The New Space-As-A-Service Ecosystem

In a day and age where every part of the enterprise and government services operations is moving to the era of digitalization, the appearance of software as a dominant driver of changes is making more sense every day. And with this dominance comes new business models that are making their way even into the space industry, one of them is known of ‘space-as-a-service’ or ‘satellite-as-a-service’ or better known as SaaS. Strange resemblance with software-as-a-service from which it is inspired.

This model may have an impact on many corners of the traditional and stable, heavy hardware-centric space and satellite industry from Newspace players mainly that could open doors for new would-be space participants.

Buying Software but in Space

We define this new form of business as offering infrastructure for the provision of services to clients both upstream and downstream.

Upstream meaning here the ‘hard hat’ construction area: rocket, launch site, satellite, spacecraft, ground antenna and associated equipment

Downstream stands in for the ‘comfortable’ confines of users of the space and ground infrastructure built upstream. This is often referred to as value-add, data, analytics, AIS, M2M/IoT, backhaul, network operations, etc.

Some liken it to using a software version that is sitting on the cloud where users pay for a subscription to access and use it. In a way, it is a usage-based model, and that in today’s restrained cost structure of many newcomers, in particular the small satellite sector, it is a plus that helps expand the customer base by relieving some barriers to entry. However, it goes further than just giving the codes to a software: users can be part of the design process before lift-off and be given the keys to continue to (re)write the ‘code’ while in-orbit and operate the servers too.

To Orbit for Less

We have seen in recent past manufacturers like ISISPACE, Spire and Loft Orbital among others boasting their space-as-a-service model where one is moving the point of sale upstream in order to let clients gain access to services such as tasking of satellites, access to payloads data, modulating power and changing the payload capability ‘on-the-fly’.

Multiplying the missions and clients on a single spacecraft seems like old days (remember hosted payloads? They’re still around), but in the SaaS model, the SaaS provider ‘owns’ the infrastructure (not just part of it) and charges for the hardware pre- and post-launch. And it’s usually for a number of clients too. It maybe that the good old condosat terminology so dear to many providers has now outlived its function and the SaaS acronym has gained more power and a more ‘all-encompassing’ meaning where the driver here is to lower costs and still be in the driver’s seat (or feeling like it). And doing it quicker.

There are pre-launch charges for building to specs that fit clients’ needs and post-launch fees to deliver the services (from the payload), often on a subscription basis.  Let’s not forget also the intricate regulatory hurdles and licensing that comes with flying into space which can be taken care of by the SaaS provider. And sometimes payment flexibility or even financing help is added in the package.  The interest is certainly from far and wide as clients from the U.S. government (DARPA), Canada (CSA), France (Eutelsat), the UAE, Japan, etc. have signed deals with SaaS providers.

For the clients of SaaS, there are many pros and cons to this model, and it does have its limitations much like any model would have.

So, it is not a simple plan, with everyone paying the same for a piece of the hardware.  There can be, like for an airline, differentiated ‘seating’ where premium clients help ‘pay’ for a good portion of the flight and get enhanced services.

The inference in the recent iteration of what is effectively a ride on someone else’s satellite is that the timelines are much different and usually access to orbit is faster, and often to LEO. Claims of 12 to 18 months from order to launch are regularly seen in the offerings from different providers.

True, there is less complications too if an expert builds your satellite, and you can still have the design, build, launch, and operations bundled together (or most of it). Loft Orbital went as far as partnering with over 20 bus, payload, launch, and ground segment suppliers to make sure they have what clients need.

Shared Services

Exodus Orbitals has proposed a concept with an data app that no only lets users select instrument, order data, and download it in the format of their choice but also an another app to conduct software test on orbit, control the satellite and run the missions. All of it based on APIs. This comfort level with exploiting space-based assets is very much novel but in line with a simpler way to ‘sell space’ to a larger community.

The concept is akin to letting your infrastructure dollars in the bank to run your computing storage and processing on the cloud (often called platform-as-a-service).  It is as close as the ‘hands-off’ approach to space infrastructure ‘ownership’ as can be.

Early steps that went into making progress in SaaS were enabled and tested through projects such as ESA’s ARTES Pioneer program, with UK-based InSpace which developed a shared platform (Faraday 1^st Generation) for seven customers on a 6U cubesat.  Unfortunately, it failed to reach orbit but it was quite cutting edge with for example an Airbus’ software-defined (SD) test payload which no doubt was aimed at proving its OneSat SDsat payload.

A Large Enough Market?

A question however about this model: for what kind of satellite mass is this SaaS good for?  In reality, SaaS is likely to remain a niche value proposition for mass ranges below 250 kg based on the timelines and platforms proposed. Outside of that, the specialization aspects require different skills that are hard to come by in a full turnkey package.

Industry interest is definitely there for smallsat, but it is a well-known trend that as operators become more savvy with space tech, they have an increasing demand for higher mass categories due to capability-to-cost ratio which increases over time.

So, if we look at how much the SaaS market could aim at, in the mass range expected (below 250 kg), we must exclude the expected ‘captive’ satellites to be built, such as those built in-house by large HTS constellations operators (SpaceX, OneWeb, Amazon) who build their own constellation.



Once that is done, there is still at least 500-600 satellites that need to be built (and launched) each year over the next decade. This is still a sizeable market, but unfortunately one where price tends to drop over time as well on a per kg. basis.

Bottom Line

Is the SaaS a model that will have a wide impact on the way orders of satellites are made for the long-term? Not likely. But it does have intrinsic simplicity from the customer’ point of view which is probably a factor in deciding if going upstream is best left to the already crowded small satellite manufacturers’ market. It then leaves a door open for newcomers in the upstream market to expand the use of space-based applications based on their SaaS ownership.