�ݺ�ߣ

Tyler Reyno
Queen��s Space Conference
February, 2016
Starting a Canadian Rocket Company
1

Outline
?Introduction
?Main point
?Support of a domestic launch capability
?Proposed route of development
?Overview of a proposed solution
?Wrapping things up
1
2

Introduction
?Tyler Reyno
? Open Space Orbital Inc.
? BEng (Mechanical)
? Ongoing MASc (Aeronautical)
3

Main Point
?Domestic launch capability
?Discussed primarily in terms of a private
company
5

Support Of A Domestic
Launch Capability
6

?Resource-based economy (limited) vs.
progressive technology-based economy
(unlimited)
2
Reasons Why It Makes Sense
7

?Technological position among
international competitors
Technological Relevance
8

?If nation doesn't apply evolutionary
pressure on itself, it remains in state of
neutrality
Technological Relevance
9

?Political position among international
competitors
Political Relevance
10

?Not mentioned among highest profile
nations like US, Russia and China
Political Relevance
11

?Space program without access to space
Access
12

?Ability to employ large amounts of
people with wide skill ranges + high level
intellect
Human Resources
13

?Should want this degree of genius
working in-country
Human Resources
14

?Last but not least, it��s necessary
?Tendency of something not growing is
to wither
It��s Necessary
15

?Decline of space program if we only
focus on maintenance without
increasing value
It��s Necessary
16

Proposed Route Of
Development
17

?Entry through the smallsat launch
industry:
? Roughly 250% market growth over next 5
years
? Supported by off-the-shelf smallsat
solutions
? Smallsat market value (approx. $7.4B)
Entering the Launch Industry
18

?Dedicated smallsat launchers seeing
increased demand
Entering the Launch Industry
19

?Easiest access in term of economics:
*Image credit: Skybox Imaging
Market Accessibility
20

?Other notes:
? Light lift most attractive among other lift
classes
? More in reach of Canada��s budget
? Low risk in terms of capital/resource loss
in case of failure
*Image credit: Skybox Imaging
Market Accessibility
21

?Regulatory and logistic realities support
us
Regulations and Logistics
22

?Greater political standing among many
European countries
Regulations and Logistics
23

?In terms of developing progressively
more capable launch capabilities
Stepping Stone
24

?There is market share available for
multiple smallsat launch capabilities
(private or public-private)
Competitive Analysis
25

Overview of a
Theoretical Solution 26

?13-year development timeline
?First launch slated for Year 6
Development Timeline
28

Outsourcing
?Outsourcing key components in the
beginning leads to faster access to
market
29

Proposed Outsourcing Strategy
?Main components:
? First stage engines
? COPV��s (fuel + oxidizer)
30

Result
?In-house development programs:
? All other components: Year 1-5 (5 years)
? First stage engines: Year 4-8 (5 years)
? COPV��s: Year 6-10 (5 years)
31

?Two primary locations:
? Engineering and development facility
? Corresponding spaceport
Establishment
32

?Close proximity between manufacturing
and launch facilities
Establishment
33

?Northern Nova Scotia is a good choice
?Located between North America and
European space markets
Location
34

?SSO and PO accessibility (popular
destinations among smallsats)
?Flight path above the Atlantic Ocean
?Reasonable inclination
35
Orbital Considerations

?Lean operation with talent located
under one roof is critical
?Main focus on high manufacturing and
launch frequencies
Operating Philosophy
36

?No reliance on radical, untried
technologies
?Prioritize simplicity and reliability
Design Philosophy
38

?90% of a vehicle��s cost comes in the last
10% of performance
Design Philosophy
39

?91% of rocket failures attributed to
three areas:
? Propulsion
? Separation
? Avionics
Failure Modes
40

?Pressure-fed propulsion systems
?Ablatively-cooled nozzles
?Vehicle engineering design with small
safety factors
Possible Simplification Methods
41

?Two-stage format
?50 kg payload capacity
?14 m length, 0.9 m diameter
?13,500 kg vehicle mass
?90-second first stage burn time
Proposed Rocket Characteristics
42

?New level of transportability
?Requirement for economically feasible
commercial smallsat launcher
Proposed Rocket Characteristics
43

?First stage engine:
? 35,000 lbf first stage
thrust
? LOX/ethanol
? Pintle injector
? Sea level specific impulse
of 220 s
Proposed Propulsion Characteristics
44

?Always a matter of economics
?Limiting factor facing customer base is
launch cost
Economics
46

?Human resources
?Supporting infrastructure and
technology
?Regulatory and legal considerations
Capital Requirements
47

?5-year development timeline and
budget:
? Year 1: $2,000,000
? Year 2: $18,000,000
? Year 3: $11,000,000
? Year 4: $16,000,000
? Year 5: $10,000,000
?Total: $57,000,000
Proposed Financial Plan
48

?Federal budget illustration:
? 2016: 0.41% of CSA budget
? 2017: 4.70% ��
? 2018: 3.41% ��
? 2019: 4.96% (extrapolated)
? 2020: 3.01% (extrapolated)
Public Enterprise
49

?Value received over investment is high
?Development of:
? Critical new infrastructure
? Space-supporting resources and
technology
Public Enterprise
50

?Operational and pricing target:
? $2,000,000 launch cost
? $40,000 per kg at 50 kg total payload
capacity
? 50 launches per year (approx. weekly
launches)
Business Goal
51

?Progressively increase launch rate:
? Year 1-5: No launches
? Year 6-8: 3 launches per year
? Year 9-10: 6 launches per year
? Year 11: 18 launches per year
? Year 12: 30 launches per year
? Year 13+: 50 launches per year
Launch Rate Strategy
52

?Progressively decrease cost:
? Year 6-8: $6M per launch (3 launches )
? Year 9-10: $5M per launch (6
? Year 11: $4M per launch (18
? Year 12: $3M per launch
? Year 13+: $2M per launch (50
lyear)
Pricing Strategy
53

?Progressively refined profit margins:
? Year 6-8: 11.8% (3 launches per year)
? Year 9-10: 30.8% (6 launches per year)
? Year 11: 72.5% (18 launches per year)
? Year 12: 48.3% (30 launches per year)
? Year 13+: 59.8% (50 launches per year)
Profit Margins
54

? Progressively increase launch rate while decreasing
cost
? Year 6-8: $6M per launch (3 launches per year)
? Year 9-10: $5M (6 launches per year)
? Year 11: $4M (18 launches per year)
? Year 12: $3M (30 launches per year)
? Year 13+: $2M (50 launches per year)
?119 performed launches
Stage
Employment
Spending
($M)
Operational
Spending
($M)
R&D
Spending
($M)
Total
Spending
($M)
Gross
Revenue
($M)
Net Revenue
($M)*
Net Revenue
($M) [After
Taxes]*
Year 6-13 101.4 15.5 170.365 287.265 583 280.95 210.71
Launch Period Spending
55

2028+ (Year 13+) Financial Summary
Employment spending (per year) $13M
Operational spending (per year) $0.05M
R&D spending (per year) $27.125M
Total spending (per year) $40.175M
Gross revenue (per year) $100M
Net revenue (per year)* $56.834M
Net revenue (per year) [After Taxes]* $42.625M
Price per launch $2M
Expenditure per launch $0.804M
Average profit per launch $1.196M
Average profit per launch assuming 5% failure $1.136M
Average profit per launch (5% failure) after taxes [25%]) $0.852M
Yearly profit (after taxes) $42.625M
Proposed Financial Plan Summary
56

2028+ (Year 13+) Financial Summary
Employment spending (per year) $13M
Operational spending (per year) $0.05M
R&D spending (per year) $27.125M
Total spending (per year) $40.175M
Gross revenue (per year) $100M
Net revenue (per year)* $56.834M
Net revenue (per year) [After Taxes]* $42.625M
Price per launch $2M
Expenditure per launch $0.804M
Average profit per launch $1.196M
Average profit per launch assuming 5% failure $1.136M
Average profit per launch (5% failure) after taxes [25%]) $0.852M
Yearly profit (after taxes) $42.625M
Proposed Financial Plan Summary
57

?*Net revenues consider 95% mission
success rate
?Year 13+ profit margin is 59.8%
?Cash positive at Year 6
?Maximum market share of 16%
Details
58

Review
?Illustration:
? Need for a domestic launch capability
? Potential operational, engineering and
financial philosophies
60

Review
?The time is right for this sort of
advancement
?The technologies exist
?The talent exists
61

Review
?Study of economic feasibility suggests
there may be impressive ROI
?Forward thinking and commercialization
will support us
62

?It��s going to have to be public-private
My Thoughts
63

?Public-private better in terms of:
? International government cooperation
? True growth of Canada��s space program
My Thoughts
64

Thank You
?QSC sponsors and delegates
?Attendees
?Company members, partners and
supporters
65

Tyler Reyno, Founder and CEO
+1 (902) 499-7671
info@openspaceorbital.com
66

�ݺ�ߣ

Starting a Canadian Rocket Company (Finished)

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Starting a Canadian Rocket Company (Finished) (20)

Starting a Canadian Rocket Company (Finished)

Editor's Notes