Since the March 2012 deal between Boeing, SpaceX, ABS and Satmex, no full electric propulsion (EP) GEO Satcom had been ordered. July 2014 however marked the end of this dry period with the procurement of SES-12, Eutelsat-172B and the announcement, by India-based Aniara, of the procurement of two EP satellites.

These deals illustrate different aspects of the EP value-proposition. SES-12 will have a mass of 5,300 kg and a very large payload featuring 54 wide-beam transponders (36 MHz equivalents) and more than 80 spot-beams. In parallel, its mass means it could be launched on Falcon-9. By stacking a very large payload on a 5,300 kg satellite, SES is truly leveraging every aspect of EP. It may use a cheaper launcher, reducing CAPEX, while getting a very large payload on one satellite, maximizing the satellite’s capability, thus increasing its revenue generation capability.

Eutelsat-172B illustrates the same logic. With a mass of 3,500 kg it will be a fit for the low seat on Ariane-5, whose price was recently considerably lowered. But at the same time, the satellite will carry three payloads totaling 50 physical transponders and a 1.8 Gbps HTS payload.

In comparison, Aniara’s project is more similar to Boeing/SpaceX/ABS/Satmex deal. With a unit mass of 1,000 kg, they will each carry around 15 transponders and are baselined for a launch on GSLV. This project is clearly focused on launch cost savings but at the expense of satellite capabilities. Of note, Aniara’s satellites will be the first GEO satellites manufactured by Dauria Aerospace, and the GSLV is currently an unreliable launch vehicle whose next version is still in development.

The deals illustrate that the value-proposition of EP GEO satcom is improving as reliability concerns are addressed, but certain issues will not go away:

• Time is Money: An EP GEO satellite will take months to reach its destination (4 months for Eutelsat-172B), and this has a cost: From the cost to monitor the satellite for months of maneuvering to the interest on the project investment as revenue generation is delayed.

• Lack of Reactiveness: Given the orbit-raising time, an EP satellite is not wholly reactive, which is a no-go when it comes to unplanned replacement satellites. This is why EP will primarily be used for planned replacements.

• Opportunity cost: For extension projects, addressing new markets, the longer delay before the satellite is operational means that some revenues will be lost, and in some cases this could also give a head-start to a competitor (space or terrestrial). It will also be an issue for replacement satellites as they usually address a few new markets as well.

Bottom Line

As indicated in NSR’s Satellite Manufacturing and Launch Services, 4^th Edition, electric propulsion for GEO Satcom has value only when associated with a launch vehicle, be it to save on costs (such as Aniara satellites), to maximize the payload within a certain mass-range or to do both at the same time (such as SES-12 and Eutelsat-172B). Therefore, the value of EP is entirely related to the launch services supply, in terms of mass capability and price; Satellite Operators compare the negative aspects of an EP-based architecture to the gains. In the next few years, bigger launch vehicles such as the Angara-5, Ariane-5ME and Falcon-Heavy will become operational and will feature lower costs per kg than today’s launchers. When this happens, the value of EP will be considerably impacted.

This is why, despite the recent announcements, NSR does not expect full EP to represent a large share of the market for the next 10 years.