As the United States seeks opportunities to expand our economy, commercial use of space

resources continues to increase in importance. The use of space as a platform for increasing 

the benefits of our technological evolution continues to increase in a way that profoundly affects

us all. Whether we use these resources to synchronize communications networks, to improve

agriculture through precision farming assisted by imagery and positioning data from satellites,

or to receive entertainment from direct-to-home satellite transmissions, commercial space is 

an increasingly large and important part of our economy and our information infrastructure.

Once dominated by government investment, commercial interests play an increasing role 

in the space industry. As the voice of industry within the U.S. Government, the Department 

of Commerce plays a critical role in commercial space. Through the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Commerce licenses the operation of

commercial remote sensing satellites. Through the International Trade Administration, the

Department of Commerce seeks to improve U.S. industrial exports in the global space market.

Through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Department

of Commerce assists in the coordination of the radio spectrum used by satellites. And, through

the Technology Administration's Office of Space Commercialization, the Department of

Commerce plays a central role in the management of the Global Positioning System and 

advocates the views of industry within U.S. Government policy making processes.

I am pleased to commend for your review the Office of Space Commercialization's most recent

publication, Trends in Space Commerce. The report presents a snapshot of U.S. competitiveness

as well as a forecast of trends into the near future.

While the report indicates future growth in space commerce, it also shows that we in the

United States have work to do to improve our competitive position. As Secretary of Commerce,

I look forward to working with industry, the Congress, and other parts of the Executive branch

to enhance the commercial use of space and American competitiveness in this area.

Donald L. Evans

Foreword from the Secretary of Commerce
Content

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Table of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

Table of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Section 1 · Overview

1.1 Purpose of report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

1.2 General methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

1.3 Overview of industry segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

Section 2 · Space Transportation

2.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1

2.2 U.S. and world launches, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2

2.3 U.S. & world commercial launch trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6

2.4 Launch sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-14

2.5 Selected references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-18

Section 3 · Satellite Communications

3.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1

3.2 Transponder leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3

3.3 Retail/subscription satellite services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-6

3.4 Ground equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-8

3.5 World commercial communications satellites on orbit . . . . . . . . . .3-11

3.6 Satellite manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-12

3.7 Proposed satellite systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-15

3.8 Selected references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-17

Section 4 · Remote Sensing

4.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1

4.2 U.S. and world commercial imagery sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4

4.3 Current and future U.S. and world remote 

sensing satellite systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-7

4.4 Selected references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-13

Section 5 · G.P.S.

5.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1

5.2 U.S. and world commercial GPS user equipment sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-2

5.3 U.S. and world commercial GPS units sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-6

5.4 Sample U.S. and world producers of GPS equipment . . . . . . . . . . . .5-8

5.5 Sample related GPS companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-10

5.6 Selected references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-11

i

Table of Contents

Page
Figure

1.1. World revenue for space industry segments, 

in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

1.2. Space industry revenues by industry segment,

in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-4 

2.1 World commercial and civil government and 

quasi-commercial launches, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3

2.2 U.S. commercial and civil government and 

quasi-commercial launches, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4

2.3 U.S. and rest of world launch industry revenue, 

in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5

2.4 World-wide commercial launches by mass class capacity of launch 

vehicle, in maximum pounds to LEO: small, < 5,000; medium, 5,001 

to 12,000; intermediate, 12,001 to 25,000; heavy, > 25,000 . . . . . . . . . .2-7

2.5 U.S. commercial launches by mass class capacity of launch vehicle, 

in maximum pounds to LEO: small, < 5,000; medium, 5,001 to 

12,000; intermediate, 12,001 to 25,000; heavy, > 25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . .2-8

2.6 Worldwide commercial launches by payload owner region, 

1996-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9

2.7 U.S. commercial launches by payload owner region, 1996-2000 . . . . . .2-10

2.8 Worldwide commercial launches by provider region, 1996-2000 . . . . . .2-12

2.9 Worldwide commercial launches by orbit, 1996-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-13

2.10 U.S. commercial launches by orbit, 1996-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-14

2.11 U.S. operational and proposed orbital launch sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-15

2.12 World (non-U.S.) active orbital launch sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-16

3.1 World satellite communications industry revenues, by sector, 

in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2

3.2 U.S. and rest of world transponder leasing revenues (not including 

resale or brokering revenues), in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . .3-4

ii

Page

Table of Figures
Table of Figures

iii

3.3 U.S. and rest of world transponder leasing employment 

(not including resellers or brokers), 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5

3.4 U.S. and rest of world retail/subscription satellite services revenues, 

in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-6

3.5 U.S. and rest of world retail/subscription satellite services 

employment, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-7

3.6 U.S. and rest of world satellite communications' ground 

equipment manufacturing revenues, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . .3-9

3.7 U.S. and rest of world satellite communications' ground 

equipment manufacturing employment, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-10

3.8 Operational commercial communications satellites, 

by orbit type, as of December 31, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-11

3.9 Operational commercial communications satellites, 

by orbit type, as of December 31, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-13

3.10 U.S. and rest of world satellite manufacturing employment 

(does not include government personnel), 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-14

4.1 U.S. and rest of world pre-value-added commercial 

remote-sensing satellite imagery revenues, 

in millions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5

4.2 U.S. and rest of world commercial remote-sensing satellite 

data provider employment, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-7

5.1 GPS revenues earned by producers, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . .5-3

5.2 Annual GPS customer expenditures, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 . . . . . .5-4

5.3 GPS industry employees, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-5

5.4 Commercial GPS units sold, in thousands, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-6

5.5 Distribution of GPS units sold by market component, year 2000 . . . . . . . .5-7

5.6 GPS market trends, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-8
Table

2.1 U.S. and rest of world launch services employment, 1996-2002 . . . . . . . .2-6

2.2 Selected payloads by payload owner region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11

2.3 Commercial launch vehicles by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11

2.4 U.S. active and licensed orbital launch sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-15

2.5 World (non-U.S.) orbital launch sites and vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-17

3.1 Select major satellite operators, worldwide, as of December 31, 2000 . . .3-12

3.2 Operational and/or deploying LEO commercial satellite constellations . . .3-16

4.1 Overview of current operational U.S. and world remote-sensing 

satellites producing commercially available imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8

4.2 Technical information on current operational U.S. and world remotesensing satellites producing commercially available imagery . . . . . . . . . .4-9

4.3 Overview of future U.S. and world remote-sensing satellites that 

will be producing commercially available imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-11

4.4 Technical information on future U.S. and world remote-sensing 

satellites that will be producing commercially available imagery . . . . . .4-12

5.1 Sample U.S. and world GPS equipment producers, year 2000 . . . . . . . . .5-9

5.2 Sample related GPS companies, year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-10

iv

Page

Table of Tables
Overview

Section One
1.1 Purpose of report

Understanding the current size of the space industry, the likely future industry trends, and the

effects of these trends is an enormous challenge to industry and to policy makers. The challenge

in understanding the space industry stems from two factors. First, the space industry is broader

than most people realize. It is not only composed of satellites and their launches, but now 

encompasses many direct-to-consumer applications, Internet services, and entertainment 

applications. Second, the industry is rapidly evolving from an industry dominated by civil 

government and military activities to an industry experiencing dramatic growth in commercial 

arenas. The unprecedented demand for commercial telecommunications services and new 

commercial applications are the primary driving forces of the space industry today.

With recent and continuing advances in the space industry, the Department of Commerce's (DOC)

Office of Space Commercialization sought to produce a publication detailing current indicators

and near-term future trends for major space industry segments. This document, Trends in Space

Commerce, provides benchmark indicators and trend information that can be used by Congress,

the industry, and other interested parties.

Futron Corporation assisted the DOC Office of Space Commercialization in the development 

and preparation of Trends in Space Commerce. This document details the results of an analysis of

the space transportation, satellite communications, remote-sensing, and global positioning system

(GPS) industry segments. The document includes indicators for each industry segment for 1996 to

1999, with projections for 2000 to 2002. Data on global revenue, U.S. revenue, and U.S. employment

are included for each industry segment, along with other relevant indicators. Finally, Trends in Space

Commerce contains a discussion of the trends revealed by these indicators, along with information

on key industry events.

1.2 General methodology

Data was brought together from key industry sources, including DOC bodies such as the

International Trade Administration, as well as data from previous Futron activities, to develop 

indicators and projections for the space transportation, satellite communications, remote-sensing,

and GPS segments of the space industry. For development of most of the baseline indicators, data

was drawn from the Satellite Industry Indicators Survey. The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) and

Futron Corporation conduct an annual global survey designed to collect and publish comprehensive

statistics on the commercial satellite industry. The Satellite Industry Indicators Survey polls more than 700

leading aerospace, telecommunications, and information services companies worldwide in order to

Overview

1-1
1-2

provide accurate indicators on industry revenue, employment, and other metrics. The results of the

Survey and other key industry sources provided the foundation for Trends in Space Commerce.

Information was also provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial

Space Transportation. The FAA publishes annual ten-year forecasts of the number of commercial

satellites and the number of commercial launches. The information provided in the satellite manufacturing section and the space transportation section of this document is consistent with the FAA

forecasts. All revenue figures represent current, or "then-year," dollar figures. All growth rates, unless

otherwise noted, are compound annual growth rates and will be referred to as "annual growth" or

"growth" throughout the report. Figures may not add exactly to totals due to rounding errors.

Methodology specific to each industry segment is discussed in the specific sections.

1.3 Overview of industry segments

Figure 1.1 shows historical and projected revenue for each of the industry segments covered 

in this report. Overall, the industry experienced a 16 percent annual growth rate.

Satellite communications

Global Positioning System

Space transportation

Remote sensing
Overview

1-3

Satellite communications (encompassing satellite services, transponder leasing, ground equipment

manufacturing, and satellite manufacturing) represents the largest and fastest growing segment of the

industry, with 2000 annual revenues of over $67 billion and a growth rate of 17 percent. Demand

for direct-to-home television service and other satellite services is fueling this growth. Other factors

shaping industry segment trends have been the global deregulation of telecommunications markets,

the introduction of large non-geostationary orbit satellite constellations for mobile communications,

and the emergence of the Internet as a demand driver for satellite data communications.

Space transportation revenue is over $5 billion in 2000. Space transportation revenue exhibits yearto-year variations, but experiences growth overall. Launch vehicle failures, satellite manufacturing

delays, satellite in-orbit anomalies, and other factors contribute to the year-to-year fluctuations in

the launch vehicle market. Because of the relatively few commercial launches in any given year,

these fluctuations can translate into significant annual surges and dips in revenues as calculated

here (see Section 2). Also, all launch revenues for purposes of this document are counted in the

year of launch.

GPS revenue is over $7 billion in 2000, growing at a 19 percent rate. The development of GPS

receivers as consumer electronic devices and the integration of GPS chip sets into multifunction

products are two emerging trends in this industry. Demand for these new services, coupled with

continuing demand for traditional GPS services (e.g., tracking and navigation tools for land and

marine vehicles), contribute to a positive outlook for the GPS industry.

Pre-valued-added raw satellite imagery generated an estimated $173 million in revenues in 2000.

The broader remote sensing industry includes raw satellite imagery, aerial imagery, and Geographic

Information System (GIS) software and services. The 2000 global value of this broader industry

was $3.3 billion. The current report deals only with pre-value-added satellite imagery because this

is the only portion of the industry that relies directly on space assets. While the commercial market

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Satellite communications 35.33 45.46 56.10 60.52 67.57 77.74 88.69

Space transportation 4.89 5.65 5.49 5.65 5.39 7.04 6.60

Global Positioning System 3.39 4.15 5.14 6.22 7.34 8.42 9.47

Remote-sensing 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.23

Total 43.71 55.38 66.87 72.54 80.47 93.40 104.99

Figure 1.1. 

World revenue for space industry segments, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002
Industry Segment

1996-2002

Revenues ($B U.S.)

Satellite communications 431.41

Space transportation 40.71

Global Positioning System 44.13

Remote sensing 1.11

Total 517.36

Figure 1.2. 

Space industry revenues by industry segment, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002 

There are several other space industry segments not covered in this document. Among them

are microgravity hardware and services, technical and business consulting, legal services, space

software development, and others. Should markets for these industry segments develop or 

differentiate themselves, they may warrant specific sections in future editions of this document.

1-4

for such imagery is growing at a moderate rate of 14 percent annually, this growth should

accelerate after 2002 when more commercial platforms come on line. Historically, the 

predominant consumers of remotely sensed data have been governments in areas such as 

environmental monitoring, weather forecasting, and intelligence gathering. With the expansion

of personal computing power and the increased resolution promised by emerging systems, the

remote-sensing industry is poised to generate increasing commercial revenues in the future.

Figure 1.2 shows the contribution to total revenue for each industry segment for 1996

through 2002. As noted, satellite communications dominates the industry in total revenues.

GPS and space transportation are the next largest segments, respectively, followed distantly

by remote-sensing.

<1%

Satellite communications

Space transportation

Global Positioning System

remote sensing

9%

8%

83%
Space Transportation

Section Two
2.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events

The commercial launch industry experienced significant change in the late 1990s. Launches to 

low Earth orbit (LEO) emerged as an important addition to the market. Also, launch systems

from the former Soviet Union and China increased worldwide commercial capacity and 

competition. In addition, all the world's major launch providers began preparing for heavier,

more powerful satellites by developing new technologies and system upgrades. Lastly, the 

United States moved toward developing commercial launch ranges, and the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) licensed four commercial spaceports: the Virginia Space Flight Center,

Kodiak Launch Complex, Spaceport Florida, and the California Spaceport.

In addition to maintaining a steady launch rate for geosynchronous orbit (GSO) launches, launch

providers began commercial launches to LEO in 1997. From 1997 to 1999, 20 launches by three

launch providers deployed 88 satellites for the Iridium constellation. Fourteen launches deployed

the Globalstar system from 1998 through early 2000. The promise of the commercial LEO market

prompted private start-ups to begin developing new reusable and expendable launch systems.

Expectations for the LEO market segment have declined in the wake of the primary business

model failure of Iridium, the first of the "Big LEO" satellite systems (capable of carrying voice),

and an oversupply of launch vehicles is expected by many analysts in the next few years.

Eight vehicle families from the former Soviet Union across all mass lift ranges are now marketed

commercially. The three largest, the Proton, Soyuz, and Zenit, have captured a significant share 

of worldwide commercial launches. Russia's Proton, marketed through the International Launch

Services (ILS) partnership with Lockheed Martin, deployed over 14 percent of the GSO payloads

since 1996. Soyuz , a cornerstone of Soviet space launch capability, is now marketed through the

French-Russian Starsem partnership and deployed 38 percent of the payloads launched for

Globalstar. The Zenit vehicle, manufactured in Ukraine, was combined with a Russian-made 

upper stage and launched from an ocean platform through the Boeing-led Sea Launch 

partnership. Finally, several Russian-made small launch vehicles are marketed through

multi-national partnerships. These vehicles include Cosmos, Rockot, START, Dnepr, and Shtil.

Another trend affecting the space transportation market is the fact that commercial communications

satellites are getting larger and heavier as manufacturers build payloads with greater power and

more transponder capacity. Each of the world's launch service providers now offers upgraded

vehicles to accommodate larger and heavier satellite payloads. American launch service providers

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are developing significantly redesigned launch systems with the 

Delta 4 and Atlas 5 family of vehicles, with partial support from the Air Force through the Evolved

Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

Space Transportation

2-1
2-2

Lastly, there was significant activity in the mid-to-late 1990s on commercial reusable launch vehicles

(RLVs). Several companies began development of new and innovative RLV concepts, including:

• Astroliner - Kelly Space and Technology

• K-1 - Kistler Aerospace Corporation

• Pathfinder - Pioneer Rocketplane

• Roton c-9 - Rotary Rocket Company

• SA-1 - Space Access LLC

• Space Cruiser System - Vela Technology Development

• VentureStar - Lockheed Martin Corporation

This increase in activity was in response to strong growth in projected demand for launches, fueled

primarily by LEO satellite telecommunications constellations. As mentioned above, the operators

and proponents of LEO systems have suffered several significant setbacks recently. As a result,

it has been increasingly difficult for commercial RLV companies to obtain the needed capital to 

complete their vehicle development. The Year 2000 was particularly difficult for commercial RLV

companies, with many vehicle development programs delayed or discontinued due to lack of funds.

2.2 U.S. and world launches, 1996-2002

Various industry sources characterize commercial space launches in subtly different ways, so comparing data sets from different sources can be daunting, if not impossible. A "commercial launch"

may carry a commercial, civil, or military payload, but is commercial if the payload owner 

commercially procured the launch service. Commercial launches may also include test launches

with dummy payloads or any privately financed launch activity, such as certain flights to the Mir

space station. In the United States, the launches for some government payloads are commercially

procured, while others are launched by the U.S. Air Force or the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), often using the same make of vehicles.

For the purposes of this analysis, launches are classified under three primary categories: noncommercial, civil government and quasi-commercial, and commercial. Launches of military 

satellites not procured through a commercial launch service provider and Space Shuttle launches

are considered non-commercial. Civil government and quasi-commercial launches are launches 

procured by governments through commercial launch service providers, which the purchaser 

typically restricts to the launch providers of a single country. Also included here are test launches

with dummy payloads and certain privately-financed fights to the Mir space station. Commercial

launches are those launches procured on the international launch services marketplace; this definition is consistent with the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC)
Space Transportation

2-3

forecast and mission model for GSO satellites and the FAA’s forecast for launches to nongeosynchronous orbits (NGSO).

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Commercial 24 36 36 36 27 39 47

Civil government & quasi-commercial 23 19 21 22 28 33 21

Total 47 55 57 58 55 72 68

Figure 2.1. 

World commercial and civil government and quasi-commercial launches, 1996-2002

Commercial Civil govt. & quasi-commercial

* Projections

* *

* *
2-4

Since 1996 the commercial launch industry has experienced the sudden rise and fall of the 

market for LEO and other NGSO launches. By early 2000, the initial deployments of both

Iridium and Globalstar were completed, and three planned launches for Sirius Satellite Radio 

and one unsuccessful launch for ICO Global accounted for the remaining launches to NGSO in

2000. Most industry analysts expect NGSO launch rates over the next few years to be lower than 

previously anticipated. While the end of NGSO constellation deployments accounted for most 

of the drop in commercial launches in 2000, there was a higher than usual rate of civil government

launch activity. Civil launches include test launches of new systems, Russian domestic communications, and U.S. weather and science payloads. Based on planned launches and given no unexpected

delays, the commercial launch rate will increase in 2001 and 2002.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Commercial 9 16 17 13 4 16 18

Civil government & quasi-commercial 9 5 10 9 9 9 7

Total 18 21 27 22 13 25 25

Figure 2.2. 

U.S. commercial and civil government and quasi-commercial launches, 1996-2002

Commercial Civil govt. & quasi-commercial

* Projections

* *

* *
Space Transportation

2-5

The United States experienced a drop in commercial launches in 2000. The new Atlas 3A launch

vehicle successfully deployed its first payload, but did not fly again in 2000. Only three of the

eight launches of the Atlas 2 deployed commercial GSO payloads. The Delta 3 flew only one 

successful test flight, and the Delta 2 flew only once when it deployed four Globalstar satellites.

U.S. launch providers have consistently conducted about 30 percent of GSO launches and 

60 percent of NGSO launches in recent years, though it is uncertain whether these shares will 

continue in a diverse and competitive industry.

Launch industry revenue

Revenue generated by the launch industry varies from year to year with the rate of launch activity 

and the mix of heavy and small vehicles used. The revenues in Figure 2.3 are derived from the

Satellite Industry Association's Satellite Industry Indicators Survey. Payments to subcontractors are

included in order to capture the extent of the economic impact of the space industry. The Satellite

Industry Association defines commercial and civil launches slightly differently than COMSTAC

does. Therefore, the Satellite Industry Association revenue numbers were adjusted to represent 

the same set of commercial and civil government launches shown above; revenue from military

launches is not included. The dip in U.S. commercial revenue for 2000 is a reflection of that year's

low launch rate. The industry segment can expect a 1.5 percent annual growth for U.S. revenues 

for 1996-2002 and about 8 percent for the rest of the world.

Rest of world revenue

U.S. revenue

* *
Figure 2.3. 

U.S. and rest of world launch industry revenue, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002

2-6

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

United States $2.35 $2.04 $2.70 $2.37 $1.54 $2.64 $2.57

Rest of world $2.54 $3.61 $2.79 $3.28 $3.85 $4.39 $4.03

Total $4.89 $5.65 $5.49 $5.65 $5.39 $7.04 $6.60

Launch services employment

Employment estimates for the launch segment of the space industry represent total personnel

engaged in launch vehicle manufacturing and launch services, regardless of whether the payload 

is commercial, civil, or military. Personnel at launch facilities and government employees are not

included. Employment estimates are related to commercial launch revenue, overall launch rate 

for commercial and government launches, and the mix of small and heavy vehicles used.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

United States 18,100 18,900 19,400 17,600 11,400 19,700 19,100

Rest of world 16,300 17,600 16,600 14,500 19,200 20,300 18,400

Total 34,400 36,500 36,000 32,100 30,600 40,000 37,500

Table 2.1 

U.S. and rest of world launch services employment, 1996-2002

2.3 U.S. & world commercial launch trends

Trends in lift capacity

Over the last five years, there has been a greater proportion of intermediate and heavy launches for

GSO payloads as manufacturers built larger satellites with greater power and transponder capacity.

While fewer GSO payloads were deployed on medium class vehicles because of the increased size

of GSO satellites, medium vehicles were used extensively to deploy payloads for the NGSO constellations. Consequently, the proportion of payloads that flew on medium class launch vehicles

revenue

revenue

employment

employment

* Projections

* *

* Projections

* *
Space Transportation

2-7

increased during the 1997 to1998 period. However, the proportion tapers off in 1999 to 2000

because of the diminished requirements for NGSO satellite launches. U.S. service providers 

currently can launch all but the heaviest commercial payloads. All launch service providers plan 

or have already implemented upgrades to their vehicles to accommodate heavier GSO payloads.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Small 1 4 4 6 1

Medium 4 8 14 6 2

Intermediate 16 17 13 18 11

Heavy 3 7 5 6 13

Total 24 36 36 36 27

Figure 2.4. 

World-wide commercial launches by mass class capacity of launch vehicle,

in maximum pounds to LEO: small, < 5,000; medium, 5,001 to 12,000;

intermediate, 12,001 to 25,000; heavy, > 25,000

Small Medium Intermediate Heavy
2-8

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Small 1 3 3 5 0

Medium 2 7 10 4 1

Intermediate 6 6 4 4 3

Heavy 0 0 0 0 0

Total 9 16 17 13 4

Figure 2.5. 

U.S. commercial launches by mass class capacity of launch vehicle,

in maximum pounds to LEO: small, < 5,000; medium, 5,001 to

12,000; intermediate, 12,001 to 25,000; heavy, > 25,000

Trends in launches by customer region

Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7 show the number of launches by the region where the headquarters 

of the payload owner is located. For example, Loral Space and Communications, which is

headquartered in New York City, owns Globalstar satellites. Consequently, all Globalstar

launches are applied to the U.S. region. Table 2.2 shows some of the major payloads associated

with each region. As shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7, launches of U.S.-owned payloads surged

from 1997 through 1999 due to the deployment of the Iridium and Globalstar constellations.

Small Medium Intermediate Heavy
Space Transportation

2-9

Figure 2.6. 

Worldwide commercial launches by payload owner region, 1996-2000

Payload Owner Region 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

N&S America (non U.S.) 2 0 2 1 1

Asia/Oceania 6 7 2 6 3

Africa/Middle East 2 0 0 2 2

Europe 4 5 8 4 7

United States 10 24 24 23 14

Total 24 36 36 36 27

United States

Asia/Oceania

Europe

N&S America (non U.S.)

Africa/Middle East
2-10

Payload Owner Region 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

N&S America (non U.S.) 1 0 1 0 0

Asia/Oceania 2 2 0 2 0

Africa/Middle East 0 0 0 1 0

Europe 2 2 4 1 2

United States 4 12 12 9 2

Total 9 16 17 13 4

Figure 2.7. 

U.S. commercial launches by payload owner region, 1996-2000

United States

Asia/Oceania

Europe

N&S America (non U.S.)

Africa/Middle East
Space Transportation

2-11

Payload Owner Region Major Payloads Within Regions

N&S America (non U.S.) Anik F1; Brazilsat B3 & B4; MSAT 1; Nahuel 1A; Nimiq 1; SatMex 5

Asia/Oceania Agila 2; Garuda 1; Insat 2D; 2E; & 3B; JCSAT 4, 5, & 6; Thaicom 3

Africa/Middle East Nilesat 102; Arabsat 3A; Nilesat 101; Arabsat 2B; Arabsat 2A

Europe Astra 1F, 1G, 1H, 2A, 2B, & 2D; Eutelsat W1R, W2, W3, & W4; Hotbird 2,

3, 4, & 5; Thor 2 & 3

United States Multiple payloads for Echostar; Galaxy; GE; Intelsat; PanAmSat; Telstar;

Iridium; Globalstar

Table 2.2. 

Selected payloads by payload owner region

Launches by service provider region

Perhaps the biggest shift in the commercial launch market in recent years was caused by the 

introduction of vehicles from the former Soviet Union. Starting with the first commercial 

Proton launch of an Inmarsat satellite in 1996, the Proton has launched a significant portion of

commercial GSO satellites. In the NGSO market, the French-Russian partnership Starsem

launched a large portion of the Globalstar constellation on Russian Soyuz rockets.

Figure 2.8 shows worldwide commercial launches by region of the launch provider. Launches 

are attributed to the region in which the primary vehicle manufacturer is based, with the exception

of Sea Launch, which has been designated as "Multinational." Table 2.3 shows the commercial 

launch vehicles associated with each region.

Launch Provider Region Commercial Vehicles Within Launch Provider Region

United States Athena, Atlas, Delta, Pegasus, Taurus

Europe Ariane 4 & 5

Russia Cosmos, Dnepr, Soyuz, Proton, Rockot, Shtil, START

China Long March

Multinational Zenit 3SL

Table 2.3. 

Commercial launch vehicles by region
2-12

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

United States 9 16 17 13 4

Europe 10 11 9 8 12

Russia 2 7 6 13 8

China 3 2 4 1 0

Multinational (Sea Launch) 0 0 0 1 3

Total 24 36 36 36 27

Figure 2.8. 

Worldwide commercial launches by provider region, 1996-2000

Launches by orbit type

When reviewing the number of launches by orbit type, the impact of the deployment of the

NGSO constellations in 1997 to 1999 becomes apparent. Aside from the two NGSO constellations, only a handful of remote-sensing and foreign science payloads were launched to NGSO

United States

Russia

Multinational (Sea Launch)

Europe

China
Space Transportation

2-13

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

GSO launches 22 23 19 18 20

NGSO launches 2 13 17 18 7

Total 24 36 36 36 27

Figure 2.9. 

Worldwide commercial launches by orbit, 1996-2000

through procurements in the international launch services market. Three launches of Sirius

direct radio satellites and one unsuccessful launch of a satellite for ICO Global Communications

account for NGSO launches in 2000. While the worldwide number of GSO launches remained

steady at an average of just under 21 per year, the United States experienced a decline in 1999

and 2000 because of delays in the Delta 3 program following a 1999 failure and the cancellation

of launches for the ICO mobile satellite system.

GSO launches NGSO launches
2-14

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

GSO launches 7 7 7 4 3

NGSO launches 2 9 10 9 1

Total 9 16 17 13 4

Figure 2.10. 

U.S. commercial launches by orbit, 1996-2000

2.4 Launch sites

In the United States, most launches take place from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida

and from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Cape Canaveral is the only site that conducts

GSO launches in the United States, while Vandenberg is used for high inclination orbit payloads.

The FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation has licensed a total of

four commercial spaceports to date. They are the Virginia Spaceflight Center on Wallops Island, VA;

Spaceport Florida located on Cape Canaveral; the California Spaceport in Lompoc, CA; and the

Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska. In addition, several states proposing new spaceports are working

to attract potential commercial business, especially from firms developing reusable launch vehicles.

GSO launches NGSO launches
Space Transportation

2-15

Figure 2.11. 

U.S. operational and proposed orbital launch sites

Table 2.4. 

U.S. active and licensed orbital launch sites

Site Vehicles Launch Service Provider

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Atlas International Launch Services

Delta Boeing

Vandenberg Air Force Base Athena Lockheed Martin Astronautics

Delta Boeing

Pegasus Orbital Sciences Corp.

Taurus Orbital Sciences Corp.

Spaceport Florida Athena Lockheed Martin Astronautics

(will launch various small vehicles)

California Spaceport (will launch various small vehicles)

Kodiak Launch Complex Athena Lockheed Martin Astronautics

(will launch various small vehicles)

Virginia Space Flight Facility (will launch various small vehicles)

Montana

Spaceport

Nevada

Test Site

Utah

Spaceport

Oklahoma

Spaceport

Southwest Regional Spaceport Texas Spaceport

(3 proposed sites)

Proposed Spaceport

California Spaceport/

Kodiak Launch Complex

Virginia Space Flight Center/ 

Spaceport Florida/ 

Commercially-Licensed Spaceport

Vandenberg AFB

White Sands Missile Range/

Kennedy Space Center/

Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station

Wallops Flight Facility 

U.S. Federal Spaceport

Edwards AFB/

Mojave Civilian Test Flight Center

Space Transportation

2-17

Country Site Major Vehicles Service Provider

Australia Woomera K-1 (proposed) Kistler

Brazil Alcantara VLS IAE

China Jiuquan Long March 2C, 2D, 2F China Great Wall Industry Corp.

Taiyuan Long March 4, 4B China Great Wall Industry Corp.

Xichang Long March 3, 3A, 3B, 3C China Great Wall Industry Corp.

French Guyana Kourou Ariane 4 & 5 Arianespace

India Srihirakota PSLV & GLSV India Space Research Organization

Multinational Odyssey Zenit 3SL Sea Launch

Japan Kagoshima M5 Inst. of Space and Astronautical Science

Tanegashima H2 & H2A Rocket Systems Corp.

Kazakhstan Baikonur Dnepr 1 Kosmotras International Space Co.

(leased by Russia) Proton International Launch Services

Soyuz Starsem

Zenit 2 National Space Agency of Ukraine

Russia Kapustin Yar Cosmos Puskovie Uslugi

Plesetsk Cosmos Puskovie Uslugi

Rockot Eurockot Launch Services

START 1 Puskovie Uslugi

Svobodny START 1 Puskovie Uslugi

Table 2.5. 

World (non-U.S.) orbital launch sites and vehicles
2-18

2.5 Selected references

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) and the Commercial

Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), Federal Aviation Administration,

2000 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, May 2000.

Satellite Industry Association and Futron Corporation, Satellite Industry Indicators Survey, 2000.

Futron Corporation, Electronic Library of Space Activity, October-December, 2000.

International Trade Administration, Office of Telecommunications, U.S. Department of

Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 2000, 2000.
Satellite Communications

Section Three
Satellite Communications

3-1

3.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events

The satellite communications market has developed significantly over the past five years. The

industry has extended its offerings to include telecommunications services via low Earth orbit

(LEO) satellite constellations and enhanced its capabilities in such high-growth areas as directto-home (DTH) television. Despite these expansions, many sectors of the satellite communications

industry have experienced mergers among major providers and operators aimed at creating 

consolidated companies that are more competitive nationally and internationally. New broadband

services and bundled offering packages to end-user consumers promise to maintain, or perhaps

even increase, recent growth over the next few years.

Figure 3.1 shows world revenue growth in the four industry sectors examined in this section:

transponder leasing, retail/subscription satellite services, ground equipment manufacturing, and

satellite manufacturing. The revenue estimates for satellite manufacturing include payments to 

subcontractors in order to reflect the component's full impact on the U.S. and world economies.

The total satellite communications market segment grew at an annual growth rate of 17 percent

from 1996 to 2000 and is forecasted to continue at this pace through 2002.

The highest revenue component of the satellite communications industry from 1996 to 2000 has

been the satellite services sector. Within this sector, DTH television services have driven a large

portion of the growth. The first Direct Broadcast Satellite system, Hughes Communications'

DirecTV, debuted in 1994. This DTH satellite television service featured high-powered satellites

transmitting in the Ku-band and required consumer reception dishes only 18 inches in diameter,

significantly smaller than traditional C-band dishes typically measuring several meters across. As

other providers rolled out similar services (Primestar's medium-powered system and Echostar

Communications' Dish Network), competition among providers and with the cable industry 

led U.S. operators to significantly subsidize the cost of consumer equipment to expand their 

subscriber base.

In November 1999, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act became law in the United States.

A component of this legislation, the local-into-local provision, effectively removed previous legal

barriers that limited transmission over satellite of local television signals. The inability to receive

local stations through the satellite connection had been a severe competitive handicap for U.S.

DTH satellite services in comparison to cable. With the availability of local stations, U.S. retail

subscriptions to DTH services jumped in 2000, increasing by more than a third over 1999.

International providers of Ku-band DTH services have similarly driven the international satellite

services market, more than doubling DTH subscribers between 1996 and 1999. By the end of

2000, worldwide DTH subscriptions should top 67 million.1 

1 Media Business Corporation, SkyREPORT, 1999.
3-2

The advent of LEO telecommunications services marked a milestone in satellite technology 

and services offerings. Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM all successfully deployed their 

satellite constellations from 1997 through 2000. ICO Global Communications also began 

launching its satellites in 2000. Despite technological success, however, the industry has suffered 

several setbacks since 1998. Iridium and ICO both declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 1999,

with ORBCOMM following suit in September 2000. ICO has been able to restructure and emerge

from Chapter 11, while Iridium was purchased by the newly named company, Iridium Satellite, for

$25 million and without the original company's substantial debt burden. ORBCOMM anticipates

uninterrupted service while it restructures. These setbacks to the industry notwithstanding, several 

systems still plan to unveil services in 2001 and 2002, including the Constellation Corporation's

Constellation system and Mobile Communications Holdings' Ellipso.

Ground equipment

Satellite manufacturing

Retail/subscription satellite services

Transportation leasing

* * *
Satellite Communications

3-3

New broadband service offerings have been announced through the middle of this decade.

Information distributors are increasingly demanding satellite transponder capacity for Internet 

content delivery. More than 40 prospective operators have license applications in to the Federal

Communication Commission to operate broadband data relay satellite systems. SkyBridge and

Teledesic currently plan for the earliest deployment of non-geostationary satellite systems to serve this

target market. A slate of other proposed broadband services in the Ka, V, and Q bands may realize

system deployment should the broadband market prove as promising as some projections anticipate.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Transponder leasing 5.20 5.75 6.10 8.10 8.74 10.32 11.97

Retail/subscription satellite services 10.46 15.28 18.17 22.33 26.76 31.58 36.64

Satellite manufacturing 9.97 11.91 17.88 14.13 14.56 16.60 18.92

Ground equipment 9.70 12.52 13.95 15.96 17.50 19.25 21.17

Total 35.33 45.46 56.10 60.52 67.57 77.74 88.69

Figure 3.1. 

World satellite communications industry revenues, by sector, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002

2 Survey data on 2000 revenues and employment will be garnered through the 

2001 survey, the results for which will be released in Spring 2001.

3.2 Transponder leasing

Firms that operate satellites often lease or sell access to their satellite transponders to service

providers such as telecommunications and data relay firms; revenues realized by satellite operators

through this leasing activity constitute the transponder leasing market. Firms may also act as 

intermediaries between satellite operators and service providers, serving as brokers or resellers 

of transponder capacity. Revenues from the resale market are not included here.

Transponder leasing revenues and employment figures as presented here for 1996 to 1999 are

derived from the Satellite Industry Indicators Survey.

2 This annual survey solicits revenue estimates

directly from U.S. and international firms engaged in the satellite industry. Futron augments this

survey data with statistical analysis to produce regional satellite industry revenues and employment

figures for select satellite industry sectors. The forecast for 2000 to 2002 applies recent average 

historical growth trends to produce estimates for out-year revenues and employment. Revenues are

assigned to regions based on the geographic location of the satellite operator (with the exception

of Intelsat, which is assigned to World for consistency with historical data and Intelsat's former

international status). World numbers include estimates for the states of the former Soviet Union

and the People's Republic of China. Revenues from the sales of resellers or brokers of transponder

time are not reflected here.

* Projections

***
3-4

Figure 3.2 shows that the world transponder leasing market grew at an annual average of just 

under 15 percent through the latter 1990s and should continue to do so through 2002. U.S. suppliers

accounted for approximately 29 percent of transponder leasing revenues in 1996; by 2002, this share

will have grown slightly, to just under 32 percent. Like other sectors of the satellite communications

industry, transponder leasing revenues are driven by a surging satellite services sector, which propels

the placement of increasing transponder/bandwidth capacity on orbit (see Section 3.3).

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. transponder revenues 1.50 1.54 1.50 2.30 2.79 3.30 3.82

Rest of world transponder revenues 3.70 4.21 4.60 5.80 5.96 7.02 8.15

Total 5.20 5.75 6.10 8.10 8.74 10.32 11.97

Figure 3.2. 

U.S. and rest of world transponder leasing revenues

(not including resale or brokering revenues), in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002

Rest of world transponder revenues

U.S. transponder revenues

* Projections

* * *

***
Satellite Communications

3-5

Worldwide employment in the transponder leasing market also continues to grow at about 

11 percent. In recent years, U.S. employment in this sector surged and in 2000 constituted 

32 percent of 2000 world employment in direct transponder leasing, up from 15 percent in 

1996. The employment figures presented in Figure 3.3 do not include employment in secondtier resellers of transponder capacity.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. transponder leasing employment 900 700 1,500 2,300 2,785 3,300 3,823

Rest of world transponder leasing

employment

5,000 4,600 4,900 6,100 6,015 6,778 7,522

Total 5,900 5,300 6,400 8,400 8,800 10,078 11,345

Figure 3.3. 

U.S. and rest of world transponder leasing employment

(not including resellers or brokers), 1996-2002

Rest of world transponder leasing employment

U.S. transponder leasing employment

***

* * *

* Projections
3-6

3.3 Retail/subscription satellite services

Retail and subscription satellite services continue to drive the expansion of the entire satellite communications industry segment. Direct-to-home television, satellite mobile telephone and data services, and

very small aperture terminal (VSAT) services constitute the retail/subscription satellite services presented

in this section. Revenues presented here reflect payments to service providers by users of their services.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. retail/subscription satellite services

revenues

3.34 4.79 5.90 7.50 9.08 10.76 12.47

Rest of world retail/subscription satellite

services revenues

7.12 10.49 12.27 14.83 17.68 20.82 24.17

Total 10.46 15.28 18.17 22.33 26.76 31.58 36.64

Figure 3.4. 

U.S. and rest of world retail/subscription satellite services revenues, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002

Rest of world retail/subsciption satellite services revenues

U.S. retail/subsciption satellite services revenues

* Projections

* * *

* * *
Satellite Communications

3-7

1996 to 1999 retail/subscriptions satellite services revenues and employment figures in this 

section are taken from the Satellite Industry Indicators Survey. Average historical growth trends 

for both revenue and employment were applied to project this sector through 2002.

Direct-to-home television is the strongest player in this field. This sector of the satellite 

communications segment realized revenues of $9 billion in 2000 and high growth—23 percent—

over the last 5 years (see Figure 3.4). The U.S. market outpaced this growth only slightly, posting

an annual growth of 25 percent. U.S. providers should maintain an approximate one-third-market

share in this sector through 2002. Satellite service providers continue to roll out new and bundled

service offerings, including Internet services; these efforts should keep growth in this sector well

over 20 percent through 2002.

Figure 3.5 shows that employment in the retail/subscription satellite services sector keeps pace

with revenue growth. Over the seven-year period presented here, U.S. employment quadruples,

while the rest of the world doubles its personnel working directly for retail/subscription 

satellite services firms.

Rest of world retail/subsciption satellite services employment

U.S. retail/subsciption satellite services employment

* * *
3-8

Figure 3.5. 

U.S. and rest of world retail/subscription satellite services employment, 1996-2002

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. retail/subscription satellite services

employment

4,100 6,100 8,000 9,800 12,118 14,661 17,345

Rest of world retail/subscription satellite

services employment

4,600 5,700 6,500 7,800 8,603 9,356 10,021

Total 8,700 11,800 14,500 17,600 20,721 24,017 27,366

3.4 Ground equipment

The ground equipment-manufacturing sector, as analyzed here, consists of the manufacturing 

of satellite uplink and downlink terminals (including VSATs), consumer mobile satellite data 

and telephone units, and direct-to-home television receivers and dishes. This sector grew at a

robust pace through the latter half of the 1990s as it provided the consumer equipment for 

the increasing offerings of the satellite services sector.

1996 to 1999 ground equipment revenues and employment figures in this section are taken 

from the Satellite Industry Indicators Survey. Average historical growth trends for both revenue 

and employment were applied to project this sector through 2002.

Worldwide revenues for the ground equipment-manufacturing sector grew at an annual rate of

14 percent from 1996 through 1999 (see Figure 3.6). Given the current strength of the satellite

services sector, this growth is projected to continue though 2002. The U.S. market has outpaced

the world market for the past few years, growing at a rate of 22 percent. While the United States

accounted for only 44 percent of worldwide ground equipment manufacturing revenues in 1996,

if current growth trends continue, the U.S. market share will have grown to almost two-thirds 

of the world market by 2002.

Employment growth in the ground equipment sector lagged behind revenue growth. Figure 3.7

shows that worldwide employment increases at a 6 percent annual rate from 1996 to 2002.

* Projections

* * *
Satellite Communications

3-9

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. ground equipment revenues 4.30 6.47 7.78 8.55 10.30 12.15 14.04

Rest of world ground equipment revenues 5.40 6.05 6.17 7.41 7.19 7.09 7.14

Total 9.70 12.52 13.95 15.96 17.50 19.25 21.17

Figure 3.6. 

U.S. and rest of world satellite communications' ground equipment 

manufacturing revenues, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002

Rest of world ground equipment revenues

U.S. ground equipment revenues

* Projections

* * *

***
3-10

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. ground equipment employment 17,200 17,300 21,000 22,800 23,989 24,717 24,930

Rest of world ground equipment employment 21,800 22,700 23,400 28,400 28,057 28,378 29,237

Total 39,000 40,000 44,400 51,200 52,045 53,096 54,167

Figure 3.7. 

U.S. and rest of world satellite communications' ground equipment

manufacturing employment, 1996-2002

Rest of world ground equipment employment

U.S. ground equipment employment

* Projections

* * *

* * *
Satellite Communications

3-11

3.5 World commercial communications satellites on orbit

A total of 425 operational communications satellites offering commercial service currently orbit

the Earth. Of these satellites, slightly under 54 percent operate from geostationary orbit (GEO),

while 42 percent operate from LEO, and the remaining 4 percent circle Earth from elliptical (ELI)

orbital planes. The United States operates 26 percent of operational GEO commercial communications satellites.3 

3 For consistency with Section 3.2, Transponder Leasing, Intelsat and Inmarsat 

satellites are designated non-U.S. for this analysis.

Figure 3.8. 

Operational commercial communications satellites,

by orbit type, as of December 31, 2000

A small number of satellite operators dominate the world satellite services market. The six

companies called out in Table 3.1 that operate geostationary satellites represent almost 39 percent of

the world's operational commercial communications geostationary satellites. The recently deployed

Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM constellations constitute 86 percent of operational NGSO

commercial communications satellites. In total, the nine companies in Figure 3.9 represent 

almost 61 percent of operational commercial communications satellites on orbit.

Orbit type Number of satellites

GEO 227

LEO 180

ELI 118

Total 425

GEO

LEO

ELI
Select major satellite operator Operational satellites

Intelsat 17

Inmarsat 9

Eutelsat 17

Pan American Satellite Corp. 20

Societe Europeenne des Satellites (SES) 11

GE Americom 13

Iridium Satellite1 83

Orbital Communications Corp. (ORBCOMM) 36

Globalstar, Ltd. Partnership 52

Total 259

4

3-12

Table 3.1. 

Select major satellite operators, worldwide, as of December 31, 2000

4 The newly formed company, Iridium Satellite, acquired the bankrupt Iridium operation in 

December 2000 for $25 million. The U.S. Department of Defense will operate as an anchor 

customer for the system, having signed a two-year deal to provide Iridium service to at least 

20,000 defense personnel working overseas.

5 COMSTAC counts internationally competed launches. These launches do not always capture 

all actual commercial use satellites, which are sometimes captive, for a variety of reasons, to 

specific or national launchers.

3.6 Satellite manufacturing

Satellite manufacturing revenues reflect revenues associated with the manufacture of commercialuse satellites and satellites for civilian government or non-profit use; revenues do not reflect payments

received in association with the construction of military-use satellites, nor for manufacturing 

activities associated with any human space flight program. 1996-2000 revenues are calculated from

the number of commercial use, civilian, and non-profit satellites launched in those years and from

average revenue per satellite figures calculated from the Satellite Industry Indicators Survey. Satellites

and average revenue figures are categorized by commercial GEO, commercial NGSO, and civil

government (including non-profit). This approach was chosen over direct reporting of Satellite

Industry Indicators Survey results because the Survey includes satellite revenues that are excluded here

(e.g., from the construction of military satellites). The 1999 average revenue figure is used for 2000,

2001, and 2002. Projections for commercial GEO and NGSO satellites to be launched in 2001 

and 2002 were derived from COMSTAC projections, with adjustments for definitional purposes.5

Civil government figures for 2001 to 2002 satellites were based upon recent historical trends in the

number of these satellites and represent a 10 percent annual growth. Satellites are multiplied by

average revenue estimates to derive total satellite manufacturing revenues for each of the three 
Satellite Communications

3-13

U.S. commercial

U.S. civil

Rest of world commercial

Rest of world civil

***

categories. For purposes of this analysis, all revenues associated with the manufacture of a 

satellite are calculated in the year of the satellite's launch; this method of assignment can result 

in significant year-to-year fluctuations in reported manufacturing revenues as system deployment

dates can be concentrated and the launch industry experiences periodic delays. The rapid deployment of several LEO satellite constellations in 1998, for instance, spiked commercial revenues

associated with that year.

As seen in Figure 3.9, the satellite manufacturing sector experiences healthy overall growth over the

1996 to 2002 period, with world revenue growing at an annual rate of 11 percent. However, while

the rest of the world grew at a pace slightly faster than the global average (13 percent), the United

States lagged behind with an average annual growth of just over 9 percent. In fact, after historically

garnering an average of 75 percent of the global marketplace for GEO satellites, only 43 percent

of satellites projected for launch in 2002 are anticipated to be of U.S. manufacture. This figure

represents the relatively low percentage of GEO satellite manufacturing contracts captured by 

U.S. firms in 2000. The reasons behind this drop are hotly debated and are explained by some 

by 1999 changes in U.S. law. In 1999, amid growing concerns about technology transfer to foreign 

governments and firms, the U.S. Congress passed legislation heightening federal export control 

of commercial satellite technology and transferring authority for satellite export licenses from the

Department of Commerce to the Department of State. Other explanations for this drop include

increasing competitiveness of foreign satellite manufacturers and an unfavorable U.S. dollar-Euro

exchange rate in 2000.


3-16

6 ORBCOMM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2000.

Table 3.2. 

Operational and/or deploying LEO commercial satellite constellations

System Operator Prime Contractor System

Configuration

First

Launch FCC Filing Status

Operational

ORBCOMM ORBCOMM Global LP Orbital 48 LEO satellites 1997 Licensed and operational

with 35 satellites on

orbit.1

Iridium Iridium Satellite Motorola 66 + 6 LEO

satellites

1997 Licensed to Iridium LLC

and on orbit. Originally

ceased operations March

2000. Bought by Iridium

Satellite in December

2000. Operational.

Globalstar Globalstar LP Alenia Spazio 48 + 8 1998 Licensed and operational.

Under Development

ICO New ICO Hughes Space &

Comm. (HSC)

10 + 2 MEO

satellites

2000 Licensed.

6 

Emerging markets for high-speed, broadband data relay have driven growth in applications for

global satellite broadband data relay solutions. Ku- and Ka-band systems are proposed in the

near-term, while applications have been filed with the FCC to use the newly opened V-and 

Q-bands within the next decade. Only one LEO system, Teledesic, has received an FCC license,

while 7 operators have received licenses to operate GEO broadband systems. Sixteen more

operators had active NGSO broadband licensing petitions with the FCC at the end of 2000,

while thirteen operators had active GEO petitions. Meanwhile, a number of operators have

begun offering broadband data services over existing satellites already on orbit.
3.8 Selected references

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) and the Commercial

Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), Federal Aviation Administration,

2000 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, May 2000.

Futron Corporation, Electronic Library of Space Activity, January 2001.

Media Business Corporation, SkyREPORT, 1999.

Satellite Industry Association and Futron Corporation, Satellite Industry Indicators Survey, 2000.

www.FCCFilings.com, accessed October-December, 2000.

Satellite Communications

3-17
Remote Sensing

Section Four
Remote Sensing

4-1

4.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events

The commercial remote-sensing segment can be divided into three components: satellite systems,

aerial imaging (i.e., images from aircraft), and value-added products and services such as geographical

information systems (GIS) software.

The total market for remote sensing in 1998 was approximately $3.3 billion, with aerial imagery

accounting for 65 percent of that figure. Pre-value-added satellite imagery (raw imagery) revenues

were about $139 million for the same year, and include fees paid by ground stations worldwide 

for the rights to obtain commercial imagery. Top-level imagery analysis, with little to no image 

processing, raises the commercial revenues associated with satellite imaging to approximately $390

million. By 2000, pre-value-added satellite imagery accounted for an estimated $173 million worldwide, with the United States responsible for $50 million of the total. GIS software, which is used

to overlay, enhance, or modify remote-sensing imagery, accounted for approximately $1.2 billion.

The aerial imagery component was about $2.6 billion. Only the pre-value added satellite imagery

industry component is emphasized in this report, the GIS software and aerial segments being

beyond the scope of this study.

Key trends in remote sensing include a greater demand for high-resolution panchromatic, radar,

and multispectral or hyperspectral imagery,23 depending on application needs. Image processing

has contributed to a growing GIS software segment, a trend that benefits customers who wish 

to manipulate such imagery on desktop computers. Enablers of efficient GIS software use are

greater Internet bandwidth and faster computer processors, both of which are not currently at 

the desired performance level. A competitive market between commercial remote-sensing image

providers and the sale of imagery from civil platforms like Landsat 7 has also emerged. The distribution of Landsat 7 images by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation

System (EROS) Data Center (EDC) has become a controversial activity to some commercial

providers in the industry. The EDC sells medium resolution (15 meters panchromatic and 30 meters

multispectral) imagery, but also provides images at no charge on a case-by-case basis. The USGS

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which licenses commercial

remote-sensing satellites, view Landsat 5 and 7 as government assets and maintain that images

derived from the platform should be readily available to the public. Several remote sensing 

23 Resolution refers to the level of detail viewable in an image and is usually expressed in meters or

centimeters (for example, 1-meter resolution means that objects measuring 1 meter or greater in

size can be discerned). Panchromatic imagers detect one wavelength, but at very high resolutions

not currently possible with multispectral or hyperspectral imagers. Multispectral imagers are used

to detect between four to ten spectral bands of reflected sunlight, while hyperspectral imagers can

detect several hundred. The latter is particularly useful for geological mapping.
4-2

companies provide similar products at higher relative cost and feel they cannot compete with 

relatively cheap or free imagery distributed by EDC.24 Examples of potential commercial customers

using Landsat 5 and 7 images are other federal, state, and local agencies and farmers. Commercial

remote sensing image providers do agree that scientists and universities benefit from government platforms like Landsat 5 and 7, but that these groups do not constitute a major part of the customer base.

Several governments are investing in their own remote-sensing satellites. Russia, China, India,

Japan, Canada, and the European Space Agency (ESA) continue to launch Earth resources,

meteorological, and intelligence (except ESA) satellites. Governments with modest space agencies

also have active remote-sensing satellite programs, some of which are developed on a cooperative

basis with other nations. Examples of these emergent systems can be found in Brazil, Argentina,

Israel, Turkey, and some European countries. Governments with little or no space funding have

expressed a strong interest in purchasing imagery from commercial entities for use in a wide 

range of applications, ranging from resource management to military strategic planning.

Another important trend impacting the remote-sensing industry is the increasing power and 

capacity of personal computers both at office and home. Raw remote-sensing images require a 

significant amount of memory to download and save, and manipulation of the images using GIS

software requires a memory capacity not typically available to users. Continuing improvements to

computers, typically focused on providing greater memory and faster processing time, will make

GIS software more marketable and more affordable. A key ingredient is the Internet, which 

will be the conduit of choice between the customer and provider of remote-sensing products.

Lower cost computers capable of manipulating images efficiently and an infrastructure capable 

of sending the data quickly to every corner of the globe will contribute to a more robust 

commercial remote-sensing satellite industry.

Certain drivers of commercial remote-sensing satellite systems are expected to influence the

remote-sensing market within the next two years and beyond. Those drivers are:

24 Title II of the 1992 Land Remote-sensing Policy Act was drafted in part to promote the commercial

remote sensing industry in the United States, with exceptions related to national security programs.

On July 31, 2000, NOAA issued regulations implementing Title II of the Act, which also lays the

groundwork for the commercialization of certain government remote-sensing satellite imagery

products (so far only Landsat 5 and 7). In addition, the new regulations codified the licensing

process and established a shutter control policy. Many in the industry believe the new regulations

are too restrictive and that they compromise the intent of the 1992 Act.
Remote Sensing

4-3

• Worldwide demand for high-resolution panchromatic and multispectral imagery will drive the 

development of more sophisticated commercial platforms, from which increases in the sale of

raw data can be expected.

• More frequent revisit times will also drive the satellite systems component, since customers 

will require a greater degree of temporal fidelity. Foresters, insurance providers, and disaster 

management officials from all over the world will find this attribute essential.

• Greater area coverage than provided by aerial imagery is a significant driver, since relative cost 

is lower. In addition, a typical swath width of a satellite capable of 1-meter resolution is about 

20 meters, wider than aerial imagery of comparable resolution.

• Falling launch costs and greater selection of competitive launch vehicles will reduce costs of

sending a remote-sensing satellite into orbit, a factor that will translate to lower user costs.

Recently, ongoing discussions around the world concerning imaging rights and policies, shutter

control, and export issues have become very important to the remote-sensing industry.

By 2000, the United States, Canada, ESA, France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Japan all had

high-resolution space-based remote-sensing platforms. Several other countries, like Turkey and

Pakistan, have expressed a strong interest in either purchasing high-resolution data or developing

their own remote-sensing satellites. Realizing that an international competitive market was emerging

and that it was in the interest of the United States to maintain a strong remote-sensing industry,

the White House authorized companies in the United States to market 1-meter resolution products

and services.25 High-resolution satellite imagery, previously only captured by military platforms, has

been identified by commercial remote-sensing companies as a critical market. This type of imagery

can be used for urban planning, insurance assessments, and the development of precision navigation

maps. High-resolution infrared imagery is difficult to obtain relative to visible wavelengths, but

recent events related to forest fires may create a demand for such accuracy.

U.S. remote-sensing satellite manufacturers were authorized to build and sell satellites with highresolution capability to foreign users. National security concerns must be addressed carefully for

manufacturers, since any satellite sold to foreign buyers must meet the export control requirements

of the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of State. In

addition, the United States has reserved the right to impose shutter controls on commercial imaging

satellites during national crises.

25 Presidential Decision Directive 23, Foreign Access to Remote-sensing Space Capabilities, March 10, 1994.
4-4

These recent events have become particularly important in light of the relative success of Space

Imaging's 1-meter resolution Ikonos 2 satellite system. Ikonos 2 has provided high-resolution images

that have energized the remote-sensing community, which hope to see a plethora of products ranging

from near-real time environmental monitoring to urban planning charts. In terms of future plans,

Space Imaging was recently granted a license for a 0.5-meter resolution remote-sensing platform,

tentatively planned for a 2004 launch. On November 21, 2000, QuickBird 1, Earth Watch's 1-meter

resolution remote-sensing platform and the second commercial 1-meter resolution satellite from

the United States, failed to achieve orbit due to a suspected second stage failure of the Kosmos-3

launch vehicle. While Earth Watch has had to reevaluate plans for the future, it is unclear if this

event will have any impact on the industry as a whole.

As more 1-meter resolution remote-sensing satellites are launched, defense officials worldwide are

becoming concerned about the potential use of high-resolution images by adversaries to gain tactical

and strategic advantage in the future. Shutter control regulations are designed to address such 

concerns but tend to be vague and subject to broad interpretation. Most industry leaders in the

United States believe the benefits of high-resolution imagery outweigh the disadvantages and that

generally applied shutter control regulations impede growth of the remote-sensing industry. Most

industry leaders recognize the need for shutter control during certain national security emergencies

like war, but believe that regulations should clearly define the parameters justifying when and to

what extent shutter control should be implemented.

4.2 U.S. and world commercial imagery sales

Figure 4.1 shows annual revenue totals for commercial pre-value-added imagery from remote

sensing satellites operated worldwide and by the United States. Pre-value-added refers to revenues

paid to civil and commercial remote-sensing satellite operating organizations for basic satellite data

and enhanced satellite data distributed by Value Added Resellers (VARs), along with fees paid by 

operators of ground stations receiving remote-sensing satellite data. The figures do not include 

the development, manufacture, and operation of military satellite platforms and revenues to 

government agencies that operate remote-sensing satellites from which data are not commercially

available (such as meteorological satellites).

The chart shows worldwide annual growth of 14 percent over the period 1996 to 2002. Revenues

for U.S. pre-value-added imagery from remote-sensing satellites account for approximately 27 percent of the market in 1996, with a projected share of 36 percent in 2002. This percentage includes

revenues from raw Landsat 7 images and commercial providers ORBIMAGE, Earth Watch, and

Space Imaging. France's SPOT Image accounts for over 30 percent of revenues from 1996
Remote Sensing

4-5

through 2002, with India, Russia, Japan, Canada, and the European Space Agency accounting

for approximately 40 percent through 2002. Significant growth is expected for the United

States following the launch of several commercial platforms in 2001.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. pre-value added commercial imagery revenues 28 32 38 43 50 63 83

Rest of world pre-value added commercial imagery

revenues

74 88 101 111 123 134 148

Total 102 120 139 154 173 197 231

Figure 4.1. 

U.S. and rest of world pre-value-added commercial remote-sensing satellite imagery

revenues, in millions U.S. $, 1996-2002

Rest of world revenues U.S. revenues

* Projections

* * *

* * *
4-6

Figure 4.2 shows both U.S. and rest of world employment figures for commercial remote-sensing

satellite service providers. For purposes of this forecast, commercial remote-sensing employment

figures include organizations that provide commercial, unclassified raw and process-enhanced 

satellite data to distributors, VARs, and other users. The figures do not include employment data

from civil or military remote-sensing organizations in which data are not commercially available,

nor do they include aerial imagery providers.

Estimating employment for satellite service providers is challenging and can vary depending on the

labor category of each employee. For purposes of this analysis, a baseline figure of 100 employees

per government remote-sensing organization was used, with 200 being used for commercial organizations. These figures are estimates based on interviews, publications, and press releases. The

United States accounts for between 25 percent and 30 percent of the total worldwide employment

figure and includes employees directly involved with the sale of pre-value-added remote-sensing

satellite imagery from EROS (Landsat 5 and 7), Space Imaging, ORBIMAGE, Resource21, Earth

Watch, and others. Data from the Satellite Industry Association were also used in determining

worldwide remote-sensing satellite imagery employment figures.

Rest of world providers U.S. providers

* * *
Remote Sensing

4-7

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. commercial remote sensing satellite data providers 400 450 500 550 650 845 1098

Rest of world commercial remote sensing satellite data

providers

1500 1500 2200 2500 3700 4000 4500

Total 1900 1950 2700 3050 4350 4845 5598

Figure 4.2. 

U.S. and rest of world commercial remote-sensing satellite data provider employment,

1996-2002 

4.3 Current and future U.S. and world remote-sensing

satellite systems

Table 4.1 shows overview information for U.S. and world remote-sensing satellites providing

commercially available imagery operating as of December 2000. Table 4.2 contains technical

data for each satellite listed in Table 4.1. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 cover the same type of data for

future remote-sensing satellites with planned launches between 2001 and 2002. Some military

intelligence satellites are not captured due to their classified nature.

* Projections

* * *
4-8

Name

Launch

Year Operator Manufacturer Country

EROS A1 2000 West Indian Space West Indian Space Israel

ERS 2 1995 ESA Deutsche Aerospace (DASA)/Dornier ESA

IKONOS 2 1999 Space Imaging Lockheed Martin USA

IRS 1B 1991 Indian Space Research Organization

(ISRO)

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) India

IRS 1C 1995 Indian Space Research Organization

(ISRO)

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) India

IRS 1D 1997 Indian Space Research Organization

(ISRO)

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) India

IRS P3 1996 Indian Space Research Organization

(ISRO)

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) India

KOMPSAT 1 1999 Korea Aerospace Research Institute

(KARI)

TRW and Korea Aerospace Research Institute

(KARI)

South Korea

Landsat 5 1984 Space Imaging General Electric USA

Landsat 7 1999 USGS Lockheed Martin USA

Orbview 1 1995 ORBIMAGE Orbital Sciences Corporation USA

Orbview 2 1997 ORBIMAGE Orbital Sciences Corporation USA

Radarsat 1 1995 Orbital Sciences Corporation Orbital Sciences Corporation Canada/USA

Resurs F1M 1997 Russian MOD Central Specialized Design Bureau (TsSKB) Russia

Resurs O1-4 1998 Russia VNII Elektromekhaniki Russia

ROCSAT 1 1999 National Space Program Office TRW and National Space Programs Office Taiwan

SPIN 2 1998 SOVINFORMSPUTNIK Unknown Russia

SPOT 1 1986 SPOT Image Matra Marconi Space France

SPOT 2 1990 SPOT Image Matra Marconi Space France

SPOT 4 1998 SPOT Image Matra Marconi Space France

TiungSat 1 2000 Astronautic Technology Surrey Malaysia

Table 4.1. 

Overview of current operational U.S. and world remote-sensing satellites producing 

commercially available imagery
Remote Sensing

4-9

Name

Mission

Life

Sensor

Types

Spatial

Resolution (m)

Revisit

Time

Swath

Width (m)

Spectral

Bands

EROS A1 4 yrs Visible, IR 1.8 m 1-3 days 12.5 km 500-900 nm

ERS 2 3 yrs Visible, IR,

radar,

microwave, laser

Unknown 35 days AMI: 100 km Visible (red), IR, radar,

microwave wavelengths

IKONOS 2 3-5 yrs Visible, NIR Visible: 1 m,

multispectral: 4 m

2.9 days at 1-

meter, 1.5

days at 1.5

meter

11-13 km Visible: 450-900 nm;

multispectral: 450-530 nm,

520-610 nm, 640-720 nm, 760-

880 nm

IRS 1B 3 yrs Visible, NIR LISS/1: 72.5 m, LISS/2:

36.25 m

5 days LISS/1: 148 km,

LISS/2: 74 km

450-520 nm, 520-590 nm, 620-

680 nm, 770-860 nm

IRS 1C 3 yrs Visible, NIR PAN: 5.8 m, LISS/3:

(visible 23 m, IR 70m),

WiFS: 188 m

5 days PAN: 70 km,

LISS/3: 142 km,

WiFS: 810 km

PAN: 500-750 nm; LISS/3:

520-590 nm, 620-680 nm, 770-

860 nm, 1550-1700 nm; WiFS:

620-680 nm, 770-860 nm

IRS 1D 3 yrs Visible, NIR PAN: 5.8 m, LISS/3:

(visible 23 m, IR 70m),

WiFS: 188 m

5 days PAN: 70 km,

LISS/3: 142 km,

WiFS: 810 km

PAN: 500-750 nm; LISS/3:

520-590 nm, 620-680 nm, 770-

860 nm, 1550-1700 nm; WiFS:

620-680 nm, 770-860 nm

IRS P3 3 yrs Visible, NIR MOS: 520 m, WiFS: 188

m

5 days MOS: 200 km,

WiFS: 770 km

MOS: 403-413 nm, 438-448

nm, 480-490 nm, 515-525 nm,

565-575 nm, 610-620 nm, 645-

655 nm, 680-690 nm, 745-755

nm, 7563-7577 nm, 7599-7613

nm, 7628-7642 nm, 7658-7772

nm, 810-820 nm, 865-875 nm,

940-950 nm, 1005-1015 nm,

1550-1650 nm; WiFS: 620-680

nm, 770-860 nm, 1550-1750

nm

KOMPSAT 1 3 yrs Visible EOC: 6.6 m, OSMI: 1

km

Unknown EOC: 17 km,

OSMI: 800 km

EOC: 510 nm- 730 nm; OSMI:

412-865 nm

Landsat 5 5 yrs Visible, IR TM: 30 m, MS: 80 m 16 days 185 km 450-520 nm, 520-600 nm, 630-

690 nm, 760-900 nm, 1550-

1750 nm, 2080-2350 nm,

10400-12500 nm

Landsat 7 6 yrs Visible, IR PC: 15 m, Visible: 30 m,

TIR: 60 m

16 days 185 km Visible: 450-520 nm, 520-600

nm, 630-690 nm; IR: 760-900

nm, 1550-1750 nm, 10400-

12500 nm, 2080-2350 nm

Orbview 1 2 yrs Visible 10 Km Less than 2

days

1300 Km 777

Orbview 2 10 Yrs Visible 1.1 Km 1 day 2800 Km 402-422, 433-453, 480-500,

500-520, 545-565, 660-680,

745-785, 845-885

Table 4.2. 

Technical information on current operational U.S. and world remote-sensing satellites

producing commercially available imagery
4-10

Name

Mission

Life

Sensor

Types

Spatial

Resolution (m)

Revisit

Time

Swath

Width (m)

Spectral

Bands

Radarsat 1 5 Yrs Radar 10-100 m 3 days 35-500 km Microwave range

Resurs O1-4 2 yrs Visible, IR MSU/E: 27-45 m,

MSU/SK: 150-250 m

1-3 days MSU/E: 45-60 km,

MSU/SK: 600-700

km

MSU/E: 500-600 nm, 600-700

nm, 800-900 nm; MSU/SK:

500-600 nm, 600-700 nm, 700-

800 nm, 800-1000 nm, 10400-

12600 nm

ROCSAT 1 Unknown Visible, IR 800 m Unknown 691.2 km 443 nm, 490 nm, 510 nm, 555

nm, 670 nm, 865 nm

SPIN 2 2-3 yrs Visible 2 m 1-3 days TK-350: 200 km,

KVR-1000: 180-

200 km

TK-350: 510-760 nm, KVR

1000: 510-760 nm

SPOT 1 2 yrs Visible, NIR PAN: 10 m, XS: 20 m 16 days 60 km PAN: 510-730 nm ; XS: 500-

590 nm, 610-680 nm, 790-

890 nm

SPOT 2 2 yrs Visible, NIR PAN: 10 m, XS: 20 m 16 days 60 km PAN: 510-730 nm ; XS: 500-

590 nm, 610-680 nm, 790-

890 nm

SPOT 4 5 yrs Visible, NIR HRVIR/MS: 10 m,

HRVIR/XS: 20 m, VMI:

1.15-1.7 km

16 days HRVIR: 60 km,

VMI: 2000 km

HRVIR: 510-590 nm, 610-680

nm, 790-890 nm, 1530-1730

nm; VMI: 430-470 nm, 610-

680 nm, 780-890 nm, 1580-

1750 nm

TiungSat Unknown Visible, NIR MSEIS: 70 m, MEIS: 1.2

km

Unknown MSEIS: 70 km,

MEIS: 1200 km

Unknown

Table 4.2. (Continued)
Remote Sensing

4-11

Name

Launch

Year Operator Manufacturer Country

Aries 1 2001 Aries Operating Company Auspace/Astrium Australia

EagleEye 2001 Rapid Eye Rapid Eye Germany

Electro-GOMS 2001 Russian Academy of Sciences Space

Research Institute

Russian Academy of Sciences Space Research

Institute

Russia

ENVISAT 1 2001 ESA ESA Europe

EROS A2 2001 West Indian Space West Indian Space Israel

EROS B1 2001 West Indian Space West Indian Space Israel

EROS B2 2001 West Indian Space West Indian Space Israel

Insat 3D 2002 Indian Space Research Organization

(ISRO)

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) India

IRS P5 2001 Indian Space Research Organization

(ISRO)

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) India

IRS P6 2001 Indian Space Research Organization

(ISRO)

Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) India

OrbView 3 2001 ORBIMAGE Orbital Sciences Corporation USA

Orbview 4 2001 ORBIMAGE Orbital Sciences Corporation USA

Resource21 1-2 2002 Resource21 LLC Boeing USA

RapidEye 1-2 2002 RapidEye AG Surry Germany

SPOT 5 2001 Spot Image Astrium France

Table 4.3. 

Overview of future U.S. and world remote-sensing satellites that will be producing

commercially available imagery
4-12

Name Mission

Life

Sensor

Types

Spatial

Resolution (m)

Revisit

Time

Swath

Width (m)

Spectral

Bands

Aries 1 5 yrs Visible PAN: 10 m, HYP: 30 m 7 days 15 km 400-1100 nm, 2000-2500 nm

EagleEye 3-5 yrs Visible 5-7 m 1 day Unknown Unknown

Electro-GOMS 3 yrs Visible, IR Visible: 1.25 km, IR:

6.25 km

GEO Global, Eastern

Hemisphere (Asia)

Visible: 460-700 nm; IR:

6000-7000 nm, 10500-12500

nm,

ENVISAT 1 5 yrs Visible, IR, UV ASAR: 30-1000 m,

GOMOS: 1.7 km,

MERIS: 260-290 m,

MIPAS: 2.5 km, MWR:

20 km, RA-2: 1.7 km,

AATSR: 1 km,

SCIAMACHY: 2.4-3

km

1-3 days ASAR: 100-405 km,

MERIS: 1165 km,

AATSR: 500 km,

SCIAMACHY: 960

km

ASAR: 5.331 GHz;

GOMOS: 250-952 nm; LRR:

532-694 nm; MERIS: 412-

900 nm; MIPAS: 4150-14600

nm; MWR: 23.8 GHz,36.5

GHz; RA-2: 3.2 GHz, 13.575

GHz; AATSR: 555 nm, 670

nm, 865 nm, 1600 nm, 3700

nm, 10850 nm, 12000 nm;

DORIS: 2.03625 GHz,

401.25 MHz; SCIAMACHY:

240-23800 nm

EROS A2 4 yrs Visible, IR 1.8 m 1-3 days 12.5 km 500-900 nm

EROS B1 4 yrs Visible, IR .82 m 1-3 days 16 km 500-900 nm

EROS B2 4 yrs Visible, IR .82 m 1-3 days 16 km 500-900 nm

Insat 3D 7-10 yrs Visible, IR 10 km (?) GEO Global, Eastern

Hemisphere (India)

630-690 nm, 770-860 nm,

1550-1700 nm

IRS P5 3 yrs Visible, IR 2.5 m 1-3 days 30 km Unknown

IRS P6 3 yrs Visible, IR 2.5 m 1-3 days 30 km Unknown

OrbView 3 5 yrs Visible, IR PAN: 1 m, MS: 4 m 2-3 days 8 km PAN: 450-900 nm; MS: 450-

520 nm, 520-600 nm, 625-

695 nm, 760-900 nm

Orbview 4 5 yrs Visible, IR PAN: 1 m, MS: 4 m,

HYP: 8 m (U.S.

customers), 20 m (all

other customers)

2-3 days PAN: 8 km, MS: 8

km, HYP: 5 km

PAN: 450-900 nm; MS: 450-

520 nm, 520-600 nm, 625-

695 nm, 760-900 nm; HYP:

450-2500 nm

Resource21 1-2 Unknown Visible, IR 10 m Unknown Unknown 5 bands

RapidEye 1-2 6 yrs Visible 6.5 m 15 times per

day

150-170 km 6 bands

SPOT 5 5 yrs Visible, IR HRG: 2.5 m, 5 m, 10 m,

20 m; VEGETATION:

1.5 km

Unknown HRG: 60 km,

VEGETATION:

2250 km

HRG: 500-890 nm, 510-730

nm, 1580-1750 nm;

VEGETATION: 430-470

nm, 610-680 nm, 780-890

nm, 1580-1750 nm

Table 4.4. 

Technical information on future U.S. and world remote-sensing satellites that will be

producing commercially available imagery
4.4 Selected references

Baker, D. James, International Partnerships - A Key to the Future, speech presented at the

Environment, Science, and Technology Officers Conference, Washington, D.C., September 24, 1998.

Conference Proceedings, Pecora 14, Land Satellite Information III, Denver, Colorado,

December 6-10, 1999.

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industry and Trade 

Outlook 2000, 2000.

Janski, Larry, The Satellite Remote-sensing Industry: A Global Review, KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, 1998.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 15 CFR Part 960, Licensing of Private Land

Remote-sensing Space Systems; Interim Final Rule, July 31, 2000.

Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, Fact Sheet Regarding the Memorandum 

of Understanding Concerning the Licensing of Private Remote-sensing Satellite Systems, February 2, 2000.

Satellite Industry Association, Satellite Industry Indicators Survey, 2000.

Stearns, Ronald, World Remote Sensing Data and GIS Software Markets (5807-22), Frost & Sullivan, 1999.

Telephone conversations with Space Imaging, OrbImage, Resource21, Earth Scan, NASA/Goddard

Space Flight Center and the United States Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation System

(EROS) Data Center (EDC) (Landsat 5 and 7), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), The Imaging and Geospatial Information Society (ASPRS), National Imagery and Mapping

Agency (NIMA), SPOT Image and PixSell.

Remote-sensing platform specifications provided by Futron proprietary database.

Remote Sensing

4-13
GPS

Section Five
GPS

5-1

5.1 Overview of trends, drivers, and events

Developed and operated by the U.S. Department of Defense, the Global Positioning System (GPS)

is a constellation of 24 satellites that orbit about 11,000 miles above Earth. These satellites broadcast signals that can be used to determine timing, location, and velocity information used for both

military and civilian applications. GPS serves a diversity of markets, including aviation, marine 

surveying, recreation, timing, and in-vehicle navigation. This section of the report includes data

and information about the GPS industry. GPS-enhanced services, such as Differential GPS

(DGPS) surveying, are not included.

The GPS industry segment has experienced healthy growth over the last few years and will continue

to grow rapidly over the next two years, as "GPS" becomes an increasingly familiar term for the

general population. Overall, the GPS market is expanding in terms of dollars spent by customers

and revenues earned by manufacturers. Intensifying competition has led to several mergers and

acquisitions in recent years as companies attempt to diversify their overall product lines, grow 

their market share, and increase bottom-line revenues. Manufacturers tend to continue producing

their own specialized, niche products. In addition, there are partnerships emerging between GPS

manufacturers and other industry manufacturers, telecommunications or automotive firms for

example, as GPS products become more integrated into high value-added products ranging from

cell phones to car navigation to flight management systems.

The industry remains sharply segmented with product applications extending from recreational 

to military and prices ranging from approximately two hundred dollars to thousands of dollars.

In terms of revenue, over the course of 1999, the aviation market for GPS products grew around

10 percent, the land market grew just over 24 percent, the marine market grew 11 percent, the 

military and timing markets both grew just under 25 percent.26 The land market comprised almost 

62 percent of the total North American27 GPS revenues in 1999 and will likely continue to make up

the majority of industry revenues as recreational and car navigation systems gain popularity and 

as GPS timing products make their way into e-commerce and other Internet applications.28

On May 2, 2000, the U.S. government turned off selective availability (SA), the intentional 

degradation of the GPS signal, resulting in a dramatic improvement in GPS positioning accuracy.

The new level of accuracy will likely encourage development of new products and will accelerate

the transition of GPS products into the mainstream.

26 Frost & Sullivan, GPS Report, May 2000. 27 United States and Canada. 28 Frost & Sullivan, GPS Report, May 2000.
5-2

When SA was turned on, GPS positioning accuracy was "no worse than" 100 meters horizontally

and 150 meters vertically 95 percent of the time. With SA turned off, GPS positioning accuracy 

has been reported to be better than 10 meters. This difference will enhance the quality and probably

increase sales of GPS equipment. Hikers who use hand-held recreational devices will be able to

find their way easier when hiking in unfamiliar areas. Boaters will have an improved navigation tool,

and fishermen will be better able to locate prime fishing spots. Beginning in 2001, the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) will require wireless carriers to be able to identify the location

of cell phone users to within 150 meters 95 percent of the time, possibly by using GPS. This 

action was taken to improve 911 service by enabling emergency response teams to locate callers

more quickly and precisely. Finally, GPS time data will improve to within 40 billionths of a second,

improving the efficiency of Internet applications that use timing to reduce the space between data

packets and maximize the use of bandwidth.

European states have proposed the development of a European Global Navigation Satellite System

(GNSS). This system, named "Galileo," has the potential to compete with the U.S. GPS system or

to enhance it. At this time, the European system is still in the early stages of development. While

the European Commission (EC) and the European Space Agency (ESA) are enthusiastic about the

proposed system, there remain some major issues that must be resolved before construction begins.

The GNSS system could cost an estimated $3 billion. The EC governments have set aside half of

the necessary funds, but hope to have private funding for the other half. There are other barriers

such as assessing security issues, developing the system architecture, and establishing EU/ESA

cooperation and responsibilities that could defer production of Galileo for many years. The EU 

has stated that the GNSS system will begin service in 2008.

In the meantime, the United States has proposed to spend billions of dollars over the next five years

to modernize the existing GPS system. The Department of Defense requested a total of approximately $440 million for fiscal year 2001 to upgrade the GPS system. The Air Force recently awarded

Lockheed Martin Space Systems a $53 million contract to begin development of modernization

changes for up to 12 GPS Block IIR satellites. These satellites will be modified to incorporate 

a second civil signal and two new military signals, providing military and civilian users improved 

navigation accuracy and increased signal power. The Air Force also plans to award two one-year

study contracts for the GPS III program.

5.2 U.S. and world commercial GPS user equipment sales

As the world's dominant GPS hardware and software equipment manufacturer, the United States

held a 65 percent share of the total GPS market in 1996.29 Currently, the United States has a 

29 Allied Business Intelligence (ABI), GPS 2005, 1999.
GPS

5-3

Rest of world producer revenues

U.S. producer revenues

52 percent market share and is projected to have a 50 percent share by 2002.30 Despite the gradual

decline of market share, U.S. producers will continue to earn increasing revenues from the sale of

GPS equipment. Figure 5.1, below, shows that U.S. producers earned $2.20 billion in 1996 and

earned about $3.82 billion in 2000 from the sale of GPS user equipment to customers worldwide.

U.S. producers' revenues grow over the study period at an annual growth rate of almost 14 percent.

* * *

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. producer revenues 2.20 2.53 2.93 3.36 3.82 4.38 4.73

Rest of world producer revenues 1.19 1.62 2.21 2.86 3.53 4.04 4.73

Total 3.39 4.15 5.14 6.22 7.34 8.42 9.47

Figure 5.1. 

GPS revenues earned by producers, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002

* Projections

***

30 Ibid.
5-4

During the period 1996 to 2002, U.S. customers account for a steady 31 percent of total sales of

GPS user equipment, as shown in Figure 5.2.31 U.S. government and commercial consumers' expenditures grew from approximately $1.05 billion in 1996 to $2.28 billion in 2000 and are projected to

reach $2.93 billion in the next two years. While U.S. producers earn a majority of the total world

GPS revenues, U.S. consumers comprise only about one third of their customer base. The increase

in total GPS user equipment customers' expenditures suggest an annual growth rate of almost 

19 percent for both the United States and the rest of the world over the study period.

Rest of world customer expenditures

U.S. customer expenditures

* * *

Figure 5.2. 

Annual GPS customer expenditures, in billions U.S. $, 1996-2002

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. customer expenditures 1.05 1.29 1.59 1.93 2.28 2.61 2.93

Rest of world customer expenditures 2.34 2.86 3.55 4.29 5.07 5.81 6.53

Total 3.39 4.15 5.14 6.22 7.34 8.42 9.47

* Projections

** *

31 Derived from International Trade Administration, Office of Telecommunications, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Global Positioning System Market Projections and Trends in the Newest Global Information Utility,

September 1998.
GPS

5-5

Rest of world GPS employees

U.S. GPS employees

* * *

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

 10,847 12,444 14,414 16,536 18,793 21,532 23,288

Rest of world GPS employees 5,841 7,956 10,873 14,086 17,347 19,875 23,288

Total 16,688 20,399 25,287 30,622 36,140 41,407 46,577

Figure 5.3. 

GPS industry employees, 1996-2002

U.S. GPS employees

* Projections

* * *

Based on the annual reports of several U.S. GPS equipment manufacturers, the average annual 

revenue per GPS employee was calculated at $203,227. As shown in Figure 5.3, the United States

had 10,847 GPS industry employees in 1996 and is projected to have 23,288 GPS employees by 2002.

Assuming constant average annual revenue per employee, the total employment in the U.S. GPS 

market will increase 115 percent over the study period. In 1996, there were an estimated 5,841 GPS

employees worldwide, in addition to those in the United States. The number of employees outside

the United States is expected to grow to 23,288 by 2002, a rise of 299 percent over the study period.
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

U.S. consumption 464 605 783 991 1,225 1,481 1,765

Rest of world consumption 1,033 1,346 1,743 2,207 2,726 3,296 3,928

Total 1,498 1,950 2,526 3,198 3,951 4,778 5,692

5-6

5.3 U.S. and world commercial GPS units sold

U.S. customers consumed about 464,000 of the 1,498,000 units in 1996.32 In 2000, approximately 

3.95 million GPS units were consumed worldwide and the U.S. consumed 1.22 million of those 

units. Figure 5.4 below shows that U.S. customers will buy up to 1.77 million GPS units in 2002 and 

5.69 million units will be consumed worldwide in that year. There will be a 280 percent increase 

from 1996 to 2002 in the total number of GPS units bought, or an annual growth rate of 25 percent.

U.S. consumption Rest of world consumption

* * *

Figure 5.4. 

Commercial GPS units sold, in thousands, 1996-2002

* Projections

* * *

32 Derived from Frost & Sullivan, GPS Report, May 2000.
GPS

5-7

Figure 5.5 shows the general distribution of the GPS units sold for the year 2000. The car 

navigation and consumer market segments made up the majority of sales in this year and will 

continue to dominate industry growth over the next few years.

33 International Trade Administration, Office of Telecommunications, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Global Positioning System Market Projections and Trends in the Newest Global 

Information Utility, September 1998.

34 Frost & Sullivan, GPS Report, May 2000.

car navigation

consumer

track/machine control

OEM

survey/mapping

aviation

marine

military

Figure 5.5. 

Distribution of GPS units sold by market component, year 2000 33

A summary of the overall world GPS market trends for 1996 to 2002 is shown in Figure 5.6.

Using 1996 data as the base year, the figures show that while GPS revenues are increasing,

prices are falling. Total revenues will continue to grow, although revenues per unit received

by producers worldwide are decreasing. Total revenues for world GPS producers are growing

faster than revenues for U.S. GPS producers. U.S. GPS manufacturers historically have enjoyed

profit margins in the 30 to 40 percent range, but in the next few years, falling prices will

lead to profits dropping by 10 to 15 percent.34 However, due to growing sales, particularly 

in consumer application products such as car navigation and recreational hand-helds,

2%

2%

5%

16%

5%

13%

22%

35%
5-8

Figure 5.6. 

GPS market trends, 1996-2002

GPS manufacturers will continue to see a growing GPS market, remaining profitable in the 

next few years. In the future, manufacturers may have the market power to maintain prices as 

the degree of accuracy and capabilities of GPS products improves.

World prices

U.S. producer revenues

Rest of world producer revenues * Projections

* * *

5.4 Sample U.S. and world producers of GPS equipment

The following table lists the major U.S. and world manufacturers of GPS equipment, the country

where their headquarters or primary office is located, and the major GPS market sectors served 

by the companies. Of the companies listed, Trimble Navigation is the most diverse GPS firm,

specializing primarily in the navigation, surveying, and military market segments; Garmin, Magellan,
GPS

5-9

Company Name Country Primary GPS Market Segment(s)

Absolute Time Corp. USA Timing

Allen Osborne Associates, Inc. USA Survey, hand-held, timing, military

BAE Systems Canada Inc. Canada Navigation, aviation, marine, timing, OEM

Datum USA Timing

IBM Corp. USA Navigation

Furuno USA, Inc. Japan Marine, timing, OEM

Garmin International USA Hand-held

Japan Radio Co. Ltd. Japan Navigation, hand-held, marine, OEM, timing

Javad Positioning Systems USA

Navigation, marine, military, OEM, survey,

timing

Leica Geosystems AG Switzerland Survey

Lowrance Electronics USA Hand-held, navigation

Magellan Corp./Ashtech Precision Products USA

Hand-held, navigation, aviation, marine,

military, OEM, survey, timing

Motorola Space Systems and Services Division USA Navigation, military, timing

NAVSYS Corp. USA Navigation, survey, military, OEM, timing

NovAtel Inc. Canada Survey, marine, military, OEM, timing

Orbital Sciences Corp. USA Navigation

Rockwell Collins Government Systems USA

Navigation, aviation, hand-held, military,

OEM

SiRF USA GPS chips/receiver components, OEM

Sokkia Corp. Japan Survey, marine

Spectra Precision Sweden Survey, construction, agriculture

Topcon America USA Survey

Trimble Navigation Limited USA

Navigation, aviation, survey, hand-held,

marine, military, OEM, timing

TrueTime USA Timing

Zyfer, Inc. USA Timing

and Lowrance are the leaders in the hand-held segment; Absolute Time, Truetime, and Zyfer

are the main timing products manufacturers; SiRF is the leading producer of GPS chips; and

Rockwell Collins is the frontrunner for the aviation market.

Table 5.1. 

Sample U.S. and world GPS equipment producers, year 2000
5-10

Table 5.2. 

Sample related GPS companies, year 2000

Company Country Primary GPS-related products

Andrew Corp. USA GPS antennas for base station, Earth station andautomotive tracking

Autometric, Inc.

Digital photogrammetric software, GPS satcom

software

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. USA Ceramic GPS antennas, SATCOM Antennas, newGPS Translator - artillery spotter round antenna

Boeing USA

Navstar GPS satellites and advanced proprietary

GPS systems (e.g., Space Shuttle GPS receiver)

Eastman Kodak Co. USA Digital cameras with new GPS printout on pictures

Etak, Inc. USA

GPS trucking software (e.g., traffic locator “Etak

Map”)

Fugro Netherlands

Differential GPS systems (Omnistar, Seastar,

Starfix)

Honeywell Commercial Aviation

Systems USA

Avionic navigational GPS systems/units (GNSSU,

RAIM)

Larson Systems USA GPS vehicle tracking and navigational software

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems USA

GPS IIR satellites (21 in all) design, production and

support

Nathan Telecom Ltd. USA

Digital GSP systems for mobile radio and data

communications

Navigation Technologies USA

GPS mapping databases, in-vehicle navigation

systems

Qualcomm, Inc. USA GPS wireless receivers, GPS cellular phones

Raytheon Marine Company USA

GPS-guided military weaponry, "MAGR" - receiver

used in most military airborne platforms

Science Applications International Corp.

(SAIC) USA

Software solutions using GPS (e.g. "Fleet

Optimizer"), GPS products and services (e.g.,

"Vigilante" uncrewed transport aircraft using GPS

for navigation)

Spectrum Astro USA Next generation GPS receivers (e.g., “AstroNav”)

5.5 Sample related GPS companies

The following table shows examples of firms that use GPS equipment in the production of their

final goods, manufacture products necessary for the operation of the GPS system, or manufacture

"complementary" GPS products, such as relevant software.

USA
GPS

5-11

5.6 Selected references

Allied Business Intelligence (ABI), GPS 2005, 1999.

Divis, Dee Ann, "SA: Going the Way of the Dinosaur," GPS World, June 2000.

Frost & Sullivan, North American Global Positioning System Markets, May 5, 2000.

International Trade Administration, Office of Telecommunications, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Global Positioning System Market Projections and Trends in the Newest Global 

Information Utility, September 1998.

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industry & 

Trade Outlook 2000, 2000.

"Galileo Progresses," GPS World, July 2000.

"New Galileo Technology Would Allow Wide Civilian Use in War Time," Space News,

September 18, 2000.

"DoD Wins Funds for 2001 Modernization," GPS World, July 2000.

"U.S. Air Force Awards Lockheed Martin $53 Million Contract to Modernize GPS IIR Satellites,"

Lockheed Martin Space Systems press release, September 11, 2000.

"Air Force Readies to Select Contractors for GPS III Study," Defense Daily, September 18, 2000.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 10-K Filing, Trimble Navigation Ltd., March 2000.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 10-K Filings, Orbital Sciences Corporation, April 2000 

and June 2000.
Office of Space Commercialization 

Technology Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

www.ta.doc.gov/space

For more information:

Public Affairs, (202) 482-5913