Design of a business roadmap methodology: application in Air-Breathing Electric Propulsion (ABEP) systems for Very Low Earth Orbits (VLEO) missions

Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in Air-Breathing Electric Propulsion (ABEP) systems for Very Low Earth Orbits (VLEO) missions Document: Report Author: Vedran Poposki Stanojkovska Director/Co-director: Silvia Rodriguez Donaire Daniel Garcia Almi˜nana Degree: Bachelor in Aerospace Vehicle Engineering Examination session: Spring Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions Abstract This thesis serves the objective of developing a methodology for high level strategic planning to link an organisation’s business model with the projection of a technology’s development and its implications on the market. So, the roadmapping methodology proposed involves the definition of a state of the art of the technology studied, an in-depth study of the markets on which it can have an impact, the analysis of stakeholders involved in its development, a quantification of the influence of inside and outside factors on the technology, a projection of the investment budget needs and, finally, a visual representation of the development proposed. The proposed methodology can be applied to a variety of technologies with only little adaptation needed. In this thesis, it has been applied to a case study of Air Breathing Electric Propulsion (ABEP) in Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO) missions. VLEO refers to the region of Earth’s orbit between 80 and 400 km from the surface. This region has not been able to be exploited due to its conditions of high particle density, which creates drag and reduces the life of satellite missions dramatically, and the presence of highly corrosive atomic gas species. ABEP is a technology in development that collects these harmful particles and uses them as propellant for its electric thrusters, canceling the drag created and enabling sustainable long-term missions in VLEO. Through a series of commonly used tools for strategic planning and business analysis, a series of actions are proposed to deal with the main factors around the development of ABEP for the next 15 years. A cumulative investment budget of €2641 million is also calculated to best develop the proposed actions in the studied time span. I Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions Abstract Esta tesis responde al objetivo de desarrollar una metodolog´ıa de planificaci´on estrat´egica de alto nivel para vincular el modelo de negocio de una organizaci´on con la proyecci´on del desarrollo de una tecnolog´ıa y sus implicaciones en el mercado. As´ı, la metodolog´ıa de roadmapping propuesta implica la definici´on de un estado del arte de la tecnolog´ıa estudiada, un estudio en profundidad de los mercados en los que puede tener impacto, el an´alisis de los stakeholders implicados en su desarrollo, una cuantificaci´on de la influencia de factores internos y externos a la tecnolog´ıa, una proyecci´on de las necesidades presupuestarias de inversi´on y, finalmente, una representaci´on visual del desarrollo propuesto. La metodolog´ıa propuesta se puede aplicar a una variedad de tecnolog´ıas con solo una peque˜na adaptaci´on necesaria. En esta tesis, se ha aplicado a un caso de estudio de propulsi´on el´ectrica por respiraci´on de aire (ABEP) en misiones de muy baja ´orbita terrestre (VLEO). VLEO se refiere a la regi´on de la ´orbita de la Tierra entre 80 y 400 km de la superficie. Esta regi´on no ha podido ser explotada debido a sus condiciones de alta densidad de part´ıculas, lo que genera arrastre y reduce dr´asticamente la vida ´util de las misiones satelitales, y la presencia de especies de gases at´omicos altamente corrosivos. ABEP es una tecnolog´ıa en desarrollo que recolecta estas part´ıculas da˜ninas y las usa como propulsor para sus propulsores el´ectricos, cancelando la resistencia creada y permitiendo misiones sostenibles a largo plazo en VLEO. A trav´es de una serie de herramientas de uso com´un para la planificaci´on estrat´egica y el an´alisis empresarial, se proponen una serie de acciones para hacer frente a los principales factores en torno al desarrollo de la ABEP para los pr´oximos 15 a˜nos. Tambi´en se calcula un presupuesto de inversi´on acumulado de 2641 millones de euros para desarrollar mejor las acciones propuestas en el horizonte temporal estudiado. II Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aim .................................................. 1 1.2 Justification.............................................. 1 1.3 Requirements............................................. 2 1.4 Scope ................................................. 2 2 Roadmapping: State of the art 3 2.1 Rootsanddevelopment ....................................... 3 3 Methodology 6 4 Initiation 11 4.1 VLEO ................................................. 12 4.1.1 BenefitsofVLEO ...................................... 12 4.1.2 ChallengesofVLEO..................................... 12 5 Preprocessing 14 5.1 Propulsion Technology: State of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.1 Boost technologies for VLEO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.2 ABEPpropulsion....................................... 16 5.2 Marketstudy ............................................. 18 5.2.1 PESTELanalysis....................................... 24 5.2.2 Porter’sfiveforces ...................................... 24 5.3 Stakeholderanalysis ......................................... 25 5.3.1 Financingentities ...................................... 25 5.3.2 Technologydevelopers.................................... 25 5.3.3 Technologyimplementers .................................. 25 5.3.4 Customers........................................... 26 5.3.5 Spaceagencies ........................................ 26 5.3.6 Stakeholdermatrix...................................... 26 5.4 SWOTanalysis............................................ 27 III CONTENTS CONTENTS 6 Scenario generation and evaluation 29 6.1 Scenariogeneration.......................................... 29 6.2 Scenarioevaluation.......................................... 32 6.2.1 Linkinggrids ......................................... 32 6.2.2 SWOTiteration ....................................... 33 6.2.3 Final set of actions to develop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.2.4 Riskanalysis ......................................... 36 6.2.5 Key Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7 Roadmap generation 38 7.1 Timelinedefinition .......................................... 38 7.2 Roadmap:visualaspects....................................... 39 8 Budget 40 8.1 Actionduration............................................ 40 9 Environmental and social impact 42 10 Conclusions 44 IV Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions List of Figures 2.1 Very early roadmap of space missions. [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Sensing and data acquisition roadmap. [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 Market-product-technology layout highlighting the importance of product-technology synergy.[4] 4 2.4 Genealogical tree of academic schools of thought on roadmapping via their main publications.[9] 5 3.1 Stakeholder analysis grid. [10] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2 SWOTanalysisgrid.......................................... 8 3.3 Linkinggridsconcept[12]....................................... 9 3.4 Proposed methodology for the development of a roadmap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 Atmospheric density in terms of altitude. [17] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 Orbit lifetime in LEO and VLEO for several types of CubeSats. [18] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1 Temperature distribution inside two resistojet conducts of different geometry [21]. . . . . . . 15 5.2 Performance of electric propulsion systems [22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3 Generalised concept of ABEP systems [23]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4 ABEP Intake Designs developed by the DISCOVERER project [25]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.5 Distribution of satellites launched in each orbit class. Created using data from [13]. . . . . . . 18 5.6 Distance at closest (perigee) and furthest (apogee) point of Earth orbit among satellites in orbits closer than 1500 km from Earth’s surface. Orange highlight indicates region of circular VLEO. Created using data from [13]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.7 Categorization of satellites by mass [29]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.8 Share and number of smallsats launched between 2013 and 2022 classified by mass [29]. . . . 20 5.9 Share of smallsats launched between 2013 and 2022 classified by application [29]. . . . . . . . 20 5.10 List of commercial smallsat operators with 15 or more smallsats owned and the amount each controls[29]. ............................................. 21 5.11 Global space economy in 2021, segmented into satellite-related portions [30]. . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.12 2021 revenue distribution from satellite manufacturing [30]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.13 Market share of each of the 14 segments, in 2021 on the horizontal axis and in 2031 on the vertical axis. Size of bubbles signifies CAGR [28]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.14PESTELanalysis. .......................................... 24 V LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES 5.15 Stakeholder matrix. Based on [10]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.1 Impact/uncertainty matrix to assess the challenges proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.1 Action timeline sorted by roadmap lanes and period of application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 7.2 Action timeline sorted by roadmap lanes and action type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.1 Evolution of the budget required to implement this ABEP roadmap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 9.1 UN sustainable development goals[34]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 VI Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions List of Tables 5.1 Thruster technology comparison based on [22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2 Porter’sfiveforcesanalysis. ..................................... 24 5.3 SWOT. Strengths and actions to enhance them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.4 SWOT. Weaknesses and actions to alleviate them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.5 SWOT. Opportunities and actions to seize them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.6 SWOT. Threats and actions to decrease them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1 L/H matrix with scenarios for public funding and alternative non-ABEP propulsion capability forVLEO................................................ 30 6.2 L/H matrix with scenarios for private funding and alternative non-ABEP propulsion capability forVLEO................................................ 31 6.3 L/H matrix with scenarios for ABP technology readiness and alternative non-ABEP propulsion capabilityforVLEO.......................................... 31 6.4 L/H matrix with scenarios for public funding and private funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.5 L/H matrix with scenarios for public funding and technology radiness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.6 L/H matrix with scenarios for private funding and technology radiness. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.7 Firstlinkinggrid:markets. ..................................... 32 6.8 Second linking grid: technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.9 Thirdlinkinggrid:resources..................................... 33 6.10SWOT,seconditeration........................................ 33 6.11 SWOT iteration. Strengths and actions to enhance them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.12 SWOT iteration. Weaknesses and actions to alleviate them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.13 SWOT iteration. Opportunities and actions to seize them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.14 SWOT iteration. Threats and actions to decrease them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.15 Risk analysis for proposed actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.1 Period of implementation, start, finish and duration of actions proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8.1 Groupsofobjectives ......................................... 40 8.2 Objective served and Leverage Factor of actions proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 VII 2.1. ROOTS AND DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 2. ROADMAPPING: STATE OF THE ART It has been established that roadmapping developed initially from the industry with records as early as the 1960s. Academic research is easier to trace and date than industry documentation thanks to its public nature. The first publications on roadmapping, generally recognized as such, were not published until 2001 ([6], [7]), and it was not until 2004 that research laid a framework for roadmapping[8], proving a lag of research behind industry practice. Park et al.[9] found that seven distinct schools of thought have evolved from that initial framework. The Cambridge practical, Portland, Bangkok and Moscow schools work closely with the industry to aid with roadmap implementation in organizations, provide fast-start roadmapping workshops, improve decision-making processes and forecasting scenarios. On the other hand, the Cambridge phenomenological, Seoul and Beijing schools use their expertise to find and exploit research opportunities. Figure 2.4: Genealogical tree of academic schools of thought on roadmapping via their main publications.[9] 5 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 3. Methodology Through the review of key pieces of literature in chapter 2, a methodology for the development of roadmaps has been developed. The framework for the implementation of this methodology is divided into three general phases: 1. Initiation: To start the roadmapping process, consensus has to be built around the issues at hand, common objectives and the knowledge available. This phase consists of a systematic gathering of information to establish a common knowledge base, which allows an informed framing of the problem and definition of attainable objectives. On top of the preparation of a knowledge base, this phase includes the preparation of workshops, expert sessions and other activities necessary for the roadmapping process. 2. Development: The aim of this phase is to address the three main questions of Why?,What? and How? within the current, intermediate and future time frames of the project. The Development begins by establishing the current situation of the company and its technology, the sector, market and environment using a combination of literature review and situation analysis tools. This phase continues with the use of foresight and scenario generation to postulate and analyse possible futures and their impact. The phase continues with the determination of the actions needed to reach the objectives under the different scenarios. Finally, a series of KPIs are established to quantify future success. 3. Integration: Once the roadmap has been developed, an iterative process begins to study feedback from progress, analyze changes and shortcomings and adapt the roadmap to these new scenarios. Tools used for the development of the proposed roadmapping methodology are, in order of use, the following: •Literature review Find good literature, read, summarise and efficiently extract information. To be used to enhance understanding of methodology as well as establish the SOA. •Market study Gathering of information about the market trends, situation, competition and external factors that may influence the project. Related to literature review, market studies use a wider variety of information including policies, news articles or economic reports. •Stakeholder analysis 6 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Stakeholders are members or organizations that have an influence over the project through the responsibility of carrying out key activities or because of their power over resources or legislation. The aim of this analysis is to identify these target stakeholders at an early stage and assess their power, influence and interest to gain their support. To assess the involvement of each stakeholder, a stakeholder analysis grid similar to Figure 3.1 will be used. Figure 3.1: Stakeholder analysis grid. [10] Stakeholders are placed on the grid depending on their level of power and interest and then divided into four groups according to their placement: – Monitor: Low power, low interest stakeholders are necessary for the development but should not be bored with excessive communication. – Keep Informed: Low power, high interest stakeholders can add value to the project through very specific activities. They should be kept up to date on activities and somewhat invested in case their investment level/power increases. – Keep Satisfied: High power, low interest stakeholders should see their needs satisfied without excessive engagement, which may bore them. – Engage Closely: High power, high interest stakeholders should be managed closely and great efforts should be made to keep them satisfied. With a formed understanding of each agent, we can then specify which tasks each one will have to carry out. •PESTEL analysis PESTEL stands for Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal factors. This analysis helps organizations identify external factors of influence and understand how they may impact 7 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY the organization’s strategy and operations. •Porter’s 5 Forces The Five Forces Analysis[11] is a framework developed to analyze the competitive environment in which a business operates. The analysis considers five key forces that affect competition in the industry, namely: 1. The intensity of competitive rivalry. 2. The bargaining power of suppliers. 3. The bargaining power of buyers. 4. The threat of new entrants. 5. The threat of substitutes. •SWOT SWOT analysis is a strategic planning tool used to identify and evaluate an organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It involves analyzing both internal and external factors that affect the organization’s performance and using this information to make informed decisions and develop effective strategies. Figure 3.2: SWOT analysis grid. •Foresight and scenario generation Foresight is a practice that helps organizations navigate uncertainty and maximize their competitive advantage by preparing for the risks of different possible future scenarios. The proposed methodology extracts the most relevant uncertainties from the PESTEL diagram and sorts them in a 2-axis matrix ranking their impact and uncertainty. The most prominent challenges are then identified. In groups of two, 2 × 2 matrixes are filled out, in which the consequences of the combination of low and high likelihoods are studied. When all possible combinations are covered, a series of flex points that could change the course of development are identified. •Linking grids 8 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Linking grids classify strategies and helps transfer the needs of each layer of the roadmap to the next. Following the three-layer roadmap structure, one linking grid is made for each of market, technology and resources. The first grid sorts the different markets by interest and identifies the specific products each necessitates. The most relevant products to be developed are then placed on a second grid to determine the technological needs of their development. Finally, a third grid relates the most pressing technological needs and the resources available to continue their implementation and development. Linking grids are the first element used to visually establish the layered framework of the roadmap. Figure 3.3: Linking grids concept [12]. •SWOT iteration The foresight process is bound to reveal challenges and necessary actions that could have been previously ignored. For this reason a new, more concrete SWOT diagram is developed as well as a new set of actions that better fit the development of the technology. Given that this roadmapping methodology requires more focus on the process rather than the results, the previous iteration of the SWOT will not be changed for this new one. Rather, comparison between both will be encouraged to better understand why some factors gained or lost relevance. •Risk analysis Keeping the layered framework, risks for each action are evaluated in terms of market maturity, technology maturity and the maturity of the value network around the product and technology. Once the risks are known, ways to prevent them can be found. •Key Performance Indicators determination A set of clear KPIs will help determine the progress of the technology and market as well as enable stakeholders to assess their performance within the ABEP industry. •Flow chart An assortment of scenarios on the timeline can help understand the consequences of each action for the immediate and long term future of the company. Flow charts draw a relation between actions in different time periods. This allows for an action plan to be developed to improve continuity between 9 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY actions and better processes to be followed. •Roadmap format Formats can express very different things, we have to select the right one for the information to be conveyed. We will go for a traditional three-layered one. •Graphical aspects of a roadmap design Direction, colors, shapes and sizes, all can improve the cohesion of a roadmap, which in turn improves the conveying of information, making it faster and easier. Should draw attention to the •Budget estimation Once a set of definitive actions for the roadmap has been determined, periods of implementation are set for each. Using a tool specifically created for DISCOVERER, EU budgets for space are implemented to assign an expected yearly public expenditure to each action. A leverage factor (LF) that predicts how many private investor euros will be invested per public investment euro set to each action. The result of this section is a budget for the development of ABEP for the next 15 years. Figure 3.4: Proposed methodology for the development of a roadmap. 10 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 4. Initiation Placing satellites in Earth’s orbit has helped the progress of civilization by facilitating nearly instantaneous longdistance communication, offering precise positioning and navigation capabilities, enabling Earth observation and remote sensing from an unprecedented vantage point, and serving as a platform for scientific exploration beyond Earth’s surface. Satellites in Earth orbit can employ a variety of orbits, depending on the mission requirements and goals. The Union of Concerned Scientists, that maintains the largest database of satellites orbiting Earth, divides satellite orbits into two general classes[13]: nearly circular orbits and elliptical orbits. As a general rule of thumb, orbits with an eccentricity less than 0.14 can be classified as nearly circular, and those with eccentricity 0.14 and higher as elliptical. Nearly circular orbits can be subclassified in the following altitude regions: • Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO): Satellites in GEO orbit at an altitude of around 35700 kilometers above the Earth’s surface and have an orbital period of approximately 24 hours, allowing these satellites to appear nearly stationary as viewed from the Earth. This region allows for limited image resolution and coverage area. However, GEO satellites can be very successfully used for monitoring weather patterns and climate changes in specific regions. • Medium Earth Orbit (MEO): Satellites in MEO orbit at altitudes from 1700 to 35700 kilometers above the Earth’s surface. This type of orbit is commonly used for Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). The most important region of this band is near 20000 km, which corresponds to semi-synchronous orbits (12-hour period). • Low and Very Low Earth Orbits (LEO and VLEO): Satellites in LEO are situated at altitudes from 80 to around 1700 kilometers above the Earth’s surface. The upper altitude in this class corresponds to an orbital period of 2 hours. This type of orbit is commonly used for EO because it offers high-resolution imagery due to its close proximity to the Earth’s surface. These satellites can frequently revisit the same location on the Earth’s surface. – VLEO is a subdivision of LEO situated from 80 to 400 km from Earth’s surface. Given its proximity to the surface, image quality and communication capabilities from VLEO are much improved but it remains unexploited due to the challenges it brings. 11 4.1. VLEO CHAPTER 4. INITIATION 4.1 VLEO 4.1.1 Benefits of VLEO Studies [14, 15] have indicated that proximity to Earth offers several advantages for satellites. Lower satellite orbits provide a better link budget, reduce the latency and the transmit power requirements, as well as a wider band selection, leading to less interference. This not only translates to better quality and speed but also reduced size, complexity and cost of sensors carried on board. The proximity of VLEO may also imply reduced launcher power requirements per payload unit, which means more satellites can be uplifted in less launches, where more modest VLEO missions can piggyback the launchers of larger enterprises for a fraction of the current cost. Further cost reductions will ensue from placing the payload on smaller satellites, given the reduced size requirements of satellite payloads. 4.1.2 Challenges of VLEO Successful satellite operation in VLEO requires solutions to challenges primarily related to spacecraft interactions with the residual atmosphere present at such low orbits. These interactions lead to heightened drag and increased erosion caused by atomic oxygen. Changes in atmospheric parameters, such as density and thermospheric winds, have an effect on aerodynamic attitude and cause orbit perturbations. Figure 4.1 displays the increase in air density with the decrease in altitude, as well as the variation of atmospheric density depending on time of day. These air particles generate drag upon impact with the spacecraft and vastly reduce mission life, as shown in figure 4.2. In order to characterize this region researchers use the NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric model [16], which models the properties of the atmosphere’s components sing empirical data. 12 4.1. VLEO CHAPTER 4. INITIATION Figure 4.1: Atmospheric density in terms of altitude. [17] Figure 4.2: Orbit lifetime in LEO and VLEO for several types of CubeSats. [18] The object of this study, ABEP, is ground-breaking due to its ability to collect fuel in-situ when flying through an atmosphere containing gas particle, which are then used as fuel to compensate the drag and maintain the altitude, thus enabling VLEO use in a commercially viable manner. 13 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 5. Preprocessing 5.1 Propulsion Technology: State of the art Satellite propulsion has been a subject of study for over a century, beginning with Tsiolkovsky’s contemplations on rocket and electric thruster-powered space flights even before the first human-made satellites were even conceived [19]. Since those early musings, a wide array of satellite propulsion systems has been invented, developed, implemented, and adapted to suit diverse mission requirements. In recent times, notable progress has been made in satellite propulsion technology. This progress encompasses both advancements in existing technology the introduction and development of new, more sustainable propulsion systems. This state of the art aims to provide an overview of the current state of propulsion technology for satellites in VLEO, the types of systems available, recent developments, and future trends, with a focus on ABEP. 5.1.1 Boost technologies for VLEO VLEO has a very specific set of conditions and requirements as pointed out in [20], where Leomanni et al. provide an overlook of propulsion options for VLEO, ABEP aside. As is the case for most other articles, [20] uses the NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric model to accurately account for conditions in the lower thermosphere. The technologies covered can be classified in two different ways. The first classification is use of propulsion, divided mainly between attitude control and main propulsion. Attitude control requires short bursts, few and far between, to rotate the satellite in order to keep it pointing in the desired direction. Meanwhile, a main propulsion system is tasked with providing thrust to the spacecraft to alter its orbital altitude, gain speed to travel long distances faster or counteract forces that may be pulling the satellite in unwanted directions. A second classification method lies in the propellant used. While some systems simply eject pressurized gas carried on board, others rely on chemical reactions among solids, liquids or gasses or use electrical energy to energize particles and eject them from the back. The most basic propulsion method are cold gas thrusters (CGT), that essentially consist of little more than a valve and a nozzle. Gas is stored in a pressurized, unheated tank from which it can be released to move objects in space such as astronauts. Nitrogen, helium and butane are generally the most used thanks to the fact that they are highly inert, which makes them safer, and have a reasonably low molecular mass. The simplicity of this concept is unmatched, which has seen it be widely used in space. Electrical power requirements are low [20] and their weight is too. However, very low specific impulse and, therefore, low 14 5.2. MARKET STUDY CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING operators, an oligopoly, is one that has to be addressed with international laws and regulations. Figure 5.10: List of commercial smallsat operators with 15 or more smallsats owned and the amount each controls [29]. Given that the largest companies in the previous list are from the United States, it is no surprise that operators from the US own 74% of the smallsats lanched in the period studied by [29]. The United Kingdom place second in this statistic with 8% of the spacecraft, mainly thanks to OneWeb that own 7% of the global smallsats. Chinse operators control 6% and the rest is distributed mainly among Japan, Russia, Canada, Germany, Argentina and 67 other countries that complete the statistic. Even though most of the satellites are owned by for-profit organizations, interest from governments is also rising. 186 smallsats have been launched by governments for civil use since 2013, mainly by space agencies snd laboratories from the USA, Japan, Russia, India and China. A near-identical amount, 184, have been deployed by governments for national security purposes, more than half by the USA. When it comes to academic use, Chinese, American and Japanese institutions conform the majority of the more than 200 academic operators of smallsats [29]. As presented in [30], the satellite industry is the sector of space economy best oriented towards the market. From the 386 billion dollars earned in revenue worldwide in 2021 by the space economy, 72%, 279 billion dollars, were related to the satellite industry, as is made clear in figure 5.11 21 5.2. MARKET STUDY CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING Figure 5.11: Global space economy in 2021, segmented into satellite-related portions [30]. While not all the industries relate directly to ABEP, introduction of this technology is bound to have an indirect impact on all of them. ABEP development and production will participate in the satellite manufacturing industry section of the economy, that earned 13,7 billion dollars in revenue in 2021. The distribution of this money is as follows: 7,5 of the 13,7 billion were made by US companies while the remaining 6,2 billion was distributed throughout the rest of the world; 82% of the manufacturing revenue was related to commercial communications, followed by 9% from remote sensing operations and 4% from research and development. Figure 5.12: 2021 revenue distribution from satellite manufacturing [30]. 22 5.2. MARKET STUDY CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING It is clear that the main driver of interest in VLEO and, in turn, in ABEP is the communications market, and this is only expected to grow as global connectivity and the Internet of Things are factors of interest and investment. It is interesting, however, to study the drivers of the other markets. The revenues garnered because of remote sensing satellite manufacturing, despite being less than 10% of the total, still amounted to over 1,2 billion dollars in 2021. EUSPA [28] calculated revenues from Earth observation data and services at 2,8 billion euro for the year 2021 and predicts a revenue of 5,5 billion euro in the year 2031. The study analyses in depth the impact and potential of EO data in 14 different market segments. Figure 5.13 shows the relative importance, market share, of each of these segments on the general market. From 2021 to 2031, an average of a 3,5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is expected for most segments besides one: Insurance and finance, which is expected to grow 21% in the following decade to become the leader in demand for remote sensing data. Figure 5.13: Market share of each of the 14 segments, in 2021 on the horizontal axis and in 2031 on the vertical axis. Size of bubbles signifies CAGR [28]. The mentioned report [28] makes emphasis on the fact that it is not EO data that generates the most revenue but the value-added services around it instead.Of the 2,8 billion euro earned in 2021, 600 million came from the sale of data while the remaining 2,2 billion were a result of value-added services. The leading demand markets are identified as the United States in the first place, the Asia-Pacific region in second place and the EU in third. Leading providers, however, are the US with 42% of the market share and the EU with 41%. An opportunity is identified for Europe to gain the leading spot in the EO services market if VLEO is exploited correctly. Another key takeaway from the EUSPA report is the characterization of organizations operating in the EO data and services market. According to [28] 93% of these companies are SMEs and 70% employ less than 10 workers. This is an indication that the market’s barrier of entry is low and businesses that manage to attract outside investment can stand out from the rest and grow significantly, absorbing rival companies and taking up market share. 23 5.2. MARKET STUDY CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING 5.2.1 PESTEL analysis PESTEL will be the tool used to determine the opportunities and threats to the ABEP market. We will be able to analyze the positive and negative shifts in the current market with the assistance of this tool. Figure 5.14: PESTEL analysis. 5.2.2 Porter’s five forces By elaborating an analysis of Porter’s 5 forces we can better characterize the industry’s strengths, weaknesses and competitiveness. With conclusions from 5.2 we can build on what was explained in 3 and assemble the following table where each threat is given a valuation from very low, low, high and very high. Justifications for each valuation are given in the right column. Table 5.2: Porter’s five forces analysis. Threat of new entrants High Low technological barrier of entry, large economical funding needed. Market dominated by SMEs with high risk-high reward mentality. Threat of substitutes Low No other propulsion system is capable of sustainably supporting VLEO like ABEP. Supplier power Very high High quality standards. Very few companies capable of manufacturing ABEP components. Customer power Low Customers willing to switch to VLEO have no other providers to switch to. Competitive rivalry Low A number of countries developing technology. Since there are no big companies, there is high competition to become top provider. 24 5.3. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING 5.3 Stakeholder analysis 5.3.1 Financing entities Financing entities are responsible for providing the funds necessary to advance research and the application of the ABEP technology with the objective of getting financial profits in return. Organizations found in this group have little to no involvement in technology development, their interest lies solely on the economical benefit. Two different profiles can be distinguished in this group, private investors [31] and public investors. In the first group angel investors, venture capital firms and private equity firms might be found, that look for high growth ventures to invest in at earlier maturity stages, leveraging risk over the potential of multiplying their investment in 3 to 5 years. Private investors might also be lenders like banks, that provide debt financing to more established developers expecting profits from interest rates. Corporations also fall into this group due to their role in acquiring equity in smaller enterprises to support larger projects. The public branch of investors is formed by national governments and the European Commission, usually through research grants and funds. Their interest is more geared towards facilitating the development and technologies and markets that may impulse European industry into a better global standing. In this case, the EC is interested in funding ABEP research because of the large potential of VLEO not only for the industry but also for European public projects. 5.3.2 Technology developers The technology developers group is composed by companies, universities and research groups tasked with the research into and development of ABEP technology with the objective of receiving funding from financing entities and benefiting from the commercialization of patented technologies. Universities are generally regarded as the main developers due to their capacity to secure funding, size and technical knowledge. Research projects like DISCOVERER unite developers to accelerate development and compound the collective power of its members. In the case of DISCOVERER the main developers are Stuttgasrt University and the Manchester University. 5.3.3 Technology implementers Technology implementers are the ones that will employ the technology developed to build a business model around its sale or exploitation. In the case of ABEP the main actors are large companies with experience in the commercialization of satellite components, other types of propulsion and aerospace systems. Satellite operators, despite not benefiting from the direct sale of ABEP technology, also fall into this category because their product is directly facilitated by ABEP. 25 5.3. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING 5.3.4 Customers This category of stakeholder is the one driving demand for the benefits achievable by the technology. Customers support the ecosystem by employing their bargaining power to push implementers to take risks to fulfill their requirements. Companies making use of EO imaging and data as well as telecommunication corporations looking to improve their services are identified as the customers for ABEP-facilitated services. Some intergovernmental agencies like Copernicus [32], border and coast guards, the European Environmental Agency and Mercator Ocean [33] also represent clients, regardless of the fact that their funding comes from public sources. 5.3.5 Space agencies Space agencies have a unique role as both developers and implementers since they are composed of a variety of laboratories and research centers developing technologies like ABEP but also propose projects for the use of these technologies in various missions. 5.3.6 Stakeholder matrix As was explained in 3, stakeholders are assessed based on their level of interest and power using the matrix portrayed in figure 3.1. Stakeholders in the upper right quadrant should be engaged closely, kept satisfied if they are in the upper left quadrant,kept informed of development and plans if they have been situated in the bottom right quadrant and simply monitored if they are in the bottom left sector. 26 5.4. SWOT ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING Figure 5.15: Stakeholder matrix. Based on [10]. 5.4 SWOT analysis After analyzing all the factors involved in ABEP and its environment, a SWOT study of ABEP and the infrastructure around it will be now developed. To make a more complete use of the tool, an action is proposed for each strength, weakness, opportunity and threat that is intended to tackle shortcomings and boost the benefits. Strengths Table 5.3: SWOT. Strengths and actions to enhance them. ID STRENGTH ACTION S1 No on-board fuel requirements. Promote long missions in VLEO. S2 Controlled lifespan and disposal. Stricter regulation on space debris disposal. S3 Less energy required to place in orbit. Study in-Europe development of smaller, cheaper launchers. S4 Reduces costs of payload and operation. Keep reducing costs. S5 Can perform in low-density atmospheres outside of the Earth. Promote extraterrestrial missions to study Mars and Venus atmospheres. 27 5.4. SWOT ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5. PREPROCESSING Weaknesses Table 5.4: SWOT. Weaknesses and actions to alleviate them. ID WEAKNESS ACTION W1 Low readiness level. Fund research projects and attract large companies to boost research interest. W2 High energy consumption. Fund cutting-edge research on solar panels. W3 Complex to manufacture Study alternative manufacturing methods such as additive manufacturing. W4 Limited range of application. Promote interest in VLEO to create niche. W5 Small field of view. Use constellations. W6 Attitude control under aerodynamic perturbation. Test extent of effect. Using part of the cold gas for attitude control should be researched. Opportunities Table 5.5: SWOT. Opportunities and actions to seize them. ID OPPORTUNITY ACTION O1 Enables sustainable VLEO market expansion. Exploit to become world leaders. O2 Large knowledge base on ABEP thanks to multiple EU-funded research projects. . Keep funding joint research projects between universities and industry. O3 Abundant public investment in space technology. Roadmap to coordinate development of space technologies and set milestones. O4 Rapidly growing private sector with large investment in NewSpace. Establish partnerships between public and private sector. O5 EU funding with strong investment, large interest. Renewal of EO projects such as Copernicus and GNSS projects such as Galileo. Promote communications project. Threats Table 5.6: SWOT. Threats and actions to decrease them. ID THREAT ACTION T1 Competing technology developers such as Russia or China. Increase investment to accelerate development. T2 Potential bad use of data obtained from VLEO. Strong regulation. Democratization of data. T3 Underdevelopment of erosion resistant materials in VLEO. Keep researching materials. T4 All re-entering space debris travels through VLEO. Improve debris tracking and regulation. 28 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 6. Scenario generation and evaluation 6.1 Scenario generation The objective of this section is to obtain the most likely or interesting set of scenarios ABEP progress could find itself in to later evaluate their impact and risk. An understanding of the most relevant factors affecting the future of ABEP development has been formed from the PESTEL and market analyses. At this point, these factors are synthesised to derive the main drivers regarding ABEP development: 1. Private investment 2. Public investment 3. Technological advancements 4. Cost of manufacturing 5. Development of legal framework 6. Orbital debris regulation development In a similar way to the obtaining of the drivers, the main challenges that ABEP could have to overcome are presented to be the following : 1. Technology can’t fulfill expectations, VLEO is too much of a challenge. 2. Fuel-carrying propulsion systems outperform and are chosen over ABEP. 3. No EU satellite missions are developed where ABEP can be included. 4. EU doesn’t provide grants, loans or funds. 5. Regulation doesn’t allow VLEO exploitation. 6. Cost of experimentation and development drives investors away. 7. Technology is not ready for market on expected schedule. In order to select the challenges of largest interest, the impact and uncertainty of each is assessed in the following matrix. The challenges selected as most interesting are highlighted in yellow. 29 6.1. SCENARIO GENERATION CHAPTER 6. SCENARIO GENERATION AND EVALUATION Figure 6.1: Impact/uncertainty matrix to assess the challenges proposed. The highlighted challenges worth exploring further are the ones with the highest impact: 2. Fuel-carrying propulsion systems outperform and are chosen over ABEP. 4. EU doesn’t provide grants, loans or funds. 6. Cost of experimentation and development drives investors away. 7. Technology is not ready for market on expected schedule. The selected uncertainties will now be evaluated in pairs in order to create a scenario for each combination. This evaluation is performed using Low/High likelihood, or L/H, matrixes, that consist of four cells where a scenario is proposed with the combination of a low or high proposed likelihood of each uncertainty happening. Table 6.1: L/H matrix with scenarios for public funding and alternative non-ABEP propulsion capability for VLEO. No public funding / Other options outperform ABEP LOW/HIGH HIGH/HIGH Public-funded research with better options available on the market. ABEP technology will continue to be developed until it is market-ready. Development will be slower due to private sector investing in other options. Focus might shift towards development of ABEP for other uses outside VLEO. No public funding for research with better options available on the market. Technology is abandoned for the moment. LOW/LOW HIGH/LOW Public-funded research with no better options available on the market. Private sector is more willing to invest as ABEP is the only good option. Development of various modes of ABEP increases. No public funding for research with no better options available on the market. Loss of confidence from private sector. Companies will have to fund their own development programs, possibly even privatising the technology. EU loses on an opportunity to establish itself as a power. 30 6.2. SCENARIO EVALUATION CHAPTER 6. SCENARIO GENERATION AND EVALUATION •Internal rate of return. •Cost per unit, cost per constellation. 37 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 7. Roadmap generation 7.1 Timeline definition Time is an essential factor in roadmaps so in order to develop one from the actions proposed, a relationship with time has to be given to each one. Firstly actions are categorised by period of implementation, each action being situated in a period from short, short-medium, medium, medium-long or long. Given a total length of applicability for this project of 15 years, the periods previously established can be set to precise years in this range. Table 7.1 shows the results of this exercise. Table 7.1: Period of implementation, start, finish and duration of actions proposed. PERIOD ACTION ACTION DESCRIPTION INITIAL YEAR ENDING YEAR DURATION Short AS3 Stricter space debris regulation 0 2 2 Short AW1 Create alliances between SMEs and established companies with capacity to manufacture. 0 5 5 Short AW2 Continue research and development of corrosion resistant materials. 0 7 7 Short AO1 Create ABEP community to improve public-private collaboration. 0 4 4 Short AO2 Use EU fundings to increase TRL. 0 7 7 Short AO3 Develop ABEP technologies roadmap. 0 2 2 Short AT2 Regulate amount of VLEO satellite constellations launched per company. 0 3 3 Short-medium AS1 Enhance international collaboration and promote joint research projects to advance TRL. 2 8 6 Short-medium AT1 Create patents to protect IP. 2 5 3 Short-medium AW3 Validate ABEP in VLEO satellite platforms. 2 6 4 Medium AT3 Improve technological capabilites of Europe. 5 15 10 Medium-long AS2 Promote missions to Solar System bodies with an atmosphere. 7 15 8 If we now apply this information to a table separated in the three main rows of a roadmap and vertically divided in 15 columns, a primitive roadmap is obtained (Figure 7.1). Figure 7.1: Action timeline sorted by roadmap lanes and period of application. 38 7.2. ROADMAP: VISUAL ASPECTS CHAPTER 7. ROADMAP GENERATION 7.2 Roadmap: visual aspects Taking figure 7.1 as a starting point, an additional classification method is implemented for the studied actions. Color coding is applied to distinguish whether an action relates to investment, regulation, network, strategy, research or production, with combinations being possible. In the case of a combination of action type, the outer color will relate to the more general type. Some actions have also been rearranged vertically so that the timeline is more intuitive to read. In figure 7.1, readability has also been enhanced by removing horizontal lines, instead giving each lane its characteristic background color. A font change to the easier to read Arial has also been used to improve the roadmap. Finally, the identification of each action has been removed in favor of a short explanation of the action. Figure 7.2: Action timeline sorted by roadmap lanes and action type. 39 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 8. Budget In order for the project to prove its suitability, a budget estimation is necessary. The objective of this exercise is to obtain the total cost of the project as well as how this cost is divided between public and private investors. It is also interesting to know which actions incur the largest costs. In order to develop this section of the study a tool provided by the directors is used, which is shared with published articles by the DISCOVERER project such as [40]. 8.1 Action duration Firstly, it is necessary to organize the actions in groups that are easier to research and characterize. Actions are associated to five groups of objectives for which total investment is known [41]. Using the percentage of the space budget allocated by the EC to technology and roadmap development, a relation is acquired that approximates the portion of the total EU investment destined to this roadmap. Table 8.1: Groups of objectives NºGroup of objectives: NºActions per objective: UE total investment (€M) Investment in this roadmap (€M) g1 Market (Companies collaboration) 2 31000 186 g2 Economical - Private and Public Investing 4 15000 90 g3 Technological - Technology advances development 5 55000 330 g4 Environmental - propulsion systems 2 15300 91,8 g5 Access to Space Regulation 2 25 25 Investment in the roadmap for ABEP will not come only from public sources. Leverage Factor is a relation between the public and private investment amounts that approximates the quantity of private money that will be invested in the project for every euro the public administration raises. Actions serving goals of only public interest, like Space Regulation, will attract no money from the outsider and have an LF of 0. Developing strategy such as ABEP has a 1, as well as the promotion of Solar System missions. The actions that would bring the most private funding for every public euro spent are the creation of alliances between companies for manufacture and the investment and improvement of technological capabilities. The breakdown of this is provided in table 8.2. 40 8.1. ACTION DURATION CHAPTER 8. BUDGET Table 8.2: Objective served and Leverage Factor of actions proposed. ACTION ACTION DESCRIPTION OBJECTIVE LF AS3 Stricter space debris regulation g5 0 AW1 Create alliances between SMEs and established companies with capacity to manufacture. g1 7 AW2 Continue research and development of corrosion resistant materials. g3 5 AO1 Create ABEP community to improve public-private collaboration. g2 2 AO2 Use EU fundings to increase TRL. g2 4 AO3 Develop ABEP technologies roadmap. g3 1 AT2 Regulate amount of VLEO satellite constellations launched per company. g5 0 AS1 Enhance international collaboration and promote joint research projects to advance TRL. g3; g4 2 AT1 Create patents to protect IP. g1 2 AW3 Validate ABEP in VLEO satellite platforms. g3; g4 6 AT3 Improve technological capabilites of Europe. g2; g3 7 AS2 Promote missions to Solar System bodies with an atmosphere. g2 1 No more inputs are needed to obtain the results we were looking for. An estimation of the total budget for each action is calculated taking into account its portion of the group it belongs to. After this, the yearly public investment comes from dividing the action’s total budget by its duration, while the private investment yearly budget is calculated using the LF. Once investments are properly distributed by year, a total amount of €2641 million is given as the total investment drawn in by the actions of this roadmap in the next 15 years. Figure 8.1 displays how these investments are compounded throughout the years. Figure 8.1: Evolution of the budget required to implement this ABEP roadmap. According to the tool used, the most amount of money per year will have to invested in creating industry alliances (€149 million/year) and improving Europe’s technological capabilities (€116 million/year). 41 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 9. Environmental and social impact The purpose of this section is to illustrate the potential social and environmental effects that ABEP may have on society. This section gives a general overview of how the propulsion technology studied affects the United Nations’ (UN) goals for sustainable development (SDGs). Outline the fact that these objectives are part of the UN’s 2030 Agenda and describe the actions that will be taken to advance human prosperity while protecting the environment [34]. Figure 9.1: UN sustainable development goals[34]. The fact that ABEP enables access to VLEO will have a very large impact on EU industry and infrastructure not only by creating a new market with fast economic growth but also by providing a platform for satellite operators to provide better services that can improve life on Earth. A summary of the impact of this roadmap on each SDG is provided below. 42 CHAPTER 9. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT Table 9.1: UN’s SDGs and how this study impacts them. Goal number Goal title Impact 1 No Poverty Low 2 Zero Hunger Low 3 Good Health and Well-being Very low 4 Quality Education Medium 5 Gender Equality High 6 Clean Water and Sanitation Low 7 Affordable and Clean Energy Low 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth Very High 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure Very High 10 Reducing Inequality Medium 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities Low 12 Responsible Consumption and Production Very low 13 Climate Action High 14 Life Below Water Very low 15 Life On Land Very Low 16 Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Medium 17 Partnerships for the Goals Very high 43 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions 10. Conclusions The conclusions of this work can be divided into two main sections: the quality of the methodology developed and the results from implementing it with ABEP technology in mind. Regarding the methodology presented in this thesis, it has been devised with from a deep analysis of 27 articles on roadmapping evolution, research and methodologies, done together with colleague Ingrid Santamaria Hern´andez and thesis director Silvia Rodriguez Donaire. This methodology also takes aspects from roadmaps developed by project management experts employed in the DISCOVERER project. Therefore, it can be said that the methodology presented provides an update on models used in the past, resulting in a more thoughtful analysis process that yields more complete and detailed results. Furthermore, the proposed methodology requires little previous learning for inexperienced users, since most project management tools used are well-known and information on how to use them abundant. When it comes to the result of the application of this methodology on the development of ABEP for VLEO, it should be emphasized that results and their origin are clear in every step of the process. The final result of the process is, as was desired, a visually clear and informative roadmap that can be used as a stand-alone or together with the background information. There are comments to be made about the subjectivity of some decisions regarding choice of actions and scenarios. However, the process of information gathering and processing that acts as a base for these decisions is thought out to be as objective and clear as possible, with data always at hand to support each claim. As mentioned in the scope, an iterative process is needed to take into account opinions from industry specialists and project management experts, that may redirect the course of the roadmap towards different results. The roadmap, since it is a live document, should also be updated periodically to account for the latest changes in the industry. Despite the fact that this iteration was not intended to be implemented at the beginning of the project, a meeting with Kreios, a company focused on ABEP development, was arranged towards the end of the project to present the work done and get suggestions of changes to be implemented. 44 Design of a Business Roadmap methodology: Application in ABEP systems for VLEO missions Bibliography 1. KERR, Clive; PHAAL, Robert. Technology roadmapping: Industrial roots, forgotten history and unknown origins. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020, vol. 155, p. 119967. Available from doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119967. 2. FINGER, H. Nuclear rockets based on graphite reactor technology - Their applications and development status - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS). 1964. Available also from: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/ citations/19660007674. 3. NASA. Space electronics technology summary. NASA-TM-X-73044. 1976. Available also from: https: //ia801204.us.archive.org/24/items/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19760013281/NASA_NTRS_Archive_ 19760013281.pdf. 4. GROENVELD, Pieter. Roadmapping Integrates Business and Technology. Research-Technology Management. 1997, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 48–55. Available from doi:10.1080/08956308.1997.11671157. 5. EIRMA et al. Technology roadmapping: Delivering business vision. Working Group Reports. 1997. 6. PHAAL, R.; FARRUKH, C.J.P.; PROBERT, D.R. Characterisation of technology roadmaps: purpose and format. In: PICMET ’01. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings Vol.1: Book of Summaries (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37199). 2001, vol. Supplement, 367–374 vol.2. Available from doi:10.1109/PICMET.2001.952036. 7. PHAAL, Robert; FARRUKH, Clare; PROBERT, David. T-Plan. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 8. PHAAL, Robert; FARRUKH, Clare J.P.; PROBERT, David R. Technology roadmapping—A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2004, vol. 71, no. 1-2, pp. 5–26. Available from doi:10.1016/s0040-1625(03)00072-6. 9. PARK, Hyunkyu; PHAAL, Rob; HO, Jae-Yun; O’SULLIVAN, Eoin. Twenty years of technology and strategic roadmapping research: A school of thought perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020, vol. 154, p. 119965. Available from doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119965. 10. HOVLAND, Ingie. Successful Communication: A Toolkit for Researchers and Civil Society Organisations. Overseas Department Institute, 2005. Available also from: https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/ 192.pdf. 11. PHAAL, R.; FARRUKH, C.J.P.; PROBERT, D.R. Developing a technology roadmapping system. In: A Unifying Discipline for Melting the Boundaries Technology Management: 2005, pp. 99–111. Available from doi:10.1109/PICMET.2005.1509680. 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 12. ANDERSON, Timothy; DAIM, Tugrul U.; KOCAOGLU, Dundar F.; MILO ˇ SEVI ´ C, Dejan B.; WEBER, Charles. Technology Management: A Unifying Discipline for Melting the Boundaries. In: 2005. Available from doi:10.1109/picmet.2005.1509659. 13. CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, Union of. UCS Satellite Database. 2005. Available also from: https: //www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database. 14. CRISP, Nicholas H.; ROBERTS, Peter C.E.; LIVADIOTTI, Sabrina. Literature Review of the Benefits and Applications of Very Low Earth Orbits for Earth Observation. DISCOVERER, 2018-08. Tech. rep. Available also from: https://discoverer.space/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/D5_2_Literature_ Review.pdf. 15. BERTHOUD, Lucy; HILLS, Russell; BACON, Andrew; HAVOUZARIS-WALLER, Michael; HAYWARD, Kieran; GAYRARD, Jean-Didier; ARNAL, Fabrice; COMBELLES, Laurent. Are Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO) satellites a solution for tomorrow’s telecommunication needs? Council of European Aerospace Societies Space Journal. 2022, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 609–623. Available from doi: 10.1007/s12567-02200437-0. 16. PICONE, J. M.; HEDIN, A. E.; DROB, Douglas P.; AIKIN, A. C. NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2002, vol. 107, no. A12, SIA 15–16. Available from doi:10.1029/2002ja009430. 17. DOORNBOS, E.; DELFT, TU. Atmospheric density changes with altitude. 2009. Available also from: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2009/06/Atmospheric_density_changes_with_ altitude. 18. GONZ ´ ALEZ, D et al. Modelling and Simulation of Very Low Earth Orbits. In: 8th ed. 2019. Available from doi:10.13009/EUCASS2019-176. 19. CHOUEIRI, Edgar Y. A Critical History of Electric Propulsion: The First Fifty Years (1906-1956). AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. 2004. 20. LEOMANNI, Mirko; GARULLI, Andrea; GIANNITRAPANI, Antonio; SCORTECCI, Fabrizio. Propulsion options for very low Earth orbit microsatellites. Acta Astronautica. 2017, vol. 133, pp. 444–454. Available from doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.11.001. 21. Introducing Resistojet Thruster Technology. 2022. Available also from: https://www.benchmarkspacesystems. com/news/post/benchmark-introduces-resistojet-thruster-technology. 22. ZHENG, Peng; WU, Jianjun; ZHANG, Yu; WU, Biqi. A Comprehensive Review of Atmosphere-Breathing Electric Propulsion Systems. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering. 2020, vol. 2020, pp. 1–21. Available from doi:10.1155/2020/8811847. 23. ROMANO, Francesco; BINDER, Tilman; BOXBERGER, Adam; SMITH, Katherine; ROBERTS, Peter. D 4.1 – Literature Review of ABEP Systems. DISCOVERER, 2017-07. Tech. rep. Available also from: https://discoverer.space/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/D_4_1_LitreviewofABEPsystems_v2_final.pdf. 24. ROMANO, F.; ESPINOSA-OROZCO, J.; PFEIFFER, M.; HERDRICH, Georg; CRISP, Nicholas; ROBERTS, Peter John; HOLMES, Bridget A.; EDMONDSON, Stephen J.; HAIGH, Sarah J.; LIVADIOTTI, Sabrina; MACARIO-ROJAS, A.; OIKO, Vitor Toshiyuki Abrao; SINPETRU, Luciana; 46