Poll

How Will Communications Providers Respond to a Lower $/kg to Orbit?

No major change
Larger constellations using existing spacecraft buses
Larger constellations using larger spacecraft buses
Larger constellations using smaller spacecraft buses
Smaller constellations using much larger buses
Same size constellations with larger buses

Author Topic: POLL: How Will Communications Providers Respond to a Lower $/kg to Orbit?  (Read 5974 times)

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
This is NOT a SpaceX thread.  I can't help but think in the next 5 years you are going to see Chinese, Indian, & Russian reduce prices to gain marketshare back from SpaceX.  Plus EU/US aerospace firms are likely going to start emulating the successful parts of SpaceX's practices though acquisition of management.  But that's all a side point.

I think most of us can agree that the overall $/kg rate communications providers pay to orbit their spacecraft is getting ready to go down in the next decade.  With that change, which is the most likely response on the part of spacecraft manufacturers and communications companies?

Even though I have been following this industry since I was a kid, I don't really understand the economics well enough to really wager a guess on what the more likely response is. 

Please suggest more options for poll if I missed an obvious one!

« Last Edit: 04/13/2015 12:58 pm by Chris Bergin »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
The orbital slots at GSO are limited.  So more spacecraft is not an option

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Up to 5 years I think it will mainly be a similar mix of satellite buses, mostly because it will take 5 years to develop new satellites but also because it takes a long time to go from the market signal of lower prices, though funding decisions, building of the satellite, through to launch.

After 5 years I think there will be a gradual trend towards more and larger satellites. Orbital slots will always be in limited supply and larger satellites can better make use of those orbital slots (as against more smaller satellites in the same slot).

Edit: in LEO and perhaps MEO we may see some very large constellations of small satellites, the 1990's all over again, but this time the constellations will make financial sense.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2014 03:44 pm by MikeAtkinson »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
You forgot one,

Same size constellations with heavier spacecraft buses.

The number of GSO slots are fixed, that limits the size of the constellations.

Magnitude lower launch costs with fixed GSO slots means you can launch heavier, more capable, more robust satellites that hold even more fuel for extended lives. Cheaper launch costs do not mean lower satellite manufacturing costs.

Somewhere Antonio posted that launch costs are 1/3 of total costs, 1/3 is the satellite, 1/3 is the ground infrastructure costs. You are only working on one side of the equation, launch costs.

It would be interesting to see how launch costs vs. satellite costs compare over time. I suspect with no data to back this up, just much hand waiving that satellite costs have skyrocketed while the launch costs as a percent of the system cost have been dropping.

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
The orbital slots at GSO are limited.  So more spacecraft is not an option

So would larger more capable spacecraft in these slots make since, or is there a limiting factor on what you can get out of these slots so higher mass cheaper spacecraft make more since?

No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
The orbital slots at GSO are limited.  So more spacecraft is not an option

So would larger more capable spacecraft in these slots make since, or is there a limiting factor on what you can get out of these slots so higher mass cheaper spacecraft make more since?



With the present spot beam size the slots are limited but there is a way to get more utilization some applications such as internet and telephone and that's by using smaller spot beams.

Even more traditional television transmissions could benefit a little from reduced beam spot size such as regional programs being on a narrow beam transmitter.

But as for larger craft it depends on the payload size of the LV and the presence of space tugs or the willingness to use high isp engines for getting to GSO.

Falcon Heavy would allow larger comsats and Skylon plus it's tugs and the proposed space dock could revolutionize the industry.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
The orbital slots at GSO are limited.  So more spacecraft is not an option

So would larger more capable spacecraft in these slots make since, or is there a limiting factor on what you can get out of these slots so higher mass cheaper spacecraft make more since?


Or you can launch satellites with more fuel for a longer life. Bigger tanks, larger batteries, larger solar arrays. All things that will extend the satellites life without much manufacturing cost penalties.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
One thing that might be worth considering is the rate of advancement of communications tech. As tech advances satellites on orbit become old tech. The longer lived the satellite, the older the on orbit tech becomes. At some point does the tech of a healthy, long lived satellite on orbit become so antiquated that the orbital slot it is occupying needs to be emptied to allow a new, modern, more capable satellite to occupy it. Or can the owner of the orbital slot put multiple satellites into it perhaps operating on different frequency bands?
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
The orbital slots at GSO are limited.  So more spacecraft is not an option
Technology is moving pretty quickly now days. There are slots taken by 25 year old sats because of the cost of replacing them. Much lower launch costs would mean more spacecraft because it would speed up replacements. It could mean lower quality (lower price) shorter lifespan birds which could reduce construction costs. That can mean on orbit or on ground spares that wouldn't have been justifiable with the old costs. It could also mean the reverse in some cases. Monsters like Skyterra with a 70 foot, 500 spot beam antenna could start finding their way up sooner. (That would be more convincing if anybody was actually using that sucker)
 Costing $15 million instead of $100 million to put something up would be one big, honkin monkey wrench in the works. Slots are wasted now on old sats with half a dozen or a dozen transponders that could be used for real comms sats bringing in 20 times the revenue.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2014 04:25 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
I'm not sure that the demand for comsat bandwidth would expand very rapidly, especially given the trend toward Internet-connected TVs. Satellite transceivers consume too much power for (mass market) mobile devices, and interactive applications perform poorly over high-latency satellite links. So streaming video to stationary televisions is the primary application for high-bandwidth satellite communications, and the market penetration of satellite TV is driven by the relative expense of deploying cable TV infrastructure in areas where it is not already available (there is no wireless equivalent for cable TV).

But it's far more practical to deploy Internet service because it can ride on a variety of wired and wireless link layers to suit different requirements. While some Internet traffic is carried by satellite links, the terrestrial cell carriers are rapidly expanding to cover most areas with relatively fast wireless Internet for places and applications where wired networks are not available, and they're stringing vast networks of fiber optics behind those towers.

The Balkanized local networks of cable TV created a market opportunity for satellite services, but the Internet makes it much easier to distribute content across the globe without access to space-based transceivers. Terrestrial networks are generally better wherever available, and terrestrial networks aren't so expensive when they can be connected across a variety of physical media.

Demand for satellite communications will grow, but not nearly as fast as demand for terrestrial bandwidth. We are indeed witnessing a major evolutionary step in communications media, but it's not happening in space, and that's not because launch services are too expensive. It's because the most transformative development of this century so far -- the handheld Internet device -- co-evolved alongside cellular networks and could not have been fully-realized using satellite communications.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Please consider changing this to a multiple choice as I think different outfits will do different things.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Would Molniya constellations make more sense outside Russia/for lower latitudes as an option to crowded GSO slots?
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I voted larger constellations with smaller buses, because I think MEO and LEO constellations are a growth market. GSO constellations will have growth, but slower. The big constellations we saw proposed in the 1990s will be trimmed a bit but probably something looking like them will be launched.

...Okay, I'm cheating a bit since O3b has already launched 4 of 8 initial satellites for their MEO constellation (and I think it's scalable to 16+ satellites? I think they already are booked for 12 total?).

Iridium is already booked with SpaceX to update their large constellation of LEO commsats. Orbcomm is also upgrading their LEO comm constellation with SpaceX.

...and there are others. COMMStellation is a proposal for a 1000km altitude constellation of microsats (78 of them), and I think that although they aren't a sure thing, there will be more such proposals.

Most of these constellations are using smaller birds. I do expect GSO birds to grow a little bit.

And of course observation constellations...
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JWarner

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 0
No major change for the variety of reasons already mentioned.

Limited slots would seem to indicate you should get the same number of larger satellites. However, advances in communication technology have allowed smaller sats with equal ability or equal sized sats with greater capacity. Also there is now a potential shift to electric propulsion to save mass as well.

So I think masses will be the same or lower while capability continues to increase.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Would Molniya constellations make more sense outside Russia/for lower latitudes as an option to crowded GSO slots?

Sirius uses what can be called a modified "Molniya", aka "Tundra Orbit" for it's broadcast service. That covers the lower 48 states. It requires a larger fleet (Three in Sirius's case), more advanced ground infrastructure, but get's you out of the limited GSO slots.

If we are talking things that lower costs can enable, you might see more of those kind of systems.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2014 05:32 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline TrevorMonty

Satellite internet communications in developing countries is more viable than wired networks. Cables have a habit of disappearing in alot of developing countries. Lay it one day and it is gone the next.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Yeah, but the recyclers will not give you squat for fiber...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Yeah, but the recyclers will not give you squat for fiber...

Even so, the local hoopleheads where I live steal it all the time. Maybe they figure that eventually they'll get lucky.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
The orbital slots at GSO are limited.  So more spacecraft is not an option

From Orbital Slots Becoming Scarce:



Looks like most of the congestion is above the U.S. and Europe. Is there room for GEO sats over Asia?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1