Revenue Ideas for Inspiration Mars

Last week, Inspiration Mars announced plans to send two human beings in 2018 on the 501 day trip around Mars and return to earth. 

Inspiration Mars is the brain child of the first space tourist, Dennis Tito.  Dennis has announced he will invest up to $100M into Inspiration Mars to fund the effort for the next few years while Inspiration Mars raises the necessary billions ($1-2B) to fully finance the venture. 

Although Inspiration Mars is a non-profit, here are a few revenue generating ideas to assist with financing.  Some of the ideas below won’t generate revenue until after the mission completes.

These ideas don’t matter if you can’t raise significant(!) investment/donations from rich individuals.  However, these ideas might help Inspiration Mars grow beyond a single success.

Ways Inspiration Mars can make money:

1. Sell Human factors data to NASA and other space agencies (during and post mission)
2. The mission may require Aerocapture on earth return.  If the first mission is successful, Inspiration Mars will become the experts in Aerocapture.  Market Aerocapture solutions for future missions.
3. Sell access to the mission data set
4. With spacecraft mass/volume/power surplus, sell hosted payload slots for small experiments and commercial payloads (could I get my dog’s ashes sprinkled in Martian orbit?  Are you listening, Celestis?)
5. Post Mission, Expertise in HW, SW, and Ops could be packaged and sold through involvement in follow-on deep space missions.
6. Sell Media Rights (already planned)
7. Sponsorships of various types [this list could be very long from naming rights to company logos on the participant jump suits (think NASCAR)]
8. Deals to license the Inspiration Mars Name/logo for toys/memorabilia
9. Celebrity Events with participants

I am sure I missed a bunch of revenue ideas.  Send me your thoughts and we can add them to this list.  Good luck Inspiration Mars.  We are all rooting for you!

Would a Reusable Falcon Hurt SpaceX?

What happens if SpaceX is successful at achieving its Falcon reusability goals.  Here is the video of SpaceX’s plans to recover and reuse the majority of its Falcon launch system.

Let me make some assumptions about a Reusable Falcon (R-Falcon) to make my point that such a system may pose challenges for SpaceX.

On the surface, an R-Falcon would be great.  If my assumptions below are accurate, only $16M per flight, a flight every 30 days, only two thousand dollars per KG.  From a consumer perspective this would be great!  SpaceX is adding reusability to the large rockets they already have.  And they will probably be successful at it.  They do seem to achieve what they put their mind to, however, could there be an easier road to reusability?  Let’s explore the possibility.  First what could a large reusable system like SpaceX’s look like (dollars values in millions)?

  

I am still amazed we can’t build Saturn V’s today.  We built them before.  We went to the moon in them for goodness sake!  We knew how to build them…why don’t we know now?  Two major reasons:

1. We don’t have the tooling/plans – long since destroyed or lost
2. We don’t have the knowledge – the NASA/contractor engineers have retired/passed away

 Surely such a reusable system like the R-Falcon could avoid these Saturn-V pitfalls…right?  If you look at the table above you see I estimated SpaceX builds eight initial R-Falcons.  This high number addresses the unknowns about number of flights per R-Falcons.  Will it really be 10 flights per vehicle as I estimate?  And how long will it take technicians to refurbish and integrate the next payload? 6 weeks?  8 weeks?  With flights every month and 6-8 week refurbish and integration windows, multiple R-Falcons will be needed.

So here is the problem.

After the initial push to develop the R-Falcon fleet, at the usage rates outlined in the table, you would NOT NEED TO BUILD another R-Falcon for 6.5 years!

So SpaceX could avoid throwing away their tooling (unlike the Saturn V), but could they keep a knowledgeable team around ready to build the next R-Falcon 6.5 years after the first fleet was completed?

And even if you believe eight R-Falcons in the initial fleet is too many and want to reduce the fleet size, demand rates of one per month means SpaceX would only need to make approximately one R-Falcon per year to keep up with demand.  Not exactly mass production – 1 vehicle per year.  Can you keep the production team “sharp” on 1 vehicle per year?

How can it be, as a consumer, I love the R-Falcon (yay $2k per KG), but as a business, could the R-Falcon be a bad way to prove a reusable launch vehicle?  Could the R-Falcon launch too much payload and launch too infrequently?

Let’s talk about an alternate business approach that could address some of these challenges.  I said above that my hypothetical R-Falcon has two problems:

•  Launching too much payload
• Launching too infrequently

How could a new hypothetical company do reusable launch better?  What if you launch less mass but launch more often?  So let’s make up a hypothetical launch system – the “Kinglet.”  Since this is a business blog, let’s not get bogged down into the technical details except that instead of launching 7,000KG per flight, the Kinglet will launch 100KG.  And instead of paying the R-Falcon’s $5M for range access per flight, the Kinglet pays $200K per flight for its range or range-like services (airport, spaceport, other?).  Here is the table for such a system (dollars values in millions).

The Kinglet is a smaller launch system but aims for a higher flight rate, targeting weekly flights instead the R-Falcon’s monthly flight rate.  As a potential customer, I do not like the 10x higher price I pay to use Kinglet ($20K per KG vice the Falcon’s $2K).  But flying weekly may be attractive to some customers.  Overall though, this appears to be bad for customers (most customers could wait a month to fly).  But from a business perspective, all things being equal, a small reusable launch system like Kinglet has a much higher probability of success because it starts small.

Where the Falcon struggled to keep its production line open with only one new vehicle per year, the Kinglet will need to produce five systems per year to keep up with demand.  Now five launch vehicles per year is still not mass production, but those volumes will, not only keep the production team sharp, but provide five times the opportunities to roll in product and production improvements into the newer vehicles than would be possible on the R-Falcon production line.

Could a smaller reusable system avoid R-Falcon's hidden pitfalls?  Maybe.

So the last question to ask is, what needs to be launched at least weekly with a mass of under 100KG? 

Here is the excel file with tables from this post if you want to change the assumptions.

Tribute to Space Entrepreneurs

I stay connected to several young space CEOs trying to tap the ideas, relationships, and dreams to the financing necessary to produce a successful business.

My wife introduced me to this short video of a boy in East LA who embodies this entrepreneurial spirit.  The video is 10 min long.  My five-year old has watched it seven times in the last two days!

Thank you space entrepreneurs.  Enjoy. 

SpaceWorks Nanosat Market Study

SpaceWorks Commercial today released their latest nano/microsatellite market study.  You can download it here.  The study is quite bullish on the growth of Nanosatellites over the next decade with over 20% growth per year through 2014. 

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know I am a big advocate for Nanosats and Nanosat launchers .  But I do want to caution us that the authors of this analysis are also developing the Generation Orbit Nanosat launch vehicle.  Some may doubt how unbiased their nanosat market study can be when they are developing a vehcile to launch them.  However, the counter argument could also be, it was reviewing this same market data several months ago (now made public) that led som of the folks over at SpaceWorks to start Generation Orbit in the first place.

Here are a few highlights from the report.  Note many of these comments are direct quotes from the SpaceWorks study itself:

• 180 known future nano/microsatellites to launch by 2014
• Range of 100-142 nano/microsatellites (1-50kg) that will need launches globally in the year 2020 (verses 23 in 2011)
• 32 are estimated to be 11-50kg satellites
• 68 are estimated to be 1-10kg satellites
• 75% expected to be foreign or academic payloads
• Military growth accounts for the majority of the delta between the 100 launch estimate and the 142 launch estimate for 2020
• New Program list of Known NanoSats:
• QB50 – 50 Cubesats to be launched between 2013 and 2014
• NRO Colony I – 12 Cubesats to be launched over next few years
• NRO Colony II – 20-50 Cubesats to be launched following Colony I
• ALASA – 36 mirosatellites to be launched beginning in 2015
• The number satellites launched may not equal the  number of launches since many satellites are multiple-manifested
• 4.38% growth in Nano/microsatellite launch demand since 2000
• 22.5% growth (!) in Nano/microsatellite launch demand expected from 2011-2014
• Market saturation point was set at 150 launches per year (the projected 2030 value) (however SpaceWorks admits that some estimates project CubeSat launches at over 600 per year – well above their 150 launch ceiling)
• For a fee, Customers can license SpaceWorks more detailed database of nano/microsatellites

Additionally, the SpaceWorks estimates in this market study are based on growth in popularity of Nanosatellites and Microsatellites on existing launch vehicles (with the possible exception of the launches connected with ALASA).  As soon as you CAN launch every week or day on board a new generation of quick response Nanosat launchers, many new uses will be found for this class of satellite.  And many new customers, yet to be identified, will be taking advantage of such frequent access to space.

Investing in Virgin Galactic

Abu Dhabi’s Aabar made a second investment in Virgin Galactic in July, increasing its stake in the company to roughly one-third ownership.  This marks the second investment by the Abu Dhabi based fund in the last three years. 

Bottom line:

• 2009 investment for $280M equaled a 31.8% stake.  Post Money valuation of $900M.
• 2011 investment for $110M increased its ownership stake to 37.8%.

Based on this data I estimate one of two scenarios:

Scenario #1: The 2009 investment was a down round with prices per share less than what Virgin had previously valued the company, and the 2011 was an up round.  An example of this scenario is provided below.  Note the percentage change between share price is valid but the share price itself is not publicly known, so I am using a simplified $1 per share for example purposes.

Scenario #2: The share price has not changed since the company's founding.  In addition to the two Aabar investments Virgin has brought in $21.5M from other outside investors.  An example of this math is below.

Both of these scenarios match the data provided by Aabar for the last three years. 

Reasons for Virgin taking additional investment range from:

1.       Preparations for new growth (Nanosat Launch vehicles or other new products)

2.       Paying for the delays in reaching commercial operations for its suborbital product

3.       Building up a war chest for a rainy day (when money is available sometimes you just take it)

Risk Pricing for the Reusable Falcon 9

In my last post I explored how the SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9 (rF9) could threaten those companies offering suborbital launch services.  

Discussion has focused on the risks preventing the rF9 from reaching the optimistic breakeven price point of $130 per kg (discussed in my last post).  Here are a few of the risk categories you have raised:

• Increased variable costs: Elon may claim only $200K of propellant per flight, but the variable costs of an rF9 flight will surely be higher
• Reduced number of flights: When you factor in the complexities of reusing a launch vehicle and the potential for a crash or loss of vehicle
• Reduced payload capacity: Adding reusability will increase the mass of non-payload components – reducing the payload mass

What rF9 breakeven price points might we expect if we take these concerns into account?  In the table below, I explore these risks and their impact on breakeven price per flight and breakeven price per kg.  

In the second column are the breakeven prices today for an expendable Falcon 9.  This is the upper end of cost.  Weight any of these risks to the point you get price points beyond $5K per KG and customers will prefer the current Falcon 9 over the reusable version.  The third column shows the optimistic assumptions from my last post.  Columns four through six:

• Increase variable cost per mission from $200K to $2M
• Reduce reusability from 47 missions per vehicle down to only 10 missions per launch vehicle
• Reduce payload capacity by 50% from 10,450KG to 5,225KG

These risk values give us a range we can talk about.  Even variable costs of $2M per flight, only 10 flights per vehicle, and half of the payload mass consumed with reusability hardware, SpaceX should be able to reach breakeven price points of about $1500 per KG and $7.5M per flight. 

And the great thing about risks…they get retired.  Be as pessimistic as you want to be about the capabilities of the initial versions of the rF9.  Variable costs will drop over time.  Flight rates per vehicle will rise, and payload mass will creep back up.  The key has been (and will always be) flight rates.  I wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX subsidize their first generation rF9, offering first generation customers prices SpaceX won’t be able to satisfy profitability until the second generation rF9 – all in the name of increased flight rates.

How optimistic or pessimistic are you about rF9 capabilities?  Here is an interactive spreadsheet for you to explore your own risks and their effects on breakeven prices.    

Will the Reusable Falcon 9 Kill the Suborbital Launch Industry?

With SpaceX’s announcement this week that the company would not only develop a reusable first stage for its Falcon 9 family of rockets but would make a completely reusable rocket system (I will use Clark Lindsey’s nomenclature: "rF9" for reusable Falcon 9), I have been wondering about the future of the young NewSpace companies developing reusable suborbital rockets.  Will companies like Masten, Armadillo and to a lesser extent XCOR and Virgin Galactic, survive this incursion from a well-funded NewSpace Cousin?

(the youtube video via Clark Lindsey's youtube channel.)  

SpaceX has announced the company is developing the “Grasshopper,” a 100 foot-tall suborbital Falcon 9 first stage that SpaceX’s cadre of young, talented engineers will use to test this initial piece of the rF9.  SpaceX has NOT announced any intention to commercialize the Grasshopper.  But if Masten, XCOR, and Armadillo continue to delay bringing a product to market that can reach 100KM, and SpaceX continues to develop products in its typical rapid fashion, might customers ask to buy payload space on an upcoming Grasshopper test?  

Or would SpaceX be willing to sell Grasshoppers to operators who then provide a suborbital launch service to users using the Grasshopper all before Masten has reached 100KM?  Could the unmanned Grasshopper be modified to carry passengers and compete with Virgin and XCOR?  If an operator came with funding, wouldn’t SpaceX take their money to make the modifications to "manrate" Grasshopper?

But the big money is the orbital market.  Most of the suborbital companies have expressed interest in using their suborbital experience and even their suborbital vehicles to expand current offerings to include an orbital system.  XCOR has published this image of an orbital capability.  

Virgin Galactic even took investment money from the Middle East to jump start their orbital program.  Could an rF9 meet all market demand for both suborbital and ultimately orbital launches as well?  And if they do, are the current suborbital companies doomed? 

It all comes down to money.

How cheaply could SpaceX really launch their new rF9?  We don’t know.  SpaceX does not even know yet.  But we can make some interesting estimates.   The heart of these projected orbital price reductions stems from reusing the rF9 like Southwest reuses its 747’s (which can fly commercially for 30 years with proper maintenance).  How many reuses is SpaceX planning on? 

At this point, the best data I have is a nugget SpaceX's CEO, Elon Musk, said this last week that he is targeting $500K trips to Mars as a market for his reusable craft.  

Let’s make some assumptions so we can approximate SpaceX’s reusability assumptions:

1. A price for a Dragon/Falcon 9 trip to Mars will be equal to the price SpaceX is currently charging NASA for ISS visits ($130M per trip) - optimistic assumption
2. 5 paying passengers per Mars Trip - optimistic assumption
3. 10% profit per launch
4. All maintenance and between-flight costs are included in the launch price - optimistic assumption

SpaceX breaks even after 47 flights (but that is a lot of assumptions).  here is a table to help visualize the math:

 Assuming a 47-flight amortization, what could be SpaceX’s breakeven price per KG to LEO?  Or to say it another way, how low would the suborbital company’s prices have to be to beat SpaceX?  

Again, let’s make some assumptions:

1. A price for an rF9 to LEO is the same as current LEO Falcon 9
2. Falcon 9 payload to LEO is unchanged
3. 10% profit per launch
4. All maintenance and between flight costs are included in the launch price.
5. Propellant Cost per Launch = $200K
6. rF9 breaks even after 47 flights

Based on these assumptions, SpaceX's breakeven Price to LEO for rF9 is $130 per KG or ~$1.4M per flight.  Again, here is a table to summarize how I came to this conclusion.  At the end of this post is a link to an interactive spreadsheet where you can modify these assumptions to create your own analysis.

These SpaceX prices are surely the most optimistic for the near term:

1. What if the rF9 doesn’t get 47 flights per vehicle?
2. What if between-flight maintenance costs for the rF9 are significant?
3. What if payload capacity has to be significantly reduced to accommodate rF9’s reusability elements?
4. What if near term launch demand is not high enough to fly as often as they need?

Even with the identified risks, this analysis would indicate:

• Yes, rF9 could compete against suborbital companies for suborbital market share (especially if SpaceX sells the Grasshoppers to entrepreneur operators)
• Yes, rF9 could compete against suborbital companies for orbital market share through extraordinarily low prices

So how can XCOR and Masten compete?  

I continue to be bullish regarding the utility of Nanosat-class launch vehicles.  When suborbital companies start offering orbital services (a second generation service), their initial orbital offerings would probably be within this Nanosat class - broadly speaking, payload space significantly under 100kg.  Is there still a market for suborbital companies to offer this type of orbital service?  Even if SpaceX may be able to now match (or beat) them on price?  

Yes.  Here is why:

Sometimes smaller is better.  The smaller vehicles these suborbital companies will eventually offer on orbit should:

• Be easier to "fly full"– to get the $130/KG price on an rF9, you have to wait for the manifest to fill.  Not so with a smaller vehicle.  XCOR was talking about a payload of 12-20KG initially.
• Be easier (and cost less) to maintain.
• Be launched with less integration or preparation – this advantage is the BIG one.  XCOR talks about multiple flights on the same day, taking off and landing from existing airports.  Even if the rF9 could launch that often, it will be some time before regulations allow SpaceX to fly that often - especially if they are still flying from the Cape or Vandenberg where ops tempo is measured in "launches per month" not "launches per day".

Nanosat launchers are the future, but only if their ops tempo is fast enough to justify paying a premium for preferential launch windows.  

This advantage of the small won’t last forever.  SpaceX will keep improving its initial RLV offerings.  Spaceport operations will grow to allow for more airline-like ops tempos.  So Nanosat launch operators (today’s suborbital companies) will have to keep improving too.

But there is a market for Nanosats and it hinges now on ops tempo.  There is hope.

The bigger worry…

…is in the near term.  I mentioned earlier, I doubt SpaceX will pursue commercializing their Grasshopper suborbital vehicle.  But they may be open to selling this suborbital vehicle for others to operate.  Such a suborbital operator flying the Grasshopper would have tremendous suborbital market advantages and could be a major competitor to those suborbital companies focusing on suborbital research (Masten, Armadillo, etc.).

Suborbital companies should be worried, but not panicking.  If the reusable Falcon 9 hastens the development of viable Nanosat launchers, the industry will be doubly blessed – low launch costs from the rF9 and high ops tempo from Nanosat launchers.

Here is the interactive spreadsheet so you can build your own rF9 assumptions.

The Outside Insider

ASM "D2S" reaching out from ISS

In my last post, I talked about the business lessons applied in developing the Altius Space Machines Business Plan.
 
Jon Goff, Altius’s CEO, thanked quite a few people in his post here.  On the business side, recommendations and advice came from a host of valuable people including:

• Friends and Internal reviewers of drafts 
• Online Resources like Venture Hacks
• Business Plan Judges (post-pitch feedback)
• Company Advisors and Investors

One person that fills the dual-role of Advisor and Investor for ASM is Richard David of NewSpace Global. Richard David has been a great asset to Altius providing that critical opinion,

“How does this look from the eyes of an investor?”

If you don’t have such a person for your venture – get one! You need an “Outside Insider” on your team. Someone that believes in you/your Company and understands your business plan/market/technology but still can bring fresh eyes to how you explain these themes to the uninitiated.

Richard is also bullish on the new space industry and will be rolling out New Space Global in the coming weeks at which time I will post a more formal interview with Richard and let him explain his new venture first hand.

But for now, let me thank all of those people that contributed business ideas and recommendations that got swirled together into the Altius Space Machines business plan win.

THANKS!

Does your Mom Understand your Business Plan?

Several months ago Jonathan Goff, CEO at Altius Space Machines, called me.  ASM was preparing for a business plan “sprint” to compete in the 2011 Heinlein Business Plan competition in Silicon Valley (hosted by the Space Frontier Foundation).  Could I help with the business stuff?

Jon had been pitching his new technology – “Sticky Boom” which is a really long tube with glue pads on the end of it.  Only the tube can be rolled in or out and the glue can be turned on or off via an electric current.  Altius knew Sticky Boom had space rendezvous and docking applications (think servicing satellite, grabbing lost wrenches during EVAs, etc.), but could we wrap a business around this cool technology?

Assisting on the Altius Business plan has been a big part of my life over the last few months which is my excuse for light blogging.  

I am pleased with the result (yes, we won the $25K grand prize).  Here is Jon Goff, Altius's CEO, pitching the plan (worth watching to get a better feel for what ASM is really trying to do as a company - about 6 minutes long).

Here are a few highlights the team at Altius and I kept discussing while developing this plan:

• Is there a problem people will pay you to solve?  If not, you do not have a market.
•  An attractive Market is even more valuable than an attractive technology.  New space technology is cool to us space nerds, but markets determine how valuable company technology really is.
• Your customer is the organization that pays you – not necessarily the group that uses your product.
• Once you have found a market, be cautious before competing head to head with incumbents (those competitors already selling to your market) – how do you take market share away at the edges without drawing an incumbent response – a disruptive strategy .
• Management team – do you have the right team?  This is so important.  If you get the market and management right (and maybe a little traction), investors know that even if the product or technology changes over time, the company will have a good chance at success.  There is no substitute for the right market and the right team.
• Money: how much do you need and how are you going to get it?  Banks probably won’t lend to you (at least not at first).  Investor money is an obvious choice but have you thought about govt contracting or strategic partnerships?
• Few investors understand NewSpace (if you find one that does, keep him/her happy!).  The industry is small and in its infancy.  It is not right to expect Tech and Biotech investors to immediately understand: ISS regulations, LEO vs GEO, terminator tethers, plane changes, lagrange points, etc.  The question becomes how to present your idea in terms/images VC’s will understand while still being concise?  I recommend pitching your deck to your spouse or your mom.  If your Mom doesn’t understand your plan, VC’s won’t take the time to understand it either.  Simplify.  Simplify.  Simplify.
• The “prize” in most public competitions is the publicity and connections made as a result of winning, not in a the few dollars at stake.  This is what the Google X-Prize teams are fighting over – the media rights!  To highlight the value of publicity, here are a few of the Altius Space Machines articles that have been written since winning the prize.  Ask yourself how long it would have taken to generate this media attention without the win?

List of articles:

1. Aviation Week
2. CNBC
3. The Space Review
4. Business News Daily
5. Plus the sites that published the press release or the many posts by NewSpace blogs (thanks guys).

Business plans are like going to College – professors push you to do what you probably could not discipline yourself to do on your own.  This is why we have all-nighters finishing 20-page papers and cramming for tests.  On your own, you would just go to bed.

Business plans are great forcing functions and entrepreneurs learn a lot through the process.  I am glad I got to be apart this journey.

Here was some great advise we tried to follow when preparing the slide deck for the competition:

Pitching Hacks Preview

View more documents from Venture Hacks

Interview with Dr. Steven Tsitas - Cubesat Earth Imaging Constellations

This week I interviewed Dr Steven Tsitas of the Satellite Navigation and Positioning Lab and lead author of the paper, “6U CubeSat design for Earth observation with 6.5m GSD, five spectral bands and 14Mbps downlink.”  This paper has been peer reviewed, and appears in the November 2010 issue of The Aeronautical Journal which is published by the Royal Aeronautical Society. I analyzed the business potential of such a cubesat constellation in a previous post here.

Dr. Steven Tsitas received his BSc(Hons) in Physics from the University of Melbourne, MS in Physics (with Distinction) from California State University Fresno and MS and PhD in Planetary Science with a minor in Astronomy from the California Institute of Technology. His two part PhD thesis title is The effect of volcanic aerosols on ultraviolet radiation in Antarctica and A novel method for enhancing subsurface radar imaging using radar interferometry. After completing his PhD Steven worked as a Management Consultant at Bain & Co. in San Francisco. He recently completed a MSc in Astronautics and Space Engineering at Cranfield University, receiving the Vega Space Systems Engineering Prize for Excellent Performance in Dynamics Related Subjects 2008/2009. His most recent papers detail the system design and commercial applications for an 8 kg, 6U CubeSat that can perform Earth observation missions equivalent to those of current 50-150kg microsatellites, with a corresponding reduction in cost.

And now my conversation with Dr. Tsitas:

Q: Your paper posits the potential of a constellation of cubesat earth imaging satellites capable of performing their job on par with current industry leaders like the European company Rapideye. To fit so much capability into a 6U Cubesat is incredibility daunting. What innovations are you proposing to accomplish this?

Steven Tsitas: I employ several innovations to make such a solution possible:

• Time Delay Integration (TDI) to allow a small imager to collect as much light as a larger aperture; 
• Determining attitude during imaging by rate integration using a Fiber Optic Gyroscope to meet the requirements for pointing stability following from the use of TDI; and 
• DVB-S2 encoding and a three speed transmitter to allow fast downlink from such a small spacecraft.

One of the things that I like about space engineering is you can twist and turn around obstacles to find solutions - it is quite a creative process. However the design process isn't arbitrary, the culture of space engineering is to design to requirements, and if done well every component in the spacecraft can be traced to a top level requirement through a process of step by step logical decisions. Just as a limited palette doesn't limit an artist, this logical discipline doesn't have to limit creativity in the design of spacecraft.

Q. RapidEye produces images in five spectral bands including infrared – does your proposed 6U system do the same?

Steven Tsitas: Yes, it images in the same 5 spectral bands as RapidEye.

Q. RapidEye produces a 6.5-meter resolution image – what resolution image does your proposed 6U system produce?

Steven Tsitas: 6.5 m Ground Sample Distance (GSD), the same as RapidEye.

Q. RapidEye admits their 6.5-meter resolution is not adequate for some commodity customers like those tracking crops like grapes, strawberries, and peanuts. What is the highest resolution (better than 5-meter?) that you believe possible today in a 6U?

Steven Tsitas: Good images aren't just about resolution, but also having good contrast at medium spatial frequencies. This is quantified by the Modulation Transfer Function. I've seen a high resolution image with poor contrast at medium spatial frequencies, and it looked much worse than an image of the same scene with lower resolution but higher MTF at mid spatial frequencies. I could improve the GSD of the 6U CubeSat design at the expense of contrast, but this wouldn't necessarily give better or more useful images. Fundamentally resolution is limited by aperture size, and the 6U CubeSat design has an 89 mm aperture imager. Given the 6U CubeSat is just 100 mm thick this is obviously close to the limit. Short of some kind of foldable optics or deployable membrane mirror technology I don't think you are going to do much better than that with 6U.

Q. RapidEye’s satellites are designed to last seven years – your research indicates a 12 year satellite life per 6U. How would the orbital life of each satellite change by offering the RapidEye service of a photo anywhere on earth within 24 hours?

Steven Tsitas: To be clear, the paper indicates that the orbital lifetime could be 12 years, and in fact could exceed 25 years requiring a deorbit device, for which provision is made in the design. The orbital lifetime is not necessarily the same as the operational lifetime. Regarding the effect of imaging operations on operational lifetime, the 6U CubeSat design does not include propulsion or any consumables, so there is no direct link between a particular imaging campaign and the operational lifetime of the spacecraft.

Q. In a recent post, I speculate on the economics of a such a 6U cubesat constellation. What further are you planning in this area?

Steven Tsitas: I discuss the commercial implications of the 6U CubeSat design in an upcoming paper. Standby.  Perhaps we can continue this conversation after the release of the new paper.


Thank you Steven. Yes, let’s talk again with the release of your paper on the economics of such a cubesat system.