## 3 Results
### Calculate Surplus Value of Alternatives, Visualize Results and Make Decisions  
The value assessment under uncertainty of the four options (single development--Xe, double development--Xe Kr, flexible development--reliability improved) was conducted by to establishing 'transition rules' [25] to simulate the customers' preferences for a  
Figure 7: 1000 scenario variations of market input data based on the Wiener stochastic model: (**a**) xenon price; (**b**) krypton price; (**c**) revenue per year; (**d**) cost launch per kg. The data regarding the revenue per year (**c**) are normalized to preserve company sensitive information. Each color line represents a single scenario (1000 scenario variations in total). xenon-based EP or a krypton-based EP. The assumption made in this study is that customers possess a financial model such as the surplus value to make such a decision. If the surplus value of a xenon-based EP is higher than the krypton alternative, the xenon alternative is preferred. Conversely, if the surplus value of a krypton-based EP is higher than the xenon alternative, the krypton alternative is preferred instead. This means that for Option 1 (single development--Xe) when the customers select a krypton option a business opportunity is lost for the manufacture (as customers purchase a krypton option from a competitor). Therefore, the model assumes that another manufacturer has developed a competing krypton option. Table 2 shows the number of chosen xenon-based EP and krypton-based EP after 500 runs of the Surplus Value model, considering the variations in parameters shown in Figure 7. In these new runs of the Surplus Value model, all the three markets in Table 1 are taken into account. Since the manufacturer does not exactly know when a certain market will take off, this uncertainty was also included. The assumption made is that Market 1 will take off between 0 and 5 years from today, while Market 2 will take off between 5 and 10 years. Market 3, which represents a more advanced megaconstellation scenario (Table 1) will take off between 10 and 15 years from today. This means that at every run of the surplus value model the starting point of the business is changed. For every run, the parameters in Figure 7 are changing depending on the time of the business start. Another assumption made is that the test and qualification costs are removed from the surplus values of options sold in Market 2 and Market 3. The motivation is that are already developed to respond to the sales demanded in Market 1. From the results of Table 2, it is visible how Option 1 represents a source of missed opportunities for the manufacturer, and that these missed opportunities increase for future markets. For example, in Market 2 in 6 cases (out of 500) the customers have chosen a Krypton option. For Market 3, these missed opportunities increase (336 out of 500). This is due to the fact that in Market 3 the differences in fluctuations in prices between xenon and krypton are higher than the other markets (Figure 7a,b). In Option 2 these opportunities are instead exploited by the manufacturer. The impact of Option 2 can be further understood in Figure 8, which shows the tradespace between surplus value and lifecycle costs for the different options, considering the transitions between the different markets (after 500 simulations). The data regarding SV and LCC have been normalized. In Figure 8, the higher uncertainties in prices can be seen by the larger \"spread\" of SV and LCC for Market 2 and Market 3, compared to Market 1. Please note that '0-5 years' for Market 1 means that the model considers the start of the business in a stochastic way (i.e., Market 1 starts randomly between 0 and 5 years from today). The same goes for Market 2 and Market 3. Figure 9 only shows the average surplus value and lifecycle costs point after the 500 simulation runs. The figures show how Option 2 becomes more beneficial than Option 1 considering different and uncertain markets.