relations oriented images or pictures
    4. emergency management, e.g., fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other disasters
    Competing technologies and systems that can be viewed as alternates to space remote sensing approaches are -- high altitude drones that orbit for up to 72 hours in a circular pattern. Aurora Flight Sciences, Manassas, VA has an operational vehicle, named Perseus, which operates at an altitude of 40,000 ft and produces a 15 km scan. Contact is John Langford, president. Tel 703/369.3633.

    2. What are the form factors of the space remote sensing payloads?

    Mission Data:Sun Synchronous orbit, 400 to 1,000 km altitude.
    Weight:125 kgs to 250 kg
    Environmental:7 Gs from launch to orbit

    3. What infrastructure and support to the user must the launch system company provide? The launch system provider must include payload accommodations to the user during the phases leading up to launch, and provide launch integration and testing.

    4. What is the end user market infrastructure? In the figure below, the U. S. government provides the raw images to the value added companies and to end users. The value added companies have developed a substantial market with the end users by providing comprehensive enhancement of the government provided images, and in turn selling the processed images to the end users. Additionally, because there is many software type companies selling image enhancement data directly to the end users, the latter are developing an in-house capability to enhance government provided images.


    Space Remote Sensing Organizational Infrastructure

    The end user consumes the images provided by the space remote sensor. This market is potentially very large, perhaps $2 to $4 billion annually.

    The market for imagery data provided by space remote sensors, such as Landsat and SPOT, was worth about $63 million in CY1992. SPOT Image sales were $43 million in 1992 ($33 M for satellite images and 10 M for ground stations). EOSAT sales for satellite images were $30 million.

    There are several new entries into the space remote sensing market that are planning to deploy sensor satellites and sell the image data to the value added companies and to the end users. These new entries will face a lot of competition from the government supplied data. They must be able to provide raw images for comparable prices, or provide enhanced imaging data that are not provided by government, i.e., niche markets.

    5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce the costs of space produced products?

    For an idealized commercial competitive market for remote sensing to emerge, the government must de-emphasize supplying data to commercial users. The government should also become a user of the commercial satellite operators. A new organizational infrastructure, see below, that should evolve and become operational in the future was defined and discussed. This type of commercial infrastructure is illustrated below:


    Idealized Organizational Infrastructure For the Space Remote Sensing Market

    The conclusion reached during the meeting was that if government continues to provide imagery data from Landsat, EOS, and other space remote sensors on a long term basis, the market for commercial space remote sensors will be small. Commercial companies will orient their space products towards niche markets that the government supplied imaging data cannot support.

    6. When will user(s) begin deploying commercial space remote sensors? A few start up companies are attempting to build space remote sensing satellites. Dr Bossler mentioned Worldview Imaging, Livermore, California; Utah State University with their Globesat; and Ball Aerospace, Boulder, Colorado, which has filed for a license to deploy a satellite, were mentioned as examples. Another company is the ITD/SRSC, Stennis, Mississippi, who is actively looking for investors for a three satellite constellation of space remote sensors. These organizations are in the planning and development stages. Their purpose would be to deploy and operate the satellites, and sell remote sensing imagery to commercial and possibly government users.

    7. What are their current and near term costs associated with using space? Commercial companies who evaluate the business potential for selling remote, space based images have to provide imagery at a price that is competitive with what the government is selling Landsat images to the same users, i.e., $4400.00 per image. Also, there will be substantial reductions in the image prices in the late 1990s, as prescribed by the Landsat act of 1992. The commercial companies will focus their product offerings in selective areas, including:

    1. niche markets where Landsat images are not adequate or available, , including better resolution
    2. provide real-time images, or with less data latency than provided by government sources, and
    3. provide significant image enhancement capabilities.
    8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost? How many more times will they use space if the launch costs is reduced: 35 %, 50 %, 75 %, or 90 %? Launch System Demand Elasticity: Sensitivity to launch costs is low. The major users of launch systems will be the government, with only a few entrepreneurial companies attempting to exploit the growing demand for satellite produced imagery.

    Launch Frequency: The major customers for launch services will be the U. S. Government, with a small group of additional launches consumed by commercial companies. The launch frequency of satellites is summarized below:


    Launches per Year
    Product949596979899012345
    Landsat 71
    EOS Satellites13212
    ITD/CCDS1212
    Worldview Imaging1111
    Ball Aerospaceunknown

    Note: Landsat 6 will be launched in Sep. 1993. CFM also thought the Globesat remote sensing satellite was a commercial program. Follow up on the project with EER Systems, Vienna, VA indicates that the company decided to suspend further work on building and deploying the Globesat.

    9. What decision making business process is used to decide on the use of space? Commercial companies who are considering their own remote sensing satellites will want a return on investment in the 20 to 50 % range. If the government is an anchor tenant for the commercial satellite data, investors will perceive less risk and may be willing to accept an ROI at the lower end of this range. Additionally, their perception on returns will be based on the share of the market for unprocessed imagery (to clients who provide their image enhancements), and to other groups of customers who want enhanced images for their specific needs or applications.

    Investments will vary depending on the size of the constellation of satellites deployed and their on-orbit lifetime. Typically small business, who are relying on outside investors for capital will want to show a return to their investors within three years.

    10. What are titles and names of executive managers who make the business decisions to invest their resources into deploying space remote sensors?

  • Bud Evans, CSAT, Washington, DC;
  • Presidents of ITEK Optical Systems and Ball Aerospace
  • Dave Thompson, Orbital Sciences Corp., Reston, VA
  • Review and Revision status


    D.6.5 CTA Incorporated

  • Date 16 August 1993
  • Organization Contacted
  • Martin Titland, president
  • CTA Incorporated
  • 6116 Executive Blvd, Suite 800
  • Rockville, MD 20852
  • Tel: 301/816.1200 FAX: 301/816.1443
  • Researchers Bill Walsh, Lockheed; and Henry Hillbrath, Boeing
  • Summary

    The researchers met with Mr. Martin Titland, president and Dr. Robert Pelzmann, vice president-systems development, at CTA, Rockville, MD on 8/4/93 to discuss the commercial markets for space, including remote sensing, space manufacturing, and communications.

    1. What is the maturity of the users' space applications? The drug companies are performing experiments in LEO to grow large, more uniform protein crystals than can be grown on earth. They are flying the experiments on the shuttle. These space grown crystals are examined on earth to determine their molecular structure and then reproduced on earth. The companies have found they can produce products on the earth more cost effectively than in space.

    There is also the COMET Program, a joint NASA-Industry initiative to develop a low cost commercial free flyer facility with a reentry vehicle capability for returning space-produced products to earth. NASA and the industrial partners thought several types of space products could be produced, including protein crystals, materials processing, thin film coatings, etc. The program is in the process of being redefined by NASA, CCDS, and the contractors.

    Another example is a McDonnell Douglas program which demonstrated the electrophoresis process in space. There has been no follow-on initiative to commercialize the space-based approach to the process. For drug companies to use space to produce products, they must perceive at least $100 million in sales of the space produced product. Otherwise the return on investment will not make good business sense. In general, for commercial products to be produced or manufactured in space, they must have high value for a given weight. An example could be mining of He3 on the moon. This material is an extremely valuable source of save, clean reliable fusion fuel, that has a high value/unit of weight.

    2. What are the payload form factors? The physical configurations of payloads vary by specific mission. There are a wide range of missions. Consequently, there are a wide range of payload form factors.

    In communications, there is a trend to use high density microcircuits in satellites, which reduce mass, volume, and manufacturing costs of the satellites. They are also more reliable and can potentially last longer, requiring longer intervals between replacement. There are several new commercial initiatives to develop low earth orbit comsats for emerging commercial markets. Examples include: Motorola's Iridium, TRW's Odyssey, Loral's Globalstar, and Constellation Communications Corp., which are large constellations for global cellular telephony, paging, position location, and navigation services; and smaller constellations such as the Orbcom are being proposed by Orbital Sciences to provide two way communications services.

    Commercial communications markets will be limited in their growth, however, because the government regulates the RF spectrum. Additionally, the number of providers of satellite communications will be limited by the number of licenses issued by the government.

    Remote sensing from LEO satellites is another growth commercial market. But the number of launches of satellites will be limited. Several companies are looking at the business economics, i.e. user demand, size of the market, ROI and other factors, to determine if it makes business sense. The major competitor for such a business venture is the existing remote sensing capability that the government is already providing through Landsat and other remote sensing satellites. Also, new Landsat satellites and the EOSAT program will expand the government imaging capability that will be coming on-line in the latter part of this decade. It will be difficult to compete with government provided images, which will be sold at marginal costs. A typical Landsat image costs about $4400. On the other hand, specialty companies with expertise in enhancing satellite images will find a growing commercial market for their products.

    There will be niche markets for remote images taken from commercial satellites. These markets will require 3-meter data, and shorter data latency than can be provided by the government's remote sensing capabilities.

    3. What infrastructure and support to the user must the launch system company provide? The launch system provider must include payload accommodations to the user during the phases leading up to launch, and provide launch integration and testing.

    4. What is the end user market infrastructure? The end user is the client who consumes the images provided by the remote sensor. This market is potentially very large, perhaps $2 to $4 billion annually, depending upon which market survey data you believe. However, the market for imagery data provided by space remote sensors, that are provided by Landsat and SPOT, was worth about $63 million in CY1992.

    In the figure below, the U. S. government provides the raw images to the value added companies and to end users. The value added companies have developed a substantial market with the end users by providing comprehensive enhancement of the government provided images, and in turn selling the processed images to the end users. Additionally, because there is many software type companies selling image enhancement data directly to the end users, the latter are developing an in-house capability to enhance government provided images.


    Space Remote Sensing Organizational Infrastructure

    There are several new entries into the space remote sensing market that are planning to deploy sensor satellites and sell the imaging data to the value added companies and to the end users. These new entries will face a lot of competition from the government supplied data. They must be able to provide raw images for comparable prices, or provide enhanced imaging data that are not provided by government, i.e., niche markets.

    5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce the costs of space produced products? For an idealized commercial competitive market for remote sensing to emerge, the government must withdraw from supplying data to commercial users. A new organizational infrastructure, see below, that should evolve and become operational in the future was defined and discussed. This type of commercial infrastructure is illustrated below:


    Idealized Organizational Infrastructure For the Space Remote Sensing Market

    6. If the users are performing experiments now, when will they begin producing commercial products in space?

    7. What are the current and near term costs associated with using space?

    8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost? How many more times will they use space if the launch costs is reduced? Assume that the customer of launch services is planning to deploy a remote sensing satellite, which weighs about 500 lbs to a 400 nmi altitude.


    Launches per Year
    Launch PriceToday<5 Years
    Prevailing (a)1 to 31 to 3
    75%1 to 31 to 3
    50%2 to 52 to 5
    25%4 to 84 to 8
    10%????????

    a. Prevailing cost is $14 million for launch of a single satellite.

    9. What decision making business process is used to decide on the use of space? For a commercial company to invest in one or more remote sensing satellites, the firm must recoup its investment in three years. This assumes the life of the space product, which generates the revenue, has a five year life.

    10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making the business decisions to invest their resources into producing products in space?

    Review and Revision status

  • 8/18/93 Submitted research report to CTA for review, comments and concurrence with data.
  • 8/24/93 Asked Dr. Pelzmann for comments and concurrence. Promised reply by 8/30.
  • 8/25/93 Mr. Titland provided few comments and corrections. Dr. Pelzmann is to provide additional review, comments and concurrence.
  • 11/1/93 Dr Pelzmann comments not received. Closed out report.

  • D.6.6 Lockheed Missiles & Space Company

  • Date 18 June 1993
  • Mission Area
  • Remote Sensing
  • Attendees
  • Don Barker/Bill Walsh, LMSC
  • Fred Henderson , President, Geosat Committee Inc.
  • P.O. Box 1762, Norman, OK 73070. Tele. 405 - 799 - 1515
  • Location
  • BHP Inc. 550 California St., San Francisco (temporary visit location)
  • Summary

    Fred Henderson's non-profit organization was created in 1976 and is dedicated to promoting use of civilian satellite remote sensing technology for geological applications. GCI has about 40 major US and international satellite remote sensing, oil and mineral companies as associate members. Focus has expanded to include marine offshore oil/gas and environmental applications.

    The CSTS mission was briefly explained to Fred with emphasis on the long term objective of stimulating market demand for remote sensing services by reductions in launch costs.

    Fred discussed difficulties associated with remotely sensed data derived from Landsat. Since the Landsat Act of 1992 this data is made available as tapes in unprocessed form but at a relatively high cost. However, the process of extracting useful information from this data is itself very expensive. We asked the question " what is the total cost of information to the user " but did not get a definitive answer.

    Geosat Comm. Inc. works with users to provide data relative to vegetation (crop growth) and geology (mineral surveys)

    The proprietary control of data is a problem. Resource industries, in the past, have considered cost sharing of certain satellite remote sensing capability but pulled out of the deal when told by the government (NASA/DoC/FCC) that data derived from such an asset must be public domain information (i.e. made available equally to non-contributing agencies).

    Fred strongly suggested that from an environmental viewpoint/corporate responsibility there is a need for on-demand rapid response capability to remotely monitor oil spills. The value of this capability derived from a satellite needs to be compared with the alternate technique i.e. fleet of 20 aircraft operating continuously with airborne remote sensors.

    Fred expressed interest in the McMahon (LMSC) recent congressional testimony on high resolution satellite remote sensing capability (Action : provide a copy of testimony).

    Fred suggested that the value of reduced launch cost was most critical to the " agency who puts together the asset which collects the data ".

    Fred noted that the " open house " on remote satellite sensing as dictated by the government was a negative stimulus to commercial use of company funded platforms (and therefore the launch market). Many oil companies have eliminated remote sensing research groups in-house and are concentrating on operational groups. Another problem is that satellite remote sensing of natural oil resources has not been proven to work. Exploration investment is giving away to investment in currently operational foreign oil fields currently strapped for capital (e.g. Russia).

    Fred stated that environmental sensing is currently an embryonic field being led by the government. Fred recommended a few further contacts:

    1. Pete Mote - Bechtel - San Francisco - Remote sensing technical services for environmental applications. Telephone 415 - 768 - 6331
    2. Chuck Giamonna - Marine Spills Response Corp. 1350 I St., NW, Washington DC, 20005 Telephone 202-408 - 5734

    D.6.7 Intergraph Corporation

  • Date 4 October 1993
  • Organization Contacted
  • Intergraph Corp.
  • Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
  • Attn: Larry Ayers, vice president Mapping Science.
  • Tel No: 205/730.7888 FAX No: 205/730.6750
  • Researcher Bill Walsh, Lockheed
  • Summary

    The researcher had a telephone conference with Larry Ayers to discuss the key technical issues and concerns associated with the emerging commercial satellite remote sensing market.

    1. What is the maturity of the commercial remote sensing market? The market appears to be about $2 billion in 1992, and has substantial growth. The largest share is for aerial imagery. The Mapsat Market Study of 1991 appears to reflect the appropriate size of the satellite remote sensing market, which includes satellite data, image enhancements, and ground stations. The three major forms of imagery include: Panchromatic, multispectral in electro-optice wavelengths, and microwave radar.

    2. What are the key trends in the remote sensing market? There is a trend with aerial platforms towarddigital orthographic photography. The typical resolution is 1/2 to 1-meter, which is required for example for city planning.

    For large area imagery, greater than city planning, 3 to 5-meter resolution seems to be adequate. The large area sensing is where satellite imagery will be able to compete against aerial platforms. The imaging format of the derived products is being standardized. Therefore, no matter which type of raw imagery is provided, the format that will be used by the end users will conform to a single format. This will take several years and major government funding to accomplish. The USGS has a six year, $400 to 500 million program to come up with derived products that have a unifrom Digital Ortho picture format. This approach is similar to the NATO standards, which have been adopted by European countries. Another near term initiative is the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

    Aerial platforms are beginning to use digital cameras. There is a trend to develop large image storage data bases, where original ximages can be stored and updates

    3. What is the infrastructure of the remote sensing market? For government satellite data, a service bureau type arrangement is part of the infrastructure. Typical providers are the NOAA and the DMS government organizations.

    New imaging standards are being promoted in an attempt to unify the transfer of imagery in standardized formats. The approach is the SDTS, which means Space Data Transfer Standard.

    Some types of applications for space remote sensing include:
    Traffic FlowCrop AssessmentsUrban Planning
    HydrographyReforestationBiological
    The following are becomng event driven:
    Oil SpillsHazardous waste spillsForest Fires
    FloodsCrop Infestation

    4. What is the end user market infrastructure?

    5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce the costs of space produced products?Changes must be measured by the cost of the imagery per square mile.

    6. When will user(s) begin deploying commercial space remote sensors?

    7. What are the costs associated with space remote sensing?

    8. What decision making business process is used to decide on the use of space?

    9. What are titles and names of executive managers who make the business decisions to invest their resources into deploying space remote sensors?General Dynamics - E, San Diego, CA. Contact Terry Strater to discuss their involvement in the remote sensing surveillence, intelligence community. They are familiar with the digital photogrammetery applications.


    D.6.8 Mr. Jeff Manber

  • Date 6 July 1993
  • Mission Area
  • Space Remote Sensing
  • Contact
  • Mr. Jeff Manber, Consultant
  • Washington DC area
  • Tel# 202/347.2414 FAX # 703/478.7281
  • Contacted by Bill Walsh, Lockheed, 408/742.4781
  • Summary

    Mr. Jeff Manber is a member of the Space Studies Institute and has a consulting business, providing business planning to companies. Manber recommends we talk to David Brannon, NASA/Stennis Code C, tel # 602/688.2042 for detailed information on the remote sensing markets. He is familiar with applications in the utilities industry. Brannon was involved in the creation of EOCAT.

    Issues With the Remote Sensing Fieldthree major factors involved --

    1. the cost of transportation, i.e., launch costs
    2. government regulations
    3. approvals to release high resolution images, i.e., < 10-meter resolution.

    Trends in the market:the growing miniaturization of electronics, availability of high resolution sensors, and low cost satellites (e.g., bus and related subsystems; in the range of $3 to 5M) will open up the remote sensing market to commercial use.

    For the commercial market to expand, space remote sensing systems must be in the range of $9M plus transportation costs.

    Other suggested commercial contacts in remote sensing include:

    1. CTA, Martin Titland, 301/816.1200
    2. Aero Astro Space, Rick Fleeter, tel # 703/709.2240, Herndon, VA
    3. Ball Aerospace,
    4. Defense Systems Inc.,, Jason O'Neil, tel # 703/883.1000, McLean, VA
    Another source for referrals is Jill Stearn, 202/663.8380. She operates the ISSO (International Small Satellite Organization) which holds an annual symposia in March of each year.


    D.6.9 OSC - Keith Lyons

  • Date 3 December 1993
  • From Keith Lyons, program manager, OSC, 703/406.5422.
  • With Bill Walsh, Lockheed, Sunnyvale
  • Subject Comments on draft of Remote Sensing Market Study
  • Summary

    Keith Lyons reviewed the draft of the Remote Sensing final report and had a few comments:

    1. Correct the table for OSC programs. (Comments noted on master for change)
    2. In five years, the mass to orbit (included in the report) will increase to about 600 to 700 kgs. This will be due to the 1-meter resolution requiring larger optics, structure, mass, etc.
    3. Regarding the commercial market growth, there is a time delay between system availability and the users buying the products. Remote sensor suppliers to the final users will experience a delay between the time their system and image products are available and the time that the users will buy the products.


    D.6.10 OSC - Gilbert Rye

  • Date 21 December 1993
  • From Gilbert D. Rye, V.P.- business development, OSC, 703/406-5516
  • With Bill Walsh
  • Subject Comments of Eyeglass (Remote Sensing) Imaging System
  • Summary

    1. One satellite planned for an ILC of 1996; other satellites planned for later.
    2. Altitude/Mass: 500 nm, polar orbit, wouldn't disclose mass, assume 550 lbs.
    3. Will be launched on a Taurus launch vehicle.
    4. Sensor suite will not be multispectral.

    D.6.11 Space Remote Sensing Center Institute for Technology Development (ITD)

  • Date 29 July 1993 Revised: 8/24/93; 8/29/93; 12/23/93
  • Mission Area
  • Space Remote Sensing
  • Organization Contacted
  • ITD Space Remote Sensing Center (SRSC)
  • Institute for Technology Development
  • Building 1103, Suite 118
  • Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
  • Tel: 601/688.2509; FAX: 601/688.2861
  • Researchers Bill Walsh, Lockheed and Robert Cleave, Rockwell
  • Summary

    The researchers met with the Institute for Technology Development (ITD) Space Remote Sensing Center (SRSC), Stennis Space Center, MS on 7/28/93 to perform CSTS research on the Space Remote Sensing market. The SRSC is a research center for the NASA Commercial Center for Development of Space (CCDS). Dr. George May, the director of the ITD and the CCDS/SRSC appointed Keith J. Draper, ITD Senior Engineer, to meet with the researchers.

    The two hour meeting focused on the SRSC's plan to produce a constellation of remote sensors for commercial space markets. The SRSC has conceptualized a constellation of three low cost, space remote sensing satellites that can provide 30-meter resolution imaging data for domestic agricultural, forestry, and environmental applications. Through the ITD, a non-profit company, they have prepared a business plan for development, production, deployment and operation of the satellite constellation. ITD also has another subsidiary company which processes satellite imagery, and markets the data to agricultural users, primarily major growers, in Wisconsin, California, and the state of Washington. The business plan is used to meet with investors to get the required funding, of approximately $135 million, to begin the program . The satellites are planned for deployment in 1996 and 1997.

    1. What is the maturity of the commercial space remote sensing market? The commercial market for remote sensing data exists today. What is new is that companies are beginning to develop and deploy their own remote sensing satellites. The companies believe that they can compete with government-provided space remote images, such as provided by EOSAT; and other value added companies which process and enhance government-provided satellite images.

    ITD plans to deploy a constellation of three remote sensor satellites in the 1996 and 1997 time frame. ITD targeted the agricultural industry to sell their satellite imaging data. Their services would include remote sensing, interpretation, and dissemination of data for crop management, vegetation, catastrophic event monitoring, and change detection analysis. Their approach is to provide 30-meter images in 60 km swaths of the Earth. The multispectral sensor bands include green, red, near IR, and mid IR wavebands. No blue wavebands are included. ITD's image processing subsidiary would interpret and analyze the data.

    Agricultural users would be provided with personal computers in their office or home to access the data. ITD is also involved in a remote sensing program which markets geographic data to the agriculture industry. Remote data is collected using three airplanes. Getting the industry to use the data is a key issue and major thrust of their marketing efforts. Another high potential user area is the forestry industry. At this phase in the agriculture, forestry and other remote sensing markets, gaining user acceptance is critical to stimulating demand for the data.

    Mr. Draper compared the space sensor data with that which can be provided by airborne sensors. He believes that crop monitoring can be acquired substantially faster and cheaper by satellite than similar data collected by airborne sensors.

    2. What are the form factors of the satellites to be put into space? ITD has a development program to produce three satellites, with one spare, for deployment starting in the 1996 time frame. The sensor suite was designed using low cost off-the-shelf technology to reduce the sensor/satellite costs. The multispectral sensor bands include green, red, near IR, and mid IR wavebands. No blue wavebands are included, so that imagery of water cannot be provided from the sensor suite. Mission requirements include a payload weight of 375 lbs, 720 km orbit at 98 degrees, and a 12:00 noon nodal crossing.

    Satellite lifetime is seven to eight years. The satellites will orbit the globe and observe specific points on the Earth every two days.

    3. What infrastructure and support to the user must the launch system company provide? The launch system provider must provide payload to launch vehicle interface coordination and installation; mission planning to orbital insertion; preflight systems check out; documentation; air traffic authorization; and all necessary launch operations.

    4. What is the market infrastructure between the end user who produces the space product or service? The government has a substantial position in the commercial infrastructure for producing remote sensing images and providing the data to value added companies and end users. The infrastructure can be described as follows:


    Infrastructure for Remote Sensing Market

    5. What changes or improvements are needed in the market infrastructure to reduce the costs of space produced products? For commercialization of the remote sensing field to evolve. there has to be less government involvement in producing the remote sensing images. A vision of how the infrastructure should look to accommodate competition and growth in the market is illustrated below:


    Infrastructure for Commercial Remote Sensing Market

    6. When will users begin deploying their commercial space remote sensors? How frequently will they deploy their satellites? ITD plans to deploy a constellation of three satellites in the 1996-7 time frame.

    Three satellites will be launched during 1996 and 1997. The satellites lifetime is estimated at seven years. A spare satellite is being built for contingencies, e.g., failure of a satellite. If a satellite failed, they would want immediate replacement if it occurred during the growing season, otherwise replacement would be on a less urgent basis, and dependent upon their customer demand for data.

    ITD has no plans to build additional satellites beyond the initial constellation. However, assuming they continue to sell imagery to agriculture users, they will replace their satellite constellation at the end of their life. Therefore, a second generation of replacement satellites and related launches would be required approximately every seven years, e.g., the lifetime of the satellite.

    Launch Frequency: End Users
    Product969798990001020304050607
    Agricultural1212
    Forestry, note a
    Environmental, note a

    Note a. Mr. Draper mentioned other applications where ITD's remote sensor constellation could be used are forestry and environmental monitoring and assessments. No data was provided on the whether additional satellites would be required for these applications.

    7. What are their current and near term costs associated with using space? ITD estimates launch costs at $15 million per satellite. Overall costs for the first launch is estimated at $50 million; and includes development costs, launch, and ground station. The deployment of the two remaining satellites is $85 million, which includes $30 million for launch costs.

    8. How sensitive is user demand to launch system cost? The sensitivity to launch costs is very low. Mr. Draper does not think that lowering launch costs, by as much as 90 percent would increase the number of launches. Launch is a required need. Cost is of secondary importance. However, lowering the costs is acceptable.

    Launches per Year
    Launch PriceToday<5 Years<10 Years
    Prevailing (a)22
    75%2
    50%2
    25%2
    10%2

    NOTE: a. Prevailing cost is $15 million for launch of a single remote sensor satellite.

    8/27/93 comments by Mr. Draper: Reducing launch costs would impact the business plan in a significant manner, and in that regard would be desireable. However, as discussed previously in our meeting, we have a schedule to launch three satellites and a cost based upon today's reality rather than tommorrow's vague expectations.

    9. What decision making business process is used to decide on the use of space? The image data is sold to large agricultural growers, usually major companies that have large land holdings. ITD believes they can provide comparable imaging data from their proposed sensor constellation that cost approximately the same; and provides the data on two-day intervals rather than 6-day intervals as currently available from Land sat.

    ITD estimates their annual sales at $400 million for satellite images. They would be able to recover the $135 million (for deployment of the three satellite constellation and one ground station for constellation control and down linking of data) at $27 million per year over 5-years.

    10. What are titles and names of executive managers who are making the business decisions to invest resources into space remote sensing? Other companies involved with commercial remote sensing satelliets include:

  • Ball Space Systems Division, Boulder, Colorado; David L. Frostman, director, program development.
  • Worldview Imaging Corp., Livermore, California; Douglas B. Gerull. Tel: 510/373.8349. FAX: 510/373.8359.
  • Review and Revision status
  • 8/25/93 Submitted research report to SRSC for review, comments and concurrence with data.
  • 8/27/93 Mr. Draper replied with comments and concurrence. Research report revised and closed out.

  • D.6.12 ITD/SRSC

  • Date 23 December 1993
  • Telecon Report From
  • Keith Draper, system engineer, ITD/SRSC, 601/6882509.
  • With
  • Bill Walsh, Lockheed, Sunnyvale
  • Subject
  • Comments on draft of Remote Sensing Market Study
  • Keith Draper reviewed the draft of the Remote Sensing final report and provided the following comments: ITD/SRSC has completed their business plan and are currently seeking investors. Their remote sensing program has changed significantly from the data collected in the 29 July 1993 field research interview.

    1. Correct the table for ITD/SRSC program. Will deploy seven satellites beginning in 1997. Deploy two satellites per launch on 4/97, 6/97, 8/97, and one satellite on 10/97. Note; for purposes of the CSTS study, assume two sets of satellites deployed in 1997 (6/97 and 10/97) and two plus one deployed in 1998 (two on 2/98 and one on 4/98)
    2. Launch characteristics include: 450 lbs (205 kg) per satellite to 760 km at 98 degrees inclination. This provides a three day revisit cycle.
    3. Operational life is eight years. Draper says that they have sized their satellites to accommodate an orbital adjustment on a three month basis. Operationally, they have including a solid state memory to store imaging data, when they are not over a down link station. The sensor operates in the 0.8 micron range (includes one wavelength in the near-R range) and does not need cooling.
    4. Resolution of the sensor is 15-meter, with a Swath of 75-mile (statute miles), or approximately 120 km.
    5. Program cost: $196 million, which includes 7 satellites (at $14 million each) and two ground stations. One ground spare satellite is also included.

    D.6.13 World View Imaging

  • Contact Report
  • 23 November 1993
  • Organization Contacted
  • World View Imaging, Walter Scott
  • 2111 Research Drive, Suite 3
  • Livermore, CA 94550
  • TEL: 510/339.9691 FAX: 510/339.9693
  • Subject:Follow Up Telecon Regardin gDraft Remote Sensing Final Report
  • Telecon with Walter Scott, President, Worldview Imaging.
  • Summary

    He agrees with the data in the report on his companies activities. He initially thought the remote space sensing market size may be understated. However, after I mentioned that the government missions market includes military remote sensing satellites, such as DSP, DMSP, etc, he agreed that the market for "space remote sensing" was about right for the near-term, i.e., five years. He said it was difficult to predict the market growth for the longer term.

    Mr. Scott confirmed the recent public anouncements that Worldview would be building a third and fourth satellite later on, after they get the initial phase of the program under control, (management, finanically).

    The data on the Worldview satellites in the final report data base, Appendix A.1 is very close. He thought the satellite and bus weight would be 330 kgs combined. He mentioned that the weight is at the upper end of the Pegasus XL capability and the lower end of the Taurus launch vehicle capability.

    Scott said that the number three satellite will be launched 18-months after number two. Number four satellite will be launched 12-months after number three. Satellite lifetimes of five years should be assumed.


    D.6.14 U.S. Geological Service

  • Date September 28, 1993
  • Organization Contacted
  • Dr. Bill Drager, Chief Data Products; U. S. Geological Service
  • Sioux Falls, SD
  • Telephone: 605/594.6141 FAX:
  • Researcher
  • Bill Walsh, Lockheed
  • Summary

    The researcher called Dr Drager to discuss the Landsat satellites, cost of a Landsat image, and which organization will be responsible for selling government remote sensing data to non-government users. Who is authorized by government to sell/distribute government remote satellite images? Dr Drager said that Landsat 5 and 6 images will be sold to government and non-government users through the EOSAT Company, Landham, MD.

    Landsat 7, however, is a joint NASA - DoD program and the images will not be sold to non-government users through EOSAT. Dr Drager was unsure which government agency would have responsibility for selling and marketing Landsat 7 imagery, however, he hinted that his organization EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls would be the responsible organization.

    Drager said that a minimum of processing of Landsat images would be performed before the imagery was available to users. What is cost of a Landsat image?

    Note: current price list from EOSAT quotes a $4400 price for a thematic mapper full scene image from Landsat 5. Dr. Bill Anderson of the Ohio State Univ., Center For Mapping indicates that the price will go down to $800 per image as a result of the 1992 Landsat act.

    Dr Drager thought the price was coming down, but could not confirm Dr Anderson's belief of $800. Drager did specify the price reduction would be the result of the 1992 Landsat act. He thinks that non-profit and university type organizations will get the reduced prices. Drager requested that I contact Jim Love at EOSAT to discuss what the EOSAT pricing changes would be. Telephone 800/344.9933; 301/552.0537. J. R. Thompson, at USGS, 605/594.6161 can provide a recent briefing on the Landsat 7 program. Thompson's secretary, Janet, will send the data package to my attention on 9/29. The Landsat program manager at NASA is Stan Schneider, 202/358.0256

    Back to top

    Appendix D

    Back to top