IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine - March 2019 - 69

march 2019

ieee Geoscience and remote sensing magazine

670

300

156

120

100

Mean Group
Valuations (US$ Millions)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

MSAT (kg)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
780

700

300

270

120

0
0

Mean Group Valuations (US$ Millions)

fIGURE 12. The average valuations for different groups of satellite
masses. The values on the x-axis might look equally distributed but
they are not. Because they represent only the values from the sample,
they have a discrete character. MSAT: satellite launch mass.

TMAS_c (Placed in Orbit), kg
(a)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
10
15
43
60
100
120
300
400
780
925
1,056
1,280
2,700
5,000
5,360
5,400

Mean Group Valuations (US$ Millions)

This can be explained by the fact that TER is often given
in approximate values: many companies declare a daily
time of revisit for their imagery, but checking whether
this statement is true is impossible because of the scarce
data about the planned orbits of the satellite constellation
and the lack of precise instrument specifications. Moreover, many start-ups present the expected revisit time, i.e.,
when the full constellation will be deployed; thus, it is not
possible to assess whether or not TER, as described by the
start-up, influences its current valuation. Despite this, we
noticed that most companies strive to make TER as small
as possible.
The next parameter to discuss is the satellite launch
mass. As noted earlier, among the start-ups considered in
the sample, there was no observed use of large satellites.
However, the remaining groups of nano, micro, mini,
and medium satellites exhibit correlations to VC valuations. As Figure 12 suggests, nano and minisatellites are
highly appreciated by venture capitalists, while the valuation of microsatellite and medium satellite missions is
not very high. We may assume that the reason for this
is the use of a large number of nanosatellites to provide
a competitive advantage by reducing revising time while
sacrificing image quality. Another approach is to utilize
a small number of heavier, more expensive, and, correspondingly, more reliable minisatellites that are able to
provide VHR imagery but have a lower revisit time, with
the same resources for constellation deployment as for
the nano class. It is difficult to say which of these approaches is more advantageous regarding market value,
but it is clear from Figure 12 that the second approach is
now more common among EO start-ups.
Microsatellites (with a mass from 10 to 100 kg, Table 4), which are seen more often than other types (see
Figure 7), receive a low assessment from venture capitalists. This may be explained by the fact that microsatellites are heavier compared to nanosatellites and that their
scale and infrequency in revisiting do not achieve a sufficiently high value for their cost.
To follow-up on the previous discussion, we developed an additional parameter-total launch mass in orbit-which reflects both the mass of individual satellites
and the number of objects in orbit. As can be seen from
Figure 13(a), a company can gain a high valuation even
with the use of nanosatellites, but it is necessary to put
into orbit a certain total mass of satellites (75-120 kg).
Even if a start-up claims only that it plans to put some
amount of satellites into orbit (what is represented by the
parameter of "total launch mass planned to be placed in
orbit"), its valuation noticeably increases [Figure 13(b)].
In this case, the minimum threshold lies in a range of
100-120 kg.
Therefore, all else being equal, our analysis suggests
that start-ups planning to utilize nanosatellites in EO
missions in low Earth orbit should aim at deploying large
constellations of at least 20 satellites. However, because

TMAS_p (Planned to Place in Orbit), kg
(b)
fIGURE 13. The average valuations for the total mass (a) placed

in orbit and (b) planned to be placed in orbit. The values on the
x-axis might look equally distributed but they are not. Because they
represent only the values from the sample, they have a discrete
character. TMAS_c: total launch mass currently in orbit; TMAS_p:
total launch mass planned to be placed in orbit.
69

IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine - March 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine - March 2019