LEO

Commercial

Market

Projections

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Associate Administrator

 for Commercial Space Transportation

April 5, 1996
Executive Summary

I. Projected Satellite Demand

Based on the information provided in the attached report, OCST has again developed two

possible scenarios for LEO satellite and launch services demand in the 1996-2005 time frame. 

With regard to a "modest growth" scenario, OCST projects that: 

• at least three Big LEO (including MEO) and two Little LEO systems will be deployed

in this period (the more optimistic scenario from the 1995 study).

By comparison, the more optimistic, "high growth" scenario projects that:

• four Big LEO systems and three of the larger Little LEO constellations could be

deployed and potentially sustain operations in this time frame.

Both of these scenarios also assume that as many as two partial non-U.S. Little LEO systems

will be deployed in the 1996-2005 time frame, while reflecting the fact that these systems

represent a unique form of demand in several respects. As with the 1995 assessment,

however, Mega LEO systems are not yet included in either scenario due to the unusual

challenges involved in their development and financing, and to the current lack of contracts

for satellite production and launches for such systems. 

Finally, it appears that demand in the commercial remote sensing market will be capable of

supporting several of the small, proposed ventures intending to provide commercial, highresolution imagery (perhaps as many as four systems containing between one and four

satellites). Thus, commercial remote sensing ventures could represent a significant source of

demand for small LEO satellites and launch vehicles.

II. Projected Launch Demand

Based on these satellite demand projections, the resulting demand for commercial launches to

LEO for this period should be:

• 5 to 10 medium-to-large launches per year during deployment phases and 9 to 15

small vehicle launches per year throughout the 1996-2005 time frame, depending on

the specific scenario (as discussed in the report).

III. Implications of Dramatic Growth

OCST also considered the implications of much more dramatic growth in this market than is

currently anticipated. Based on current system plans, it seems likely that a significant

increase in active (or sustained) launch capacity for medium-to-large vehicles would be

required before such growth could be adequately supported.

i
LEO Commercial Market Projections

I. Introduction

The Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) of

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has prepared the attached projections of the Low

Earth Orbit (LEO) commercial payload and launch markets for the period between 1996 and

2005. The information in the projections was developed on the basis of: 

• responses to a February 1996 Federal Register Notice requesting data on the LEO

commercial market; 

• data obtained during a February 1996 public meeting (held by OCST) regarding the

LEO market;

• publicly available information; and 

• OCST research.

This latest assessment represents an update of prior studies of the LEO market that OCST

conducted in March 1994 and May 1995 to facilitate a variety of Administration efforts,

including Interagency Working Groups reviewing U.S. space transportation issues. Given the

dynamic and somewhat uncertain nature of this market segment, further efforts will be made

on an annual basis to update the projections and/or account for new activities as the market

continues to develop.

The results presented in this study do not indicate FAA support or preference for any

particular proposal or system. Rather, the information provided merely reflects an OCST

assessment of overall trends in the mobile communications services and LEO commercial

satellite markets, with the ultimate purpose of projecting future space transportation needs to

LEO. The LEO system characteristics critical to making such projections (such as number of

payloads and launch schedule) are representative of proposals currently under consideration in

the industry.

II. Proposed LEO Communications Systems

To assess the size of the overall LEO commercial market, it is first necessary to understand

the range of proposals existing world-wide for LEO communications satellite systems. Such

systems will in all likelihood produce the highest level of demand for satellites and launch

services in this market segment.

1
Accordingly, Figures 1 and 2 provide a listing of the various publicly announced proposals for

LEO communications systems currently under development within the industry. Figure 1

summarizes the proposals for "Big" and "Mega" LEO constellations, while Figure 2 provides

a listing of both U.S. and non-U.S. "Little" LEO constellations (differentiation among system

types is done on the basis of system capabilities).1

 Among these three categories of systems,

Little LEOs are intended to provide mobile data messaging and position determination

services on a global level, while Big LEOs will add mobile voice and fax capabilities; Mega

LEOs will provide wireless video, voice, and broadband, high-speed data services to small

satellite dishes. For reference purposes, the orbit altitude and inclination for the various

systems are provided in Figure 3.

With respect to non-U.S. proposals for LEO constellations (other than the ICO Global

system), a great number of systems have been proposed on a conceptual level by various

nations or non-U.S. firms in recent years, often with the stated intent of obtaining

development assistance or financing before proceeding. Many of these proposals remain at

comparatively early (and uncertain) stages of authorization, financing, and/or development,

and have thus not been included in the attached figures. Nonetheless, some non-U.S. systems

(particularly those in the Little LEO category) appear to have at least: 1) the domestic

authorization necessary to proceed, 2) a potentially viable concept, and 3) the potential

resources to place at least a small, partial system in orbit. Such systems are presented in

either Figure 1 or 2, as appropriate, and are also discussed below in terms of potential market

impact. 

 

III. Market Demand Scenarios

Most of the systems listed in Figures 1 and 2 were under consideration by industry at the time

of OCST's 1995 assessment. Nonetheless, given the uncertain status of many of the efforts

and the apparent impact at that time of various market and regulatory factors, OCST

determined that only two to three Big LEO systems and one to two Little LEO systems might

ultimately be deployed (and sustain operations) in the 1995-2005 time frame (these potential

outcomes were described in terms of two market scenarios). It should be noted that these

projections represented some growth over the more conservative estimates of market size

developed in 1994.

Over the course of the last year, however, significant progress has again been made by a

number of existing LEO system proposers in terms of regulatory approval, technical

development, contracting, and financing. At the same time, the overall prospective market for

mobile, satellite-based communications services has continued to evolve in several notable

ways. For example, continued progress has been made in the international allocation of

spectrum for such services (at the 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference, or WRC-95),

and several proposals have emerged for satellite systems in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) that

 

 

1

For purposes of this assessment, Medium Earth Orbit, or MEO, systems providing global, mobile

communications services have been listed as Big LEOs.

2
will also provide mobile satellite services (MSS) in specific global regions. These GEO

systems will presumably compete to some degree with the LEO systems, at least in their

respective regions, and thus potentially affect demand for LEO mobile communications

services. For reference, currently operating or proposed GEO systems providing MSS (with

firm satellite manufacturing contracts) include the American Mobile Satellite Corporation

(AMSC) system; the Afro-Asian Satellite Communications system (known as Agrani); the

Asia Cellular Satellite (ACeS) system; the Asia Pacific Mobile Telecommunications (APMT)

system; and the Satphone International system.

Although less critical to an assessment of the overall LEO market, several existing remote

sensing ventures also made progress over the course of last year, while 

other similar systems have recently been proposed for development in the 1996-2005 time

frame. 

Assessment Criteria Given such developments, OCST has again undertaken a review of

potential commercial demand in the LEO market, utilizing certain assumptions and completed

studies concerning:

• the projected customer demand for personal communications services (including MSS);

• the potential effect of various competing technologies (e.g., cellular phones, GEObased mobile communications services) on that demand; 

• potential limitations on the availability of capital for such projects;

• the government authorization/licensing process, and the availability of frequency

spectrum necessary for the operation of LEO systems; and 

• the status of contracting for satellite development/production and launches.

Although these factors apply more directly to the assessment of demand for LEO mobile

communications services, similar criteria were utilized (as appropriate) in evaluating several

proposed remote sensing ventures, as well as the overall remote sensing market.

Discussion and Key Findings Each of these factors is significant in determining the number

of LEO systems that might be deployed, though to varying degrees depending on the type of

LEO system in question. For example, capital availability and the size of the potential

customer base are key considerations in assessing the viability of proposed Big LEO systems,

given:

 

• the comparatively large amount of financing required for such systems; 

• the number of users seemingly necessary to sustain such systems; and 

3
• the recent emergence of several GEO-based MSS providers in critical market regions

(as mentioned above).

By comparison, spectrum availability and "market timing" concerns (relative to alternative

services) have emerged as critical issues facing the proposers of Little LEO systems

(particularly in view of the WRC-95 decision not to allocate additional worldwide spectrum to

such services). For several reasons, all of these factors remain important considerations in

assessing Mega LEO providers, though it should be noted that 400 MHz of spectrum was

allocated to such services at WRC-95 (alleviating some spectrum concerns for the time being).

To better understand the obviously fundamental issue of potential MSS demand, OCST staff

reviewed several existing projections of the potential number of overall MSS subscribers,

using both publicly available and proprietary sources. An effort was then made to assess the

potential impact of GEO MSS providers on the demand for mobile services and to estimate

the number of LEO systems that the remaining demand might be able to sustain. For similar

purposes, extensive discussions were held with both industry and government officials to

clarify the issues of spectrum availability and financing for LEO systems.2

Even after accounting for spectrum constraints and significant penetration of the potential

MSS market by GEO-based providers, OCST determined that at least three Big LEO and two

Little LEO systems would probably be deployed in the 1996-2005 time frame (the more

optimistic scenario from the 1995 assessment), and that additional Big and Little LEO systems

might also reach operational status. Although the data obtained by OCST staff were slightly

less definitive or firm for other, more optimistic market scenarios (relative to the criteria

discussed above), it also seemed possible that four Big LEO systems and three of the larger

Little LEO constellations could be deployed and potentially sustain operations in this time

frame.

 

With regard to non-U.S. LEO systems, it is quite likely that some of the proposed Little LEO

systems listed in the attached charts will be deployed to at least a partial level in the 1996-

2005 time frame. However, these systems generally differ from the larger Little LEO

constellations (proposed primarily by U.S. firms) in certain important respects, and will thus

have far different implications for satellite and launch demand. For example, these systems

typically involve a small number of satellites that reportedly will be launched in a phased

process over as long as a three-to-four year period. Furthermore, many of the non-U.S.

system proposers have publicly stated their intention to launch their satellites as secondary (or

"piggyback") payloads on larger vehicles (frequently from Russian launch providers, based on

current information). As such, they will create a very different (more indirect) kind of launch

demand than the Big LEO and larger Little LEO systems. Finally, many of the non-U.S.

providers appear to be focussed more on niche markets, such as a particular segment of

 

 

2The results from these assessments and discussions are not releasable in detailed form due to the proprietary

nature of many of the inputs.

4
European users or even some government applications,3

 and do not seem to be positioning

themselves for global competition with the larger Little LEOs providing services for truly

hand-held communication devices. For such reasons, the smaller non-U.S. LEO systems are

not specifically addressed in the overall findings discussed above, though two partial systems

are reflected in the payload and launch demand charts discussed below. 

As with the 1995 assessment, it is not yet clear whether Mega LEO systems will be deployed

in this time frame due to the unusual challenges involved in their design, deployment, and

financing, and to the current lack of contracts for satellite production and launches for such

systems. However, OCST will continue to pay close attention to such proposals as the

projections presented in this document are updated in coming months.

Finally, in terms of commercial remote sensing ventures, OCST reviewed both publicly

available and proprietary sources of information to assess the status of the international remote

sensing market. Based on these discussions, it appears that demand in this market will be

capable of supporting several of the small, proposed ventures intending to provide

commercial, high-resolution imagery (perhaps as many as four systems containing between

one and four satellites). In addition, it seems reasonably likely that such ventures will sustain

operations throughout the 1996-2005 time frame, and perhaps even grow in number of

satellites if demand for such imagery increases substantially beyond current projections. Thus,

commercial remote sensing ventures could represent a significant source of demand for small

LEO satellites and launch vehicles, though certainly not at the levels projected for LEO

constellations providing MSS.4

 

Market Scenarios Accordingly, Figures 4 and 5 present OCST projections of small

commercial satellite demand under two different scenarios, with three market segments

identified for each scenario (Big LEO communications systems, Little LEO communications

systems, and the more general segment of remote sensing, international scientific, and

microgravity payloads). For clarity, the charts also contain separate projections of on-orbit

failure replacement/Operations & Maintenance (O&M) payloads for both classes of LEO

systems. 

Consistent with the above discussion, Scenario 1 projects the deployment of three Big LEO

systems and two Little LEO systems, while Scenario 2 (the high-end outcome) projects the

deployment of four Big LEO systems and three Little LEO systems. Both scenarios assume

that a few satellites will also be deployed in support of non-U.S. Little LEO systems, with the

deployment taking place over a period of years in the form of secondary payload launches. 

 

 

3

In fact, these proposed systems appear to have more direct financial support from their respective

governments than is typically seen for proposed U.S. Little LEO systems.

 

4

Further information on the commercial remote sensing market can be obtained from the Department of

Commerce, Office of Air and Space Commercialization. 

5
Such satellites are counted among the general segment, rather than the Little LEO segment,

due to their unique nature.

More generally, OCST also assumes in both scenarios that all of the LEO systems deployed

in this time frame will undergo a full block replacement at the end of system life, using the

same number of satellites and a similar deployment scheme (hence the cyclical nature of the

satellite demand projected over the 10-year period). Such an assumption is reasonable in that

the market is still in an early stage of evolution, and it is difficult to know at this time what

changes, if any, systems must undergo in the future to provide newly desired services or more

effectively respond to competing technologies. In practice, however, second generation LEO

systems may change fundamentally as a result of technology advancements or newly offered

services, and out-year LEO satellite demand could be quite different from what is currently

projected. Moreover, the market is clearly entering a phase of fierce competition among

different forms of mobile communications services -- competition that will ultimately be

resolved on the basis of price, quality and flexibility of service, market timing, and relative

business strategies. Following this initial phase, it is certainly possible that consolidation will

occur among deployed systems (regardless of the scenario), or that a second generation

system will be reshaped to focus on a particular market niche, either of which could

significantly alter current out-year demand projections.

Finally, as stated earlier, it should be noted that the projections and deployment schemes

presented for Big and Little LEO systems in the two scenarios are representative of the

characteristics described in various proposals currently under consideration by industry, and

are not intended to signify OCST support for any individual system or proposal.

IV. Launch Demand

An assessment of the launch schemes for the various LEO constellations indicates that most

Big LEO proposers currently plan to deploy the bulk of their satellites initially on medium-tolarge commercial launch vehicles (capable of launching at least 10,000 to 20,000 pounds to

LEO). However, Big LEO proposers apparently intend to conduct at least some portion of

their failure replacement launches on small launch vehicles, usually in clusters of two or three

satellites. 

Little LEO proposers currently intend to conduct both initial deployment and failure

replacement launches on small launch vehicles due to the relatively small size of these

payloads.5

 Also, organizations planning remote sensing, international scientific, or

microgravity payloads will most likely use single or dual-manifested small launch vehicles.

Based on these assumptions, the resulting Scenario 1 demand for commercial launches to

LEO for the period between 1996 and 2005 should be:

 

 

5The exception to this general rule is the non-U.S. proposers of smaller Little LEO systems, who

seemingly plan to launch most of their satellites as secondary payloads on larger vehicles.

6
• 5 to 10 medium-to-large launches per year during deployment phases (depending on

the system and particular launch scheme), with the number of launches most likely

falling in the high end of this range during the years 1996-1998 and 2002-2003, and at

or near the low end of this range during the years 1999-2000 and 2004-2005; and 

• 9 to 12 small vehicle launches per year (but with only five launches in 1996).

The resulting Scenario 2 demand for commercial LEO launches for the same period should

be:

• 5 to 10 medium-to-large launches per year during deployment phases (now covering

most of the ten-year period in some form), with the number of launches most likely

falling in the high end of this range during the years 1996-2000 and 2002-2003, and at

or near the low end of this range during the years 2001 and 2004-2005; and 

• 10 to 15 small vehicle launches per year (but again with only five launches in 1996).

More specific estimates of LEO launch demand for the two market scenarios are provided in

Figure 6 with respect to years and vehicle classes.

Based on available information, the competitions for these launches should in most cases be

open to bids from all international commercial launch service providers. 

V. Implications of Dramatic Growth for Launch Capacity

Of particular concern to the U.S. Government and the industry is the question of whether

sufficient launch capacity and infrastructure exist to support a dramatic (very optimistic)

growth in the number of satellite systems that will be deployed in the 1996-2005 time frame. 

Although the market scenarios described above clearly reflect some growth relative to the

projections made in 1995, the numbers of LEO systems projected for deployment in this

period are still markedly less than the overall numbers presented in Figures 1 and 2. Given

this concern, OCST considered it potentially illuminating to assess the implications of

significantly higher growth in demand for MSS than is currently anticipated, which would

presumably result in the deployment of more LEO constellations (relative to the two baseline

scenarios). 

Accordingly, Figure 7 presents the potential satellite demand for two additional, "very-highgrowth" scenarios:

• the deployment of six Big and five Little LEO systems (used merely as an example of

a very-high-growth scenario); and 

• the deployment of six Big and five Little LEO systems, along with Teledesic

(currently the most developed proposal for a Mega LEO system).

7
Scenario 2 is also presented in the graph for comparison purposes. As can be seen from the

data, the deployment of 11 total LEO systems results primarily in a "leveling" of demand at

approximately 100 satellites per year, while the additional deployment of Teledesic increases

that demand by a factor of six during the deployment phase (and 15 to 20 percent per year

thereafter).

Similarly, Figures 8 and 9 provide the number of large and small vehicle launches resulting

from the two additional scenarios. It can be seen that the deployment of 11 total LEO

systems essentially doubles the number of large vehicle launches per year during deployment

phases (relative to Scenario 2), while the addition of Teledesic increases the total number of

large vehicle launches by nearly a factor of 10 per year during its deployment (again relative

to Scenario 2). It also results in a slight increase per year thereafter as failed Teledesic

satellites are replaced, primarily on medium-to-large vehicles. By comparison, the

deployment of 11 total LEO systems increases the projected number of small vehicle launches

per year by approximately 30 percent (relative to Scenario 2), while the addition of Teledesic

does not substantially change the projected number of annual small vehicle launches.6

Given such evidence, it would appear that the increase in deployed LEO systems from seven

in Scenario 2 to 11 in the first very-high-growth scenario results in a significant, though

perhaps not fundamental, shift in demand for satellites and launch vehicles. The addition of

Teledesic, however, would clearly represent a fundamental shift in the demand paradigm

relative to Scenarios 1 and 2, particularly if the system were deployed in the manner shown in

Figures 7 through 9. As such, it is likely that the world's commercial satellite and large

launch vehicle manufacturing industries would require a significant increase in active capacity

(relative to current or planned production and through-put levels) before being able to support

such a system in the manner currently planned. This increase in capacity will be even more

necessary (particularly for medium-to-large launch vehicles) if adequate margins are to be

maintained in both production and operations to allow for potential failures or slowdowns.

 

 

 

 

6Due to expected fairing volume constraints and other considerations, Teledesic reportedly does not

expect to use small launch vehicles for failure replacement launches.

8
Figure 1

PROPOSED BIG LEO COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEMS

TYPE SYSTEM OPERATOR SATELLITE

MANUFACTURER

OPERATIONAL

SATELLITES

SATELLITE 

MASS (lbs)

DEVELOPMENT 

COST ($B)

PROPOSED 1st 

LAUNCH

"MEGA" LEO Sativod Alcatel Espace TBD 64 1540 3 2001

Teledesic Teledesic Corp. TBD 840 1760 9 1999

AMSC AMSC Subsidiary Corp. TBD 12 5000 - 5500 Unknown 1998 - 1999

Constellation Constellation Comm. Lockheed Martin 46 1160 1.7 1999

Ellipso System Mobile Comm. Holdings TBD 16 1430 0.9 1998 - 1999

BIG LEO Globalstar Loral Qualcomm SS/Loral 48 990 1.9 1997

ICO ICO Global Comm. Hughes 10 5500 2.6 1999

Iridium Motorola Lockheed Martin 66 1500 3.4 1996

Odyssey TRW TRW 12 4800 2.3 1999

Signal KOSS Consortium NPO Energia 48 680 0.6 1996 - 1997

(1)

(2) (3)

(5)

k:\charts\032996.prs

(4)

Proposals for systems in intermediate circular or MEO orbits (such as AMSC, ICO, and Odyssey) have also been included in the 

study.

The proposals for Big LEO systems generally entail initial deployment in clusters on large vehicles. Failure replacement/O & M 

launches would, in most cases, utilize small launch vehicles. The systems generally assume a satellite failure rate of 

approximately 10%. (Most of the proposals involve the launch of spares in the initial deployment, which are not reflected in the 

table.)

The proposals typically call for deployment in 2 to 3 years.

Alcatel only recently proposed this potential Mega LEO system, which will likely change in configuration as the concept evolves. It 

is not yet clear whether the proposed service is truly equivalent to that proposed by Teledesic.

If deployed, this Russian LEO system would most likely be launched on Russian-built launch vehicles.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Figure 2

PROPOSED LITTLE LEO COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEMS

TYPE SYSTEM OPERATOR SATELLITE

MANUFACTURER

OPERATIONAL

SATELLITES

SATELLITE 

MASS (lbs)

DEVELOPMENT 

COST ($B)

PROPOSED 

1st LAUNCH

E-Sat E-Sat, Inc. TBD 6 250 Unknown 1997 - 1998

FAISAT

Final Analysis 

Comm. Final Analysis, Inc. 26 220 - 250 0.14 1997 - 1998

GE Americom GE American 

Comm. TBD 24 33 0.189 1997 - 1998

U.S. GEMNET CTA CTA Space Sys. 38 99 0.10+ 1997 - 1998

Starsys Starsys TBA 24 165 0.25 1997

Leo One USA Leo One USA TBD 48 274 0.2 1997 - 1998

Orbcomm Orbital Comm. Orbital Sciences 36 95 0.22 1995

Vitasat VITA Final Analysis 2 198 Unknown 1995

Elekon NPO-PM/Elbe Space

(Russia/Germany) NPO-PM 7 Unknown Unknown 1996 - 1997

Gonets Smolsat

(Russia) NPO-PM 12-36 500-550 Unknown 1996

Non-U.S. IRIS SAIT-Systems

(Belgium) OHB-System 2 Unknown 0.033 1997

Leo One Leo One Panamer.

(Mexico) CTA Space Sys. 12 - 24 330 Unknown 1997 - 1998

SAFIR OHB Teledata

(Germany OHB-System 6 132 Unknown 1997

(1) (2)

(3)

As with Big LEOs, the systems generally assume a satellite failure rate of approximately 10%. Also, some of the proposals involve the launch of spares 

in the initial deployment, which are not reflected in the table.

The proposals typically call for deployment in 2 to 3 years. The launches of purely experimental satellites are not included in the launch date summary.

Some of these systems may not involve the use of truly "hand-held" receiving devices (at least in their current configurations). In addition, these 

systems will most likely be launched on non-U.S. launch vehicles, in many cases as secondary (or "piggyback") payloads (e.g., SAFIR and IRIS). 

Finally, several other non-U.S. LEO systems are under discussion, but are not listed due to their comparatively early (and uncertain) stage of 

authorization and development. The previously-listed TAOS system has reportedly been cancelled by CNES.

1.

2.

3.

k:\charts\032996.prs
Figure 3

PROPOSED LEO SYSTEM ORBITS

NOTE: Systems are not listed if 

the orbit characteristics are 

either undefined or unknown. In 

cases where the system uses 

planes of different inclinations 

(e.g., an equatorial plane and 

inclined planes), the listing 

corresponds to the location of 

the majority of the satellites in 

the system. Ellipso is not shown 

because it uses elliptical orbits 

that do not apply to this format.

105.0

90.0

75.0

60.0

0.0

Altitude (Km)

10 100 10,000 100,00

0

1,000

Inclination of Orbit 

Plane (Degrees)

45.0

15.0

30.0

GE Americom

Teledesic

E-Sat

SAFIR Gonets

Elekon LEO One Pan.

Vitasat

IRIS

Iridium

FAISAT

Constellation

Odyssey AMSC

ICO

STARSYS

GLOBALSTAR

GEMNET

ORBCOMM

LEO One USA

k:\charts\032996.prs

Sativod
Figure 4

LEO COMMERCIAL PAYLOAD PROJECTIONS (SCENARIO 1)

(1)

Scenario 1 assumes that three Big LEO and two Little LEO systems will become operational. The projections 

and deployment schemes shown are representative of current proposals for LEO systems, and include the launch of 

spares.

 Numbers are approximations based on estimates of satellite failure rates for the five systems.

 Where appropriate, a 5-year on-orbit life cycle/system replacement phase was assumed for these classes of 

payloads. U.S. Government military and civil payloads have not been included. 

1.

2.

3.

MARKET 

SEGMENT 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Big LEO 24 69 36 6 6 0 43 30 24 32

Little LEO 0 30 16 12 0 0 24 24 12 0

Big/Little LEO

"O & M"

 Support

0 0 11 10 8 8 8 11 10 8

Remote 

Sensing/ Int'l 

Scientific/ 

Microgravity

5 7 7 7 3 3 7 6 8 3

TOTAL: 29 106 70 35 17 11 82 71 54 43

(3)

(2)

k:\charts\032996.prs
Figure 5

LEO COMMERCIAL PAYLOAD PROJECTIONS (SCENARIO 2)(1)

Scenario 2 assumes that four Big LEO and three Little LEO systems will become operational. The projections and 

deployment schemes shown are representative of current proposals for LEO systems, and include the launch of spares.

Numbers are approximations based on estimates of satellite failure rates for the seven systems.

 Where appropriate, a 5-year on-orbit life cycle/system replacement phase was assumed for these classes of payloads. U.S. 

Government military and civil payloads have not been included. 

1.

2.

3.

MARKET 

SEGMENT 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Big LEO(s) 24 69 36 8 13 3 43 30 24 32

Little LEO 0 30 32 34 0 0 24 40 34 0

Big/Little LEO

"O & M"

Support

0 0 11 10 12 8 8 11 10 12

Remote

Sensing/ Int'l 

Scientific/ 

Microgravity

5 7 7 7 3 3 7 6 8 3

TOTAL: 29 106 86 59 28 14 82 87 76 47

(3)

(2)

k:\charts\032996.prs
Figure 6

POTENTIAL LEO LAUNCH DEMAND FOR THE TWO MARKET SCENARIOS

VEHICLE 

SIZE 1996-98 1999-00 2001 2002-03 2004-05 1996-98 1999-00 2001 2002-03 2004-05

SMALL 

VEHICLE 

LAUNCHES

9-12/yr

(5 in 1996) 9-12/yr 9-12/yr 9-12/yr 9-12/yr 10-15/yr

(5 in 1996) 10-15/yr 10-15/yr 10-15/yr 10-15/yr

MED

-TOLARGE 

VEHICLE 

LAUNCHES

5-10/yr 3-6/yr 0 6-9/yr 4-6/yr 5-10/yr 6-9/yr 2-3/yr 6-9/yr 4-6/yr

SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2

NOTE: The launch ranges presented above are estimates only, and will in the end depend 

greatly on the particular system and launch scheme. 

 

k:\charts\032996.prs
Figure 7

POTENTIAL SATELLITE DEMAND IF MORE SYSTEMS ARE DEPLOYED

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Number of Satellites

Legend

Scenario 2

6 Big, 5 Little LEOs

6/5 LEOs & Teledesic

The graph reflects the total number of satellites resulting from each scenario, including 

O&M satellites for constellations and satellites for remote sensing, microgravity, etc.

Scenario 2 demand, presented in detail on previous charts, is shown again for 

comparison purposes.

 The two additional scenarios are presented only to demonstrate the implications of 

"higher" growth in the market (relative to Scenarios 1 and 2). The order of presentation 

is arbitrary.

The system characteristics and deployment schedules shown for the two additional 

scenarios reflect only the currently announced plans for each system. These plans are 

based on various assumptions concerning licensing dates, financing, and market 

approach, and may be subject to change as system concepts evolve.

1.

2.

3.

4.

k:\charts\032996.prs
Figure 8

POTENTIAL LARGE LAUNCH VEHICLE DEMAND IF MORE 

SYSTEMS ARE DEPLOYED

1996-1998 1999-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005

Deployment Period (Years)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Average No. of Large Vehicle

Launches per Year

Legend

Scenario 2

6 Big, 5 Little LEO's

6/5 Leos & Teledesic

NOTE: The launch projections shown above are 

estimates based on current launch-manifesting practices 

and the plans for each system. The actual number of 

launches in each scenario will depend on the 

deployment schemes ultimately chosen for each system. 

k:\charts\032996.prs
Figure 9

POTENTIAL SMALL LAUNCH VEHICLE DEMAND IF MORE 

SYSTEMS ARE DEPLOYED

k:\charts\032996.prs

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 6 Big, 5 Little LEOs 6/5 LEOs & Teledesic

Scenario

0

5

10

15

20

Average No. of Small Vehicle

Launches per Year

The average annual numbers of launches shown are representative of a range of launches expected to occur per 

year over the entire 10-year period. The actual launch levels will, in the end, depend on the individual systems that 

are deployed and the launch/failure replacement schemes chosen for each system.

Due to expected fairing volume constraints and other considerations, Teledesic reportedly does not expect to utilize 

small launch vehicles for failure replacements.

1.

2.

(1)

(2)