convert

Administration

Federal Aviation

HQ-10998.INDD

Semi- Annual Launch Report

Second Half of 2009

Reviewing Launch Results from the 2nd and 3rd Quarters 2009 and Forecasting

Projected Launches for 4th Quarter 2009 and 1st Quarter 2010

Special Report: Commercial Access to Space from Cecil Field, Florida

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

Introduction

The

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

features launch results from April through September

2009 and forecasts for the period from October 2009 to March 2010. This report contains information on

worldwide commercial, civil, and military orbital and commercial suborbital space launch events. Projected

launches have been identified from open sources, including industry contacts, company manifests, periodicals,

and government sources. Projected launches are subject to change.

This report highlights commercial launch activities, classifying commercial launches as one or both of the

following:

• Internationally-competed launch events (i.e., launch opportunities considered available in principle to

competitors in the international launch services market);

• Any launches licensed by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) under 49 United States Code Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 (formerly the Commercial

Space Launch Act).

The FAA has changed to a half-year schedule for publishing this report. The next Semi-Annual Launch

Report will be published in May 2010.

1 vehicle lifts off from Omelek Island in the Kwajalein Atoll, 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii, on

July 13, 2009. The commercial launch to low Earth orbit (LEO) carried RazakSAT, a Malaysian imaging satellite,

along with two secondary payloads.

Contents

Highlights: April - September 2009  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Vehicle Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Commercial Launch Events by Country  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Commercial vs. Non-commercial Launch Events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Orbital vs. Suborbital Launch Events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Launch Successes vs. Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Payload Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Payload Mass Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Commercial Launch Trends  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Commercial Launch History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Special Report: Commercial Access to Space from Cecil Field, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SR-1
Appendix A: Orbital and Suborbital Launch Events: April - September 2009  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1
Appendix B: Orbital and Suborbital Launch Events: October 2009 - March 2010  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

Highlights: April - September 2009

On April 16, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation

(SpaceX) and Argentina’s National Commission on Space

Activity (CONAE) signed an agreement to launch the SAO-

COM 1A and 1B, a pair of earth-monitoring satellites

equipped with L-band synthetic aperture radar (SAR) instru-

ments. The payloads are expected to launch aboard SpaceX’s

Falcon 9 vehicle in 2012.

On April 30, a Sea Launch Zenit-3SL lifted off from Odyssey

Launch Platform in the Pacific Ocean. The FAA-licensed

commercial launch successfully deployed Sicral 1B, a dedicated

military communications operated by the Italian Ministry of

Defense, in geosynchronous orbit (GEO).

On May 19, a Minotaur 1 rocket successfully launched the U.S.

Air Force Research Laboratory’s TacSat-3 satellite into orbit.

TacSat-3, built by Alliant Techsystems (ATK), demonstrated a

hyperspectral sensor whose operations can be controlled direct-

ly by troops in the field. The launch also deployed NASA’s

PharmaSat, manufactured by Orbital Sciences Corporation.

In May, the U.S. subsidiary of ICO Global Communications

filed for pre-arranged bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11

of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The company has struggled to

recover the investment costs of its ICO-G1 satellite, launched

in April 2008 to serve the North American market, and retains

substantial debts to its hardware suppliers. The subsidiary plans

to restructure financing while continuing business operations.

With more than $2 billion in unpaid debt, Sea Launch filed for

bankruptcy protection on June 22. Sea Launch had been expe-

riencing ongoing financial shortfalls stemming from its January

30, 2007, failed launch of the NSS 8 commercial communica-

tions satellite. Following the launch failure, Sea Launch did not

resume launch operations until January 2008, and several of its

launch contracts were canceled. As of October 2009, Sea

Launch officials had set a goal to emerge from bankruptcy by

the end of the first quarter of 2010.

On June 27, a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV

Medium-Plus vehicle lifted off from Cape Canaveral Air Force

Station. The FAA-licensed launch successfully deployed GOES

O, an environmental monitoring satellite operated by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

in GEO.

SpaceX and Argentina’s CONAE

finalize launch deal

Successful launch of TacSat-3

U.S. division of ICO Global

Communications files for

bankruptcy protection

Sea Launch files for bankruptcy

protection

Sea Launch Zenit-3SL deploys

Italian military satellite

ULA Delta IV launches NOAA

environmental satellite

Highlights: April - September 2009

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

In July, the satellite communications company Globalstar

received a $276 million loan guaranteed by France’s export

credit agency, Coface—the first installment in a $586-million

loan package. This financing allows Globalstar to move forward

with plans for its second-generation satellite system. The sys-

tem, manufactured by Alcatel Alenia Space, is expected to pro-

vide Globalstar customers with voice and data services through

2025. The satellites are slated to launch in sets of six aboard the

Soyuz 2 vehicle operated by Arianespace beginning in 2010.

On July 13, a SpaceX Falcon 1 lifted off from Kwajalein Atoll

in the Marshall Islands. The FAA-licensed launch successfully

deployed RazakSAT, a remote sensing satellite operated by the

Malaysian National Space Agency, in low Earth orbit (LEO).

On August 17, a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta II rock-

et successfully deployed the last of the U.S. Air Force’s GPS 2R-

series positioning and navigation satellites from Cape Canaveral

Air Force Station, Florida. The satellite, Navstar GPS 2RM-8, is

the final of eight Lockheed Martin-built GPS 2R satellites

enhanced to include additional civilian and military bandwidth

capacity, higher signal power, and superior jamming resistance.

The newly launched satellite joins 18 other functioning GPS

2R satellites in the Air Force’s 30-satellite GPS constellation.

On August 25, the Korea Space Launch Vehicle (KSLV 1),

developed jointly by South Korea and Russia, failed in its first

orbital launch attempt. The vehicle veered off course following

liftoff from the Naro Space Center in Goheung, South Korea,

due to a second-stage malfunction that prevented payload fair-

ing separation from the launch vehicle. As a result, the demon-

stration satellite STSAT-2 was lost. South Korea plans to stage a

second launch attempt in May 2010.

Japan’s H-II transfer vehicle (HTV-1), a spacecraft designed to

ferry cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), was

launched on September 10 from Tanegashima Space Center.

The $680-million HTV-1 spacecraft, in development since

1997, was deployed aboard a H-II B rocket. It carried food,

experiments, mission hardware, and general cargo to the ISS,

where it was scheduled to dock for 55 days.

On September 23, Oceansat-2 and six European nanosatellites

were successfully launched aboard an Indian Polar Satellite

Launch Vehicle (PSLV) that lifted off from the Satish Dhawan

Space Centre. The 960-kilogram (2,100-pound) Oceansat-2

continues India’s decade-long program of regular ocean moni-

toring, maintaining data collection operations initiated by

Oceansat-1 in 1999.

Second-Generation Globalstar

satellites financed for launch in

2010

Final GPS-2R-series satellite

launched

India deploys ocean-monitoring

satellites

Maiden South Korean orbital

launch fails

Japan’s HTV-1 successfully

reaches the ISS

SpaceX Falcon 1 performs

second successful commercial

launch

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Atlas V

Delta II

Shuttle

Minotaur I

Delta IV

Falcon 1

Long March

Ariane 5

PSLV

H-IIB

Zenit-3SL

Zenit-3SLB

Proton

Soyuz

Soyuz 2

Rockot

Kosmos

Dnepr

KSLV 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Shuttle

Delta II

Atlas V

Delta IV

Falcon 9

Minotaur IV

Taurus

Long March

Ariane 5

PSLV

H-IIA

Zenit-3SLB

Dnepr

Proton

Rockot

Soyuz

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

Figure 1

shows the total number of orbital and commercial suborbital launches of each launch vehicle and the

resulting market share that occurred from April through September 2009.

Figure 2

projects this information for

the period from October 2009 through March 2010. The launches are grouped by the country in which the

primary vehicle manufacturer is based. Exceptions to this grouping are launches performed by Sea Launch, which

are designated as multinational.

Note:

Percentages for these and subsequent figures may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding of individ-

ual values.

Vehicle Use

(April 2009 – March 2010)

Total = 39

USA (31%)

Total = 41

USA (39%)

JAPAN (2%)

Figure 1: Total Launch Vehicle Use:

April - September 2009

Figure 2: Total Projected Launch Vehicle Use:

October 2009 - March 2010

CHINA (8%)

CHINA (10%)

EUROPE (8%)

INDIA (5%)

INDIA (2%)

JAPAN (3%)

EUROPE (7%)

MULTI (5%)

RUSSIA (34%)

MULTI (5%)

RUSSIA (38%)

SOUTH

KOREA (3%)

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

Commercial Launch Events by Country

(April 2009 – March 2010)

Figure 3

shows all commercial orbital and suborbital launch events that occurred from April through

September 2009.

Figure 4

projects this information for the period from October 2009 through March 2010.

Total = 13

Total = 17

Figure 3: Commercial Launch

Events by Country:

April - September 2009

Figure 4: Projected Commercial Launch

Events by Country:

October 2009 - March 2010

Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Launch Events

(April 2009 – March 2010)

Figure 5

shows commercial vs. non-commercial orbital and suborbital launch events that occurred from April

through September 2009.

Figure 4

projects this information for the period from October 2009 through March

2010.

Total = 39

Total = 41

Non-Commercial

59% (24)

Commercial

41% (17)

Non-Commercial

67% (26)

Commercial

33% (13)

Figure 5: Commercial vs. Non-Commercial

Launch Events:

April - September 2009

Figure 6: Projected Commercial vs.

Non-Commercial Launch Events:

October 2009 - March 2010

MULTI

12% (2)

EUROPE

15% (2)

RUSSIA

53% (9)

USA

24% (4)

USA 15%

(2)

CHINA

8% (1)

EUROPE

12% (2)

RUSSIA

46% (6)

MULTI

15% (2)

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

Orbital vs. Commercial Suborbital Launch Events

(April 2009 – March 2010)

Figure 7: Orbital vs. Suborbital

Launch Events:

April - September 2009

Figure 8: Projected Commercial Suborbital vs.

Orbital Launch Events:

October 2009 - March 2010

Figure 7

shows orbital vs. FAA-licensed commercial suborbital launch events (or their international

equivalents) that occurred from April through September 2009.

Figure 8

projects this information for the

period from October 2009 through March 2010.

Launch Successes vs. Failures

(April 2009 – September 2009)

Figure 9

shows orbital and commercial suborbital launch successes vs. failures for the period from April through

September 2009. Partially-successful orbital launch events are those where the launch vehicle fails to deploy its

payload to the appropriate orbit, but the payload is able to reach a useable orbit via its own propulsion systems.

Cases in which the payload does not reach a useable orbit or would use all of its fuel to do so are considered

failures.

Total = 39

Success 95% (37)

Figure 9: Launch Successes vs. Failures:

April - September 2009

Orbital

100% (39)

Commercial

Suborbital 0% (0)

Total = 39

Orbital

100% (41)

Commercial

Suborbital 0% (0)

Total = 41

Failure 3% (1)

Partial 3% (1)

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

Payload Use (Orbital Launches Only)

(

April 2009 – March 2010)

Figure 10

shows total payload use (commercial and government), actual for the period from April through

September of 2009.

Figure 11

projects this information for the period from October 2009 through March 2010.

The total number of payloads launched may not equal the total number of launches due to multiple

manifesting, i.e., the launching of more than one payload by a single launch vehicle.

Total = 46

Total = 63

Figure 10: Payload Use:

April - September 2009

Figure 11: Projected Payload Use:

October 2009 - March 2010

Payload Mass Class (Orbital Launches Only)

(

April 2009 – March 2010)

Figure 12: Payload Mass Class:

April - September 2009

Figure 13: Projected Payload Mass Class:

October 2009 - March 2010

Figure 12

shows total payloads by mass class (commercial and government), actual for the period from April

through September 2009.

Figure 13

projects this information for the period from October 2009 through March

2010. The total number of payloads launched may not equal the total number of launches due to multiple

manifesting, i.e., the launching of more than one payload by a single launch vehicle. Payload mass classes are defined

as Micro: 0 to 91 kilograms (0 to 200 lbs.); Small: 92 to 907 kilograms (201 to 2,000 lbs.); Medium: 908 to 2,268

kilograms (2,001 to 5,000 lbs.); Intermediate: 2,269 to 4,536 kilograms (5,001 to 10,000 lbs.); Large: 4,537 to 9,072

kilograms (10,001 to 20,000 lbs.); and Heavy: over 9,072 kilograms (20,000 lbs.).

Total = 46

Total = 63

Intermediate

30% (14)

Medium

22% (10)

Large

15% (7)

Comm.

30% (19)

Micro

2% (1)

ISS

8% (5)

Small

20% (9)

Classified

5% (3)

Navigation

7% (3)

Dev.

14% (9)

Classified

7% (3)

Comm.

35% (16)

ISS 4%

(2)

Scientific

11% (5)

Remote

Sensing

9% (4)

Dev.

15% (7)

Intermediate

17% (11)

Micro

25% (16)

Small

19% (12)

Remote Sensing

10% (6)

Large

11% (7)

Medium

17% (11)

Meteor.

3% (2)

Scientific

16% (10)

Crewed

4% (2)

Heavy

11% (5)

Navigation

5% (3)

Meteor.

7% (3)

Test

2% (1)

Crewed

6% (4)

Other

3% (2)

Heavy

10% (6)

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

Commercial Launch Trends (Orbital Launches Only)

(October 2008 – September 2009)

Figure 14

shows commercial orbital launch

events for the period from October 2008

through September 2009 by country.

Figure 15

shows estimated commercial launch

revenue for orbital launches for the period from

October 2008 through September 2009 by country.

MULTI 11%

($220M)

RUSSIA

48% (10)

EUROPE

19% (4)

MULTI

14% (3)

CHINA 3%

($70M)

RUSSIA 35%

($739M)

Total = 21

Total = $2,082M

Figure 14: Commercial Launch

Events, Last 12 Months

Figure 15: Estimated Commercial

Launch Revenue, Last

12 Months (US$ millions)

Commercial Launch Trends

(Suborbital Launches and Experimental Permits)

(October 2008 – September 2009)

Figure 16

shows FAA-licensed commercial subor-

bital launch events (or their international equiva-

lents) for the period from October 2008 through

September 2009 by country.

Total = 0

Figure 16: FAA-Licensed Commercial

Suborbital Launch Events

(or Their International

Equivalents), Last 12 Months

USA

14% (3)

USA 8%

($173M)

Figure 17

shows suborbital flights conducted

under FAA experimental permits for the period

from October 2008 through September 2009 by

country.

Figure 17: FAA Experimental Permit

Flights, Last 12 Months

Flight Date

Operator

Vehicle

Launch Site

10/26/2008

Armadillo
Aerospace

Pixel

Las Cruces International

Airport, NM

10/25/2008

Armadillo
Aerospace

MOD-1

Las Cruces International

Airport, NM

10/25/2008

Armadillo
Aerospace

MOD-1

Las Cruces International

Airport, NM

10/25/2008

Armadillo
Aerospace

MOD-1

Las Cruces International

Airport, NM

10/25/2008

TrueZer0

Ignignokt

Las Cruces International

Airport, NM

CHINA

5% (1)

EUROPE 42%

($880M)

Semi-Annual

Launch Repor

t: Second Half of 2009

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

UNITED STATES
INDIA
MULTINATIONAL
RUSSIA
EUROPE

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

250

500

750

1000

1250

UNITED STATES
INDIA
MULTINATIONAL
RUSSIA
EUROPE

Figure

shows commercial

launch events by country for the

last five full calendar years.

Figure

shows estimated

commercial launch revenue by

country for the last five full

calendar years.

Figure

Commercial Launch Events by Country, Last Five Years

Figure

Estimated Commercial Launch Revenue (

$ millions)

Country, Last Five Years

Commercial Launch History

(January 2004 – December 2008

)

SR-1

Commercial Access to Space from Cecil Field, Florida

Introduction

The FAA has conducted a brief study to identify National
Airspace System (NAS) integration requirements associated
with proposed twice weekly commercial space transportation
operations at Cecil Field, Florida.

The operations studied and included in this report are limited
to those based on the Scaled Composites WhiteKnightOne
(WK1) / SpaceShipOne (SS1) operations out of Mojave,
California. This combination is the only one that has actually
flown at this time and was used as a model for the newer
Virgin Galactic commercial WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) /
SpaceShipTwo (SS2) vehicles. There are several other mission
concepts under development including vertical
launch/parachute recovery, horizontal air breathing launch
with rocket-powered Kármán Line penetration and air
breathing powered return and landing. In addition, for the
purpose of this study all operations are assumed to be from
the former Cecil Field Naval Air Station south west of
Jacksonville Florida.

The case study was developed to depict typical operations in
the 2025 timeframe and an assumed flight rate of two flights
a week.  The goal of the study was to uncover any unique
requirements that must be considered in the development of
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
to allow for this type of commercial space tourism with
minimal impact on the NAS as it develops.

Several issues that were believed to be critical prior to this
study were found to present minimal impact to the NAS.
The first of these was the impact of high altitude flight
through commercial airways. After careful study of the flight
paths of this type of operation, it was found the actual
footprint of the flight was fairly small and very little airspace
was needed.  Once the spacecraft is released, it climbs from
above 40,000 feet to over 350,000 feet returning to the same

small area over the ground. On return to between 40,000 and
70,000 feet altitude, the spacecraft converts to a glider that
proceeds on an almost straight line to approximately 8,500
feet directly over Cecil Field for landing. Because of the
inability of the space craft to hold or perform a missed
approach, the most important critical issue for airspace
controllers is the requirement to have a window for the

SR-2

spacecraft to land after release from the carrier aircraft. The
window for this clearance appears to open about 20 minutes
after release from the carrier aircraft. Actual release of the
spacecraft can also be significantly delayed to provide spacing
for other aircraft approaching Cecil Field giving JAX
TRACON controllers’ significant operational flexibility. The
window for landing would normally be a period less than 5
minutes in duration. After landing, the spacecraft is normally
clear of the runway within 30 minutes and the parallel runway
is able to support normal operations throughout the removal
of the spacecraft.

Carrier aircraft (WK2) operation will have almost no impact
on controllers as it is able to fly under a normal Flight Plan
and its operation is relatively predictable and does not
normally present any issues to NAS controllers. The carrier
aircraft with SS2 departs from and returns to Cecil Field like
any other aircraft.

All other support aircraft operations are conducted in visual
flight rules (VFR) conditions under normal local flight plans,
and operations are virtually transparent when compared to
other normal aircraft operations in the area.

It is the top level conclusion of this study that the flights
described in this report will not have a significant impact on
NAS operations. Furthermore, export of this type of
operation to other geographic areas can be easily integrated
into the NAS in other areas, especially those with lower
traffic density than the northern Florida area west of
Jacksonville used in this study. Because of the unique nature
of these kinds of flights, individual evaluation of other
proposed sites would be necessary, but there were no
systematic issues that would prevent exporting this type of
operation to other locations.

Although the study was not to consider emergency
procedures, a spacecraft abort was found to have some minor
impacts that will be reviewed briefly in the conclusions. A
more detailed study of each operational abort scenario is
recommended to uncover any NAS impacts that would not
necessarily have been uncovered in the cursory abort research
done in this study.

Approach

The first step in the evaluation process was to develop
information on all vehicles (and sites) used in past

SR-3

developmental efforts and extrapolate that data for proposed
operations.

In the second step, the flight profiles were reverse engineered
for the vehicles based on publicly available information and
published performance capabilities where available. Where
performance capabilities were not published or available,
expert judgment was used to extrapolate probable capabilities
based on available information. This notional flight profile
was compared to information on previous flights to validate
the model used. In this step, significant differences were
found in published performance capabilities for different
carriers and spacecraft. These differences had minimal
impact on the final conclusions. Flight profiles (for WK2 /
SS2) can be found in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

The third step was to use the notional profiles to develop
“distance from base of operations” and altitude tracks for all
vehicles used in the operation. Performance differences for
vehicles from different sources were accounted for in this
section by using the “worst case” (and interpolation of “worst
case”) information. This had the effect of slightly increasing
the footprint for operations.

Using surface maps and standard airspace charts for areas
around Cecil Field, nearby population centers and areas at
high risk from over-flight incidents were located. These areas
were further defined using logical assumptions about over-
flight restricted areas and typical vehicle performance. In
actual operation, it is expected that the areas shown in this
report may be slightly smaller than shown, reducing the
impact on the NAS.

Timelines for each vehicle were over-laid to develop a full
mission time profile. The timeline was limited to the actual
flight period for the mission. Because of potential impact on
other traffic at Cecil Field, the mission was defined as
extending from man-up of the first vehicle through clearing
of the runway by towing SpaceShipTwo from the active
runway. The last vehicle to land would be one of the chase
aircraft, but that was not considered since those aircraft, as
well as the WhiteKnightTwo aircraft, have considerable loiter
capability and would be operating within normal flight rules
like any other aircraft entering Cecil Field airspace.

SR-4

(WK2 - virgingalactic.com)

The fourth step was to integrate the operation profiles and
timelines for all vehicles used into a normal NAS operation to
determine potential impacts to normal operations and
evaluate what actions would or would not be needed by
regulators and controlling authorities. The team has had no
liaison with Jacksonville Center/TRACON to evaluate actual
traffic flow.

Assumptions

All analysis was based on historic flights of the WK1 and SS1
in the Mojave operating area along with available data
acquired on the capabilities and operation of the proposed
WK2 and SS2 vehicles.

All support aircraft used in the Cecil Field area were assumed
to be the same as those used in Mojave. Although there is a
high probability that support aircraft will not be the same for

Virgin Galactic operations as for Scaled Composites, the
Mojave aircraft are representative of those needed for Florida
operations.

No emergency/abnormal procedures were to be addressed.
As the analysis progressed, it was discovered that some “off

SR-5

nominal” events—such as several mission aborts (including
carry-back, drop, and no ignition with and without oxidizer
dump)—might require contingency procedures to avoid
becoming emergencies. It is strongly recommended that
additional analysis be performed to determine the impact on
the NAS of non-emergency, contingency operations.
Whenever normal flight operations can be accomplished
under existing regulations and procedures it was assumed
they would be used.

Methods

Baseline and specific data from the FAA, Virgin Galactic
public information, internet research, technical knowledge of
NAS and operations as well as technical expertise in
spacecraft/aircraft operations and limitations were used to
support all derivations and conclusions. Although the
conclusions from this report concern the operation of
WK2/SS2, the bulk of raw data available was related to
WK1/SS1. Therefore, every effort has been made to identify
all data applications as to which vehicles and operations are
used.

Aircraft/
Spacecraft Data

As a first step towards developing this report, basic data was
gathered on the configurations and performance of all
vehicles used in past similar operations. This real world data
was limited to the WK1/SS1 operations out of Mojave,
California—the only non-government operation to reach
space at this time. The following table contains basic data
gathered for each aircraft and vehicle involved and is
primarily based on publicly available data. Because much of
the information was contradictory concerning statistics for
WK1, SS1, WK2, SS2, and SS3, all data used was selected
from the source that provided the “most conservative” input
(i.e., the longest gliding range to determine radius of
operation from the highest altitude listed). This provided a
total “most conservative” size in footprint and altitudes of
operation. As long as the space vehicles analyzed remained
within this conservative footprint, those vehicles should be
able to reach a safe landing at the home airfield.

Vehicles:

WhiteKnightOne (WK1)

SR-6

WhiteKnightTwo (WK2)

SpaceShipOne (SS1)

SpaceShipTwo (SS2)

Support/chase aircraft
- (current for SS1 and potential for SS2)

Parameters

WK1

WK2

SS1

SS2

SS3

Chase 1

Chase 2

Chase 3

Chase 4

Type

Starship

Duchess

Alpha Jet

Extra 300

Crew

Unk

Passengers

Unk

6 or 8

3 or 5

Payload

8,000lb

35,000 lb

Unk

4,513 lb

854 lb

11,000 lb

595 lb

Fuel

Jet A

N2O/

HTPV

N2O/

Rubber

Unk

Jet A

100 LL

Jet A

100 LL

Engines

2 GE

J85-

GE5

4 PW

308A

N20/HTPV

Space

Development

Scaled

Composites

Proprietary

Unk

Two

895kW

(1200shp)

PT6A67A

2 O-360

Lycoming

SNECMA

Turbomeca

Larzac 04-

turbofans

1 AEIO-

540-L1B5

300HP

Thrust

5,000 lb

(each)

6,900 lb

(each)

14,000 to

16,530 lb

(Sig variance

in data)

Unk

Empty Wt

Unk

2,640 lb

Unk

9,887 lb

2,446 lb

7,750 lb

1,500 lb

Gross Wt

~17,000

60,000 lb

6,828 lb

Unk

14,400 lb

3,900 lb

18,000 lb

2,095 lb

Span

82 ft

141 ft

16 ft, 5 in

27 ft

Unk

54 ft, 5 in

38 ft

30 ft

24.25 ft

Length

Unk

16 ft, 5 ft

60 ft

Unk

46 ft, 1 in

29 ft

43 ft, 5 in

22’ 9.5”

Service
Ceiling

53,000

70,000 ft

367,360 ft

>360,000 ft

(Orbital)

41,000 ft

19,400 ft

50,000 ft

16,000 ft

Release Alt

40,000

47,000

40,000 ft

(planned)

40,000 to

47,000 ft

40,000 ft

(planned)

Rate of

Climb

Unk

82,000

ft/min

Unk

3,225

ft/min

1,248

ft/min

Unk

3,200

ft/min

250 sec

Unk

Burn Time

84 sec

Unk

V Max

Unk

207 mph

2,170 mph

2,600 mph

Unk

285 mph

197 mph

621 mph

253 mph

Max Mach

M .65

(VNE)

M 3.09

Unk

M 25

Range

Unk

30 NM

Unk

1,634 NM

923 NM

1,500 NM

510 NM

Apogee

Unk

360,000 ft

240

miles

(Orbit)

Launch Alt

45-46K ft

50,000 ft

TBD

Status

Retired

in test

Retired

in test

design

operational

operational operational

operational

Table of Vehicle Data

SR-7

Flight Concept of
Operations and Diagrams

Flight Scenarios

SS1 and SS2’s objective is to cross the Kármán line (328,000
feet). There are future plans for a SS3 that would be capable
of orbital flight and International Space Station (ISS) docking.
However, SS3 will not be addressed in this report.

Flight frequency: Flights per week

Initially one flight per week was proposed as an initial study
parameter. Given the projected rise in suborbital space
tourism, future flights expectations could exceed three per
week. Considering these two scenarios, the FAA study
considered a baseline of two flights per week. This baseline,
while reasonable for the short term, will likely need to be
reconsidered in future years. Two flights per week will likely
be exceeded later in the 2010 to 2025 timeframe, considering
the number of paid flights already transacted by the
suborbital space tourism firm Virgin Galactic.

Duration

Total mission evolution is estimated to be 1.5 hours (from
take off of WK2 until recovery of SS2 (on a normal flight
profile). The WK2 carrier aircraft and all support aircraft will
have the same impact on the NAS as any other normal
aircraft flying in the area and will land after recovery of the
SS2. If the launch of SS2 is aborted and it is carried back to
Cecil Field by WK2, the SS2 flight plan would be canceled
and SS2 would return with WK2 with no impact on NAS
operations.

Flight Profile for WK2 and SS2:

WK2 will take off from Cecil Field, FL, climb to
approximately 50,000 feet, where it will release SS2, and
return to Cecil Field under normal FAA control and flight
rules. SS2 releases from WK2 at approximately 50,000 feet
and accelerates to M 4 in a steep (almost vertical) climb. At
approximately 205,000 feet, the rocket propellant is expended
and the engine shuts down. SS2 continues to “coast” up to
an altitude of approximately 360,000 feet, crossing the
Kármán line (328,000 feet). At 360,000 feet the spacecraft
reaches apogee and starts to fall. SS2’s wings are shifted to

SR-8

the feather mode at 350,000 feet (wings deflected causing a
“deep stall, free fall” near vertical descent). SS2 continues
descending to between 70,000 and 40,000 feet. where the
wings are unfeathered, rotating the fuselage into the normal
glide attitude, from nose up to nose down. In that
configuration, SS2 continues a normal glide back to Cecil
Field.

The following flight profile was derived from
WhiteKnightOne/SpaceShipOne profiles and performance.
The basic flight paths were adapted for WK2/SS2 using the
new vehicle performance and applied for operations in the
Cecil Field operating area. All altitudes and dimensions are
estimated for WK2/SS2 and Cecil Field.

- Not to Scale -

Figure 1

Determination of Safety Cone:

Non interference line w /

Jacksonville area (and airports)

East

West

“Safety

Base of “Safety

Cone”

WK2 spiral

climb

Cecil Field, FL

Launch point

(45

,000

–

,000

)

White Knight (WK2) Climb Flight Profile for

Operations at Cecil Field, FL

After WK2 drops SS2 WK2

departs area to the southwest and

returns to Cecil Field

,FL under

normal flight rules and control.

35 miles

max

SR-9

The

safety cone

is a three-dimensional zone that combines

geographic surface area with altitude and airspace. It is
referred to as a cone because the airspace from which a spiral
descent is possible is wider at the highest altitude, and
narrows as the vehicle approaches the ground (see Figure 1).

This safety cone of aviation activity represents an “outer
operation boundary” that would allow SS2 to reach Cecil
Field via a controlled glide after release from its WK2 carrier
aircraft under almost all conditions. The cone takes into
account failure of the SS II engines to ignite and mission
abort scenarios with early SS2 release, fully loaded with fuel
and oxidizer and with oxidizer dumped (SS2 fuel cannot be
dumped).

During ascent (emergency procedure)

The base of the safety cone was determined based on the
following:

1)

Altitude required to separate from WK2 and accelerate
from optimum climb speed of WK2 to optimum glide
speed of SS2.

Rate of descent with full load of fuel.

Altitude required to reach modified high key (fuel load)
on the proper heading.

Note that if oxidizer is dumped the base altitude could be
lowered—but this was not assumed in the analysis.

SR-10

- Not to Scale -

Figure 2

Non interference line w

Jacksonville area

(

and airports

)

East

West

“Safety Cone”

Base of “Safety

Cone”

SS2 spiral descent

out of “High Key”

Cecil Field , FL

“Feathered”

wing drop

Rocket

propelled climb

SS2 starts recovery glide
(

after wing “unfeathered” )

Primary chase

plane

(

Alpha

000

)

Secondary chase

plane (Starship

25 ,000 ')

Launch point

(

,000

' –

000

Wing “high

unfeathered”

(

000 ')

Spaceship (SS2) Rocket Ascent and

Flight Profile for Operations at Cecil Field

Zero G

“Feather” wing

(

291

000

' –

32 ,000 ')

“High Key”

(

8,500')

Flight profile derived from available data from WhiteKnightOne /

SpaceshipOne,profiles will be modified as more data from

WhiteKnightTwo/SpaceshipTwo is available

328

000

Wing “low

unfeathered”

(

000 ' )

Wing can be

“unfeathered” in

this area

205

,000

' MECO

30 miles

max

25 miles

max

Aux chase plane

(Dutchess

15 ,000 ')

(0 miles )

SR-11

Ground Track

Parent aircraft – After takeoff from Cecil Field, WK2 will fly
a climbing spiral to the release altitude and point. This spiral
will remain within the safety cone to enable the spacecraft to
return safely to Cecil Field after emergency release. WK2 is
capable of flying under normal control throughout its entire
mission.

Spacecraft – After drop from WK2 (at the designated
altitude, position, and heading), the spacecraft will ignite its
rocket engine and start a near vertical climb. After the rocket
engine has shut down, the spacecraft will continue to climb,
arc over, and start a near vertical descent. After the wing
feather/unfeather evolution, it will start its glide (relatively
straight line) to the intended “high key” (an aviation term
indicating the maximum altitude from which a glide descent
may safely be conducted). It is possible because of
unpredicted factors such as high altitude winds that the flight
profile will require modification in flight to arrive at a point
that would enable a safe approach to Cecil Field. This may
not be the established high key altitude glide path position.
Ideally, the spacecraft would reach the appropriate high key
altitude and perform a 360-degree turn to arrive at the final
glide path for landing. The spacecraft should always remain
within the safety cone to ensure the capability of gliding to
Cecil Field for a safe landing.

Support Aircraft – There may be as many as four aircraft
involved with the mission. All are capable of normal flight
control. Their takeoff, flight, and landing at Cecil Field will
be under normal control.

SR-12

Figure 3 - WK2 Ascent Depicted on Low Altitude Airway Chart

In Figure 3 above, the flight path is overlaid on a low altitude
chart (surface to 18,000 feet). The center of the spiral is the
takeoff point at Cecil Field. The left outer end of the spiral
represents the planned release point for SS2 at 45,000 feet.
In an abort, WK2 could release SS2 anywhere above the
safety cone base as long as it was within the cone and SS2
could still make a safe approach and landing at Cecil Field.
This would be a declared emergency and could be treated by
controllers like any loss of power emergency approach and
landing for a high performance aircraft.

SR-13

Figure 4 - WK2 Ascent Depicted on High Altitude Airway Chart

In Figure 4 above, the flight path is overlaid on a high altitude
chart (180 feet and above). As on the low altitude chart, the
center of the spiral is the takeoff point at Cecil Field and the
left outer end of the spiral represents the planned release
point for SS2 at 45,000 feet. In a high altitude abort, WK2
would most likely have time to advise controllers and delay
release long enough to allow clearing of the airspace for
landing of both vehicles (together or with SS2 released as
long as WK2 was within the safety cone). If an emergency
was declared, controllers could respond in an established
manner, like any other aircraft. SS2 would be high enough
for oxidizer jettison and could either land attached to WK2 or
independently like a normal release, but with higher landing
weight from the carried, non-jettisonable fuel.

SR-14

Figure 5 – SS2 Descent and Approach Depicted on Low Altitude Airway Chart

In Figure 5 above for the low altitude chart and Figure 6
below for high altitude, a normal SS2 return to Cecil Field is
depicted. WK2 releases SS2 at around 45,000 feet near the

left end of the depicted flight path. SS2 would ignite the
rocket engine and perform a near vertical climb and descent,
returning to the same area as release. SS2 would follow a
smooth flight path to the high key point, increasing or
decreasing the arc and descent rate to arrive at the
appropriate high key altitude, direction, and speed.

If the rocket engine does not ignite, oxidizer would be
dumped during the descent and the SS2 vehicle would fly
nearly the same flight path at a slightly higher speed due to
the additional weight of the un-jettisoned fuel. From the
appropriate high key altitude, SS2 would perform a single 360
degree approach and landing. Arrival time from release
would be accurately predictable based on release time and
WK2 position.

SR-15

Figure 6 – SS2 Descent and Approach Depicted on High Altitude Airway Chart

NAS Interface

All aircraft participating in SS2’s mission (other than SS2
itself), are capable of, and will be operating within the NAS
under normal Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

SS2, due to its unique flight profile, will require clearance to
land prior to release from WK2. Though this will take special
consideration, the evolution (release from WK2 to landing) is
very short in duration and highly predictable. In addition,
there is flexibility in releasing SS2 from WK2 to allow for
“realtime” contingencies to address non-mission related
(other aircraft emergencies). Once SS2 is released, it is
committed to land without interference.

Note that WhiteKnightTwo is

not

equipped with either an

autopilot or a certified altimeter and therefore in NOT
qualified for Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM)

SR-16

operation for FL 290 – 410 (Certificate of Waver from
Administrator in accordance with the relevant FARs).

FAA Approvals
for Operations

The following issues should be resolved and implemented
before commencing flight operations:

Letter of Agreement/Memorandum of
Understanding (LOA /MOU) between the Cecil Field
facility and the vehicle operators in accordance with
FARs.

“Stereo Route”(that is, standardized and pre-planned)
flight plan development

Vehicle Certification

Propulsion system certification

Conclusions

Normal operations for all aircraft (except SS2) are transparent
to the FAA/NAS (present no special operational burdens or
requirements) and operate under current FARs and flight
plans/”stereo routes” defined by LOA between the facility
and vehicle operators. All aircraft operating in coordination
with the SS2 flight will fly within normal operating
limitations.

The SS2 vehicle will require special consideration from
takeoff from Cecil Field through clearing the runway after
landing. These considerations can be broken into the
following phases:

1.

Any non emergency mission abort where WK2 does

not

release SS2 will result in a normal return to the runway
under normal air traffic control procedures. This may
involve an approach delay to jettison the onboard
oxidizer.

If SS2 is released before reaching the minimum fully
loaded abort altitude it will

not

be able to return to Cecil

field safely and will initiate a forced landing with fuel and
oxidizer onboard. Therefore, this phase must be carried
out over a safe impact zone. Release of SS2 in this area
would be considered extremely unlikely and would almost
certainly result in serious damage (such as vehicle
destruction and/or loss of life). This statement is

SR-17

conjecture since we do not have any data from Virgin
Galactic regarding off nominal events.

Minimum safe abort return altitude to (altitude providing
sufficient time to dump all oxidizer). Abort in this zone
would allow the SS2 to reach the runway threshold and
land, but the vehicle would be carrying at least a partial
load of oxidizer and a full solid fuel load that would
create a risk.

“Fuel dump minimum altitude” to normal mission release
altitude. Abort in this zone would allow for release of all
oxidizer and a normal abort approach and landing. This
phase abort would be flown like a normal mission from
an airspace control perspective with the exception of the
SS II being “n” minutes ahead of schedule and landing
over normal landing weight from the mass of the solid
fuel which could not be dumped.

Normal mission, handled in accordance with the LOA/
MOU.

Aside from SS2, this report does not analyze abnormal
situations that could arise with other aircraft, since they will
comply with the resepective FARs and their established
procedures in their Pilot Operating Handbook.

Recommendations

Follow-on analysis with regards to SS2 is recommended:

For Associated Risks (not addressed by this report):

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – Fuel and
oxidizer hazards

Crash/explosion (public liability)

Vehicle service life – long range airworthiness
certification issues

For Public relations issues:

Public safety

Environmental impact

Noise

Oxidizer dumping

Oxidizer and fuel ground shipping/handling

Future Concepts

Additionally, there are future concepts and technologies
under development that will require further study to
determine their impact on operational safety and their

SR-18

interface requirements on the NAS. Technologies with
potential impact to safety include side effects from using and
transporting cryogenic materials such as liquefied hydrogen
and oxygen and highly toxic materials that will be proposed
for flight use in attitude control systems, such as hydrazine.
Storage, transfer, and fueling of vehicles at public facilities
could create severe hazards that should be evaluated and
mitigated before their use.

Although it does not apply to the Virgin Galactic proposed
vehicles, several concepts may use vertical launch and high
drag (parachute) or retro rocket recovery. This represents a
whole new set of problems for operation in the NAS. These
problems are not within the scope of this report.

While gathering data and developing scenarios for this report
several different concepts of operation were discovered that
are being developed by companies that can be expected to
follow Virgin Galactic in seeking FAA support for operations
with private access to space. These fall into the two main
categories of vertical ballistic flight (non orbital) and orbital
flight. None of the concepts for private orbital flight for hire
is nearing maturity. The leaders seem to be SpaceX with the
Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft (which would
probably fly from established launch facilities such as
Kennedy Space Center or the launch facilities at Kwajalein
Atoll), Planet Space’s Silver Dart orbital space plane, Scaled
Composites/Virgin Galactic with the SpaceShipThree
concept.

Virgin Galactic

The development of SS3 (as referenced above).

Rocketplane Inc.

Rocketplane is based out of Oklahoma City and their vehicle
is based on stretching the Learjet 25 fuselages to make room
for the kerosene and liquid oxygen tanks that will power a
36,000-pound thrust rocket engine. The stabilizers are
removed and replaced with a V-tail to raise the nose when
loaded with fuel. The standard, straight Lear wing is replaced
with a delta wing, increasing surface area and adding sweep
for reduction of drag divergence at supersonic speeds. Flight
cost was estimated at $225,000 to $300,000.

SR-19

In operation, twin GE CJ610 jet engines will provide power
to a launch altitude of 25,000 feet where they will be shut
down and the rocket engine will fire for a 70-sec, 4-g boost
into space at a maximum speed of Mach 3.5 to Mach 4. After
rocket engine shut down, passengers will experience four
minutes of weightlessness.

Critical to safe Rocketplane operation is the computerized
flight control system that will navigate the dynamic pressure
and supersonic speeds of reentry. A Reaction Control System
(RCS) must interact with the vehicles aerodynamic control
surfaces throughout flight in the rarified atmosphere for
reentry to prevent loss of control and exceeding the
maximum safe dynamic pressure on the vehicle. The pilot
will only take control in emergencies and for landings. The
twin jet engines will be restarted at 20,000 feet. for a powered
landing. Total flight time is estimated at about one hour.

The Rocketplane vehicle is planned to weigh 19,500 pounds
at takeoff compared with the Learjet 25’s 15,000 pounds.
Operations are planned for the former Strategic Air
Command base in Burns Flat, OK (now Oklahoma
Spaceport). Rocketplane hopes to fly its first passengers
beginning in 2010.

Numerous issues face the FAA with this concept, both in the
safety and NAS integration areas.

XCOR Aerospace

The XCOR vehicle is also proposed to launch from a runway
but unlike the Rocketplane concept does not use jet engines.
A developmental vehicle has already been flown. (EZ-Rocket
was a modified Rutan Long-EZ home-built airplane and is
now retired.) EZ-Rocket was a manned technology
demonstrator and flew 26 developmental missions using twin
XR-4A3 (XCOR developed 400-pound thrust LOX/alcohol)
engines. These engines are multiple air start capable and have
made over 700 runs for a total of more than 165 minutes.

Although there is little verifiable information on the final
passenger vehicle available yet, XCOR has stated preliminary
design is underway. The suborbital vehicle has been named
Xerus and is a single-stage suborbital vehicle designed for
research, space tourism, and transporting microsatellites to
low Earth orbit via a small secondary stage.

SR-20

Numerous technical challenges must be addressed by XCOR
before a final design and evaluation of their concept for NAS
is feasible. Since these challenges are not yet resolved, such an
evaluation is not within the scope of this study.

Additional Conceptual Vehicles (Less Mature
Development):

In addition, the following vehicles were found that are at
lower technology readiness levels and could be further
developed into viable space access platforms.

AERA Corporation Altairis

ARCASPACE Orizont

Da Vinci Project Wildfire

Interorbital Systems Neutrino

Masten Space Systems

XA Series

Space Adventures Explorer

SpaceDev Dream Chaser

Starchaser Industries Nova 2 and Thunderstar

Truax Engineering, Inc. Volksrocket X-3

XCOR Aerospace Lynx Rocketplane

Proposed orbital projects include:

Interorbital Neptune

Masten Space Systems O Series

Rocketplane Kistler K-1

T/Space Crew Transfer Vehicle

There are numerous other design concepts that may or may
not warrant in-depth consideration. The vehicles and
projects listed above have been evaluated and have some
chance of being able to be developed into test vehicles, which
in turn could affect future NAS operations at some level.

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

A-1

Date

Vehicle

Site

Payload or Mission Operator

Use

Vehicle

Price

L M

4/3/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

* Eutelsat W2A

Eutelsat

Communications

$100M

S S

4/3/2009

Atlas V 421

CCAFS

WGS 2

DoD

Communications

$125M

S S

4/15/2009

Long March 3C

Xichang

Compass G2

CNSA

Navigation

$70M

S S

4/20/2009

PSLV

Sriharikota

Risat 2

ISRO

Remote Sensing

$25M

S S

Anusat

ISRO

Communications

4/20/2009

/ + Zenit 3SL

Odyssey Launch
Platform

Sicral 1B

Italian MoD

Communications

$100M

S S

4/22/2009

Long March 2C

Taiyuan

Yaogan 6

China - TBA

Remote Sensing

$25M

S S

4/29/2009

Soyuz

Plesetsk

Kosmos 2450

Russian Space Forces

Classified

$60M

S S

5/5/2009

Delta II 7920

VAFB

STSS-ATRR

Missile Defense Agency

Classified

$65M

S S

5/7/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

Progress ISS 33P

Roscosmos

ISS

$60M

S S

5/11/2009

Shuttle Atlantis

KSC

STS 125

NASA

Crewed

N/A

S S

Hubble Servicing
Mission 4

NASA

Other

5/14/2009

Ariane 5 ECA

Kourou

Herschel Space
Observatory

ESA

Scientific

$220M

S S

Planck Surveyor

ESA

Scientific

5/16/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

* Protostar II

Protostar Ltd.

Communications

$100M

S S

5/19/2009

Minotaur

Wallops Flight
Facility

TacSat 3

USAF

Development

$15M

S S

GeneSat 2

NASA

Scientific

PharmaSat 1

NASA

Scientific

5/22/2009

Soyuz 2 1A

Plesetsk

Meridian 2

Russian MoD

Communications

$65M

S S

5/27/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

ISS 19S

Roscosmos

ISS

$60M

S S

6/18/2009

Atlas V 401

CCAFS

Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter

NASA

Scientific

$125M

S S

LCROSS

NASA

Scientific

6/21/2009

Zenit 3SLB

Baikonur

* Measat 3A

MEASAT

Communications

$60M

S S

6/27/2009

/ + Delta IV Medium-

Plus (4,2)

CCAFS

GOES O

NOAA

Meteorological

$100M

S S

April - September 2009 Orbital and Suborbital Launch Events

Denotes commercial launch, defined as a launch that is internationally competed or FAA-licensed. For multiple manifested launches, certain secondary payloads

whose launches were commercially procured may also constitute a commercial launch. Appendix includes suborbital launches only when such launches are
commercial.

+ Denotes FAA-licensed launch.

* Denotes a commercial payload, defined as a spacecraft that serves a commercial function or is operated by a commercial entity

Notes: All prices are estimates, and vary for every commercial launch. Government mission prices may be higher than commercial prices.

Ariane 5 payloads are usually multiple manifested, but the pairing of satellites scheduled for each launch is sometimes undisclosed for proprietary

reasons until shortly before the launch date.

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

A-2

Date

Vehicle

Site

Payload or Mission Operator

Use

Vehicle

Price

L M

7/1/2009

Ariane 5 ECA

Kourou

* TerreStar 1

TerreStar Networks

Communications

$220M

S S

7/1/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

* Sirius FM-5

Sirius Satellite Radio

Communications

$100M

S S

7/6/2009

Rockot

Plesetsk

Kosmos 2452

Russian MoD

Communications

$15M

S S

Kosmos 2453

Russian MoD

Communications

7/13/2009

/ + Falcon 1

Kwajalein Island

RazakSAT

Malaysia National Space
Agency

Development

$8M

S S

7/15/2009

Shuttle Endeavour

KSC

STS 127

NASA

Crewed

N/A

S S

AggieSat-2

Texas A&M University

Development

BEVO 1

University of Texas - Austin Development

7/21/2009

Kosmos 3M

Plesetsk

Kosmos 2454

Russian MoD

Navigation

$15M

S S

Sterkh 1

Russia - TBA

Other

7/24/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

Progress ISS 34P

Roscosmos

ISS

$60M

S S

7/29/2009

Dnepr 1

Baikonur

DubaiSat-1

Emirates Institution for
Advanced Science and
Technology

Remote Sensing

$12M

S S

* AprizeStar 3

Aprize Satellite

Communications

* AprizeStar 4

Aprize Satellite

Communications

* DEIMOS

Deimos Imaging

Remote Sensing

Nanosat 1B

INTA

Communications

UK DMC 2

British National Space
Centre

Remote Sensing

8/11/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

* Asiasat 5

Asiasat

Communications

$100M

S S

8/17/2009

Delta II 7925

CCAFS

Navstar GPS 2RM-8

USAF

Navigation

$65M

S S

8/21/2009

Ariane 5 ECA

Kourou

* JCSAT 12

JSAT

Communications

$220M

S S

* Optus D3

Singtel/Optus

Communications

8/25/2009

KSLV 1

Naro Space Center

STSAT 2A

KARI

ISS

TBD

F F

8/28/2009

Shuttle Discovery

KSC

STS 128

NASA

Crewed

N/A

S S

8/31/2009

Long March 3B

Xichang

* Palapa D

PT Indosat Tbk

Communications

$70M

P P

9/8/2009

Atlas V 401

CCAFS

PAN

USA - TBA

Classified

$125M

S S

9/10/2009

H-II B

Tanegashima

HTV

JAXA

ISS

$100M

S S

9/17/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

Meteor M1

Russian Meteorological
Service

Meteorological

$60M

S S

Sumbandila

University of Stellenbosch

Development

9/18/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

* Nimiq 5

Telesat Canada

Communications

$100M

S S

9/23/2009

PSLV

Satish Dhawan
Space Center

Oceansat 2

ISRO

Remote Sensing

$25M

S S

BeeSat

Technical University of
Berlin

Development

ITU-pSat

Istanbul Technical University
Turkey

Scientific

Rubin 9.1

OHB System

Scientific

Rubin 9.2

OHB System

Development

SwissCube-1

Ecole Polytechnique
Federale De Lausanne

Scientific

UWE-2

University of Wurzburg

Scientific

9/25/2009

Delta II 7920

CCAFS

STSS Demo 1

USAF

Development

$65M

S S

STSS Demo 2

USAF

Development

9/30/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

ISS 20S

Roscosmos

Crewed

$60M

S S

April - September 2009 Launch Events (Continued)

Denotes commercial launch, defined as a launch that is internationally competed or FAA-licensed. For multiple manifested launches, certain secondary payloads

whose launches were commercially procured may also constitute a commercial launch. Appendix includes suborbital launches only when such launches are

commercial.
+ Denotes FAA-licensed launch.

* Denotes a commercial payload, defined as a spacecraft that serves a commercial function or is operated by a commercial entity

Notes: All prices are estimates, and vary for every commercial launch. Government mission prices may be higher than commercial prices.

Ariane 5 payloads are usually multiple manifested, but the pairing of satellites scheduled for each launch is sometimes undisclosed for proprietary

reasons until shortly before the launch date.

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

B-1

Date

Vehicle

Site

Payload or Mission

Operator

Use

Vehicle

Price

10/1/2009

Ariane 5 ECA

Kourou

* Amazonas 2

Hispasat

Communications

$220M

COMSATBw 1

EADS Astrium

Communications

10/8/2009

/ + Delta II 7920

VAFB

* WorldView 2

DigitalGlobe

Remote Sensing

$65M

10/15/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

Progress ISS 35P

Roscosmos

ISS

$60M

10/18/2009

Atlas V 401

VAFB

DMSP 5D-3-F18

DoD

Meteorological

$125M

10/29/2009

Ariane 5 ECA

Kourou

* NSS 12

SES New Skies

Communications

$220M

* Thor 6

Telenor AS

Communications

10/29/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

Glonass TBA

Russian MoD

Navigation

$90M

11/2/2009

Rockot

Plesetsk

SMOS

ESA

Remote Sensing

$15M

Proba 2

ESA

Development

11/10/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

Mini Research Module
2

Roscosmos

Scientific

$60M

11/12/2009

Shuttle Discovery

KSC

STS 129

NASA

Crewed

N/A

11/14/2009

/ + Atlas V 431

CCAFS

* Intelsat 14

Intelsat

Communications

$125M

11/18/2009

Delta IV Medium-
Plus (5,4)

CCAFS

WGS 3

DoD

Communications

$170M

11/28/2009

H-II A 2024

Tanegashima

IGS 4A

Japanese Defense Agency

Classified

$100M

11/29/2009

/ + Falcon 9

CCAFS

* Falcon 9 Demo Flight

SpaceX

Test

$40M

11/2009

Zenit-3SLB

Baikonur

* Intelsat 15

Intelsat

Communications

$60M

11/2009

Dnepr 1

Baikonur

Prisma Main

Swedish Space Corporation

Development

$12M

Prisma Target

Swedish Space Corporation

Development

11/2009

/ + Proton M

Baikonur

* Eutelsat W7

Eutelsat

Communications

$100M

12/7/2009

Delta II 7320

VAFB

WISE

JPL

Scientific

$65M

12/10/2009

Ariane 5 GS

Kourou

Helios 2B

DGA

Classified

$220M

12/21/2009

Soyuz

Baikonur

ISS 21S

Roscosmos

ISS

$60M

12/2009

Dnepr 1

Baikonur

* TanDEM X

Infoterra

Remote Sensing

$12M

4Q/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

* MSV 1

Mobile Satellite Ventures

Communications

$100M

4Q/2009

Minotaur IV

VAFB

SBSS 1

USAF

Classified

$20M

4Q/2009

Proton M

Baikonur

* Intelsat 16

Intelsat

Communications

$100M

4Q/2009

Long March 3A

Xichang

Beidou 4

CAST

Navigation

$60M

4Q/2009

Long March 4B

Taiyuan

Fengyun 3C

China Meteorological
Administration

Meteorological

$60M

4Q/2009

Long March 3A

Xichang

* DFH 4A

Chinese MPT

Communications

$60M

4Q/2009

Rockot

Plesetsk

* SERVIS 2

USEF

Development

$15M

4Q/2009

Long March 4B

Taiyuan

Fengyun 3B

China Meteorological
Administration

Meteorological

$60M

October 2009 - March 2010 Projected Orbital and Suborbital Launches

Denotes commercial launch, defined as a launch that is internationally competed or FAA-licensed. For multiple manifested launches, certain secondary payloads

whose launches were commercially procured may also constitute a commercial launch. Appendix includes suborbital launches only when such launches are

commercial.

+ Denotes FAA-licensed launch.
* Denotes a commercial payload, defined as a spacecraft that serves a commercial function or is operated by a commercial entity

Notes: All prices are estimates, and vary for every commercial launch. Government mission prices may be higher than commercial prices.

Ariane 5 payloads are usually multiple manifested, but the pairing of satellites scheduled for each launch is sometimes undisclosed for proprietary
reasons until shortly before the launch date.

Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009

B-2

Date

Vehicle

Site

Payload or Mission

Operator

Use

Vehicle

Price

1/23/2010

Taurus XL

VAFB

GLORY

NASA GSFC

Scientific

$35M

2/3/2010

Atlas V 401

CCAFS

Solar Dynamics
Observatory

NASA GSFC

Scientific

$125M

2/4/2010

Shuttle Endeavour

KSC

STS 130

NASA

Crewed

N/A

2/28/2010

Dnepr M

Baikonur

Cryosat 2

ESA

Remote Sensing

$12M

2/2010

Delta IV Medium

CCAFS

Navstar GPS 2F-01

USAF

Navigation

$170M

1Q/2010

Proton M

Baikonur

* BADR-5

Arabsat

Communications

$100M

1Q/2010

Atlas V 541

CCAFS

MUOS 1

DoD

Communications

$125M

1Q/2010

Atlas V 501

CCAFS

X-37B OTV

USAF

Development

$125M

1Q/2010

Minotaur 4

VAFB

TacSat 4

USAF

Development

$20M

1Q/2010

Zenit 3SLB

Baikonur

* AMC 1R

SES Americom

Communications

$60M

1Q/2010

/ + Falcon 9

CCAFS

Dragon COTS Demo 2 SpaceX

Development

$40M

1Q/2010

PSLV

Sriharikota

Megha Tropiques

ISRO

Scientific

$25M

1Q/2010

Proton M

Baikonur

* DirecTV 12

DIRECTV

Communications

$100M

* Arabsat 5A

Arabsat

Communications

October 2009 - March 2010 Projected Launches (Continued)

Denotes commercial launch, defined as a launch that is internationally competed or FAA-licensed. For multiple manifested launches, certain secondary payloads

whose launches were commercially procured may also constitute a commercial launch. Appendix includes suborbital launches only when such launches are

commercial.
+ Denotes FAA-licensed launch.

* Denotes a commercial payload, defined as a spacecraft that serves a commercial function or is operated by a commercial entity

Notes: All prices are estimates, and vary for every commercial launch. Government mission prices may be higher than commercial prices.

Ariane 5 payloads are usually multiple manifested, but the pairing of satellites scheduled for each launch is sometimes undisclosed for proprietary

reasons until shortly before the launch date.