신규 저궤도 위성(LEO) 프로젝트 : 게임 체인저와 기회

※ 본 상품은 영문 자료로 한글과 영문목차에 불일치하는 내용이 있을 경우 영문을 우선합니다. 정확한 검토를 위해 영문목차를 참고해주시기 바랍니다.

신규 저궤도 위성(LEO) 프로젝트에 대해 조사 분석했으며, 기술적 검토사항, LEO 프로젝트 리뷰, 현재 및 향후의 LEO 서비스 시장, 기업 전략, 향후 전망 등의 정보를 전해드립니다.

제1장 주요 요약

제2장 조사 방법과 정의

제3장 지구 궤도와 특징

제4장 기술적 검토사항

• 용량 확대 및 지연시간 감소
• 주파수대 검토사항
  • 위성 기업이 사용하는 주파수대
  • LEO 위성관측 및 주파수대
  • 간섭 및 주파수의 가용성
  • LEO 관측용 주파수대 전망
• LEO 프로젝트 아키텍처

제5장 LEO에 대한 새로운 관심

• LEO 프로젝트 리뷰
  • 과거 프로젝트
  • 신규 프로젝트
  • 경쟁 프로젝트
• LEO 서비스 시장
  • 현재 시장
  • 향후 시장 : 5G 환경에서 LEO 및 위성의 역할은?
• 상업 서비스 발사 스케줄
  • 레거시 LEO의 발단 : 내로우밴드/리미티드 브로드밴드에 주목
  • 지구관측 서비스 : 다음에 발생할 것
  • 브로드밴드에 초점을 맞춘 서비스 : 더 가능성이 낮은(그리고 애매한) 미래

제6장 시장과 전략

• 기업 전략
  • 레거시 위성 기업
  • 신규 진출기업
• 성장 촉진요인과 과제
  • LEO 성장 촉진요인
  • 해결해야 할 과제
• 밸류체인의 발전
  • 변화와 영향은?
  • 성공인가, 실패인가?

도표

After a first wave of interest in the mid-1990s followed by several failures at the beginning of the 2000s, LEO constellations are again under the spotlight, with players such as SpaceX and OneWeb showing great ambition. These LEO constellations must bring reduced latency and increased capacity but how does it match with the market demand of today and tomorrow. How disruptive are LEO constellations and what place could they find in the telecom market...

• What makes LEO different from MEO and GEO satellites?
• Why would LEO constellations be more successful today than yesterday? What has changed?
• Which markets do LEO constellations target?
• What place will LEO have in the era of 5G?
• What challenges lie in building such constellations?
• Who will succeed? Who will have more difficulty?

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Methodology & definitions

3. Earth orbits and their characteristics

4. Technical considerations

• 4.1. Large coverage for increased capacity and reduced latency
• 4.2. Frequency bands considerations
  • 4.2.1. Frequency bands used by satellite players
  • 4.2.2. LEO satellite constellations and frequency bands
  • 4.2.3. Interference and frequency availability
  • 4.2.4. Future of frequency bands for LEO constellations
• 4.3. LEO project architectures

5. A renewed interest in LEO

• 5.1. Review of LEO projects
  • 5.1.1. Historical projects
  • 5.1.2. New projects
  • 5.1.3. Competing projects
• 5.2. Market for LEO services
  • 5.2.1. Markets of today
  • 5.2.2. Markets of tomorrow: Which role for LEO and satellite in a 5G context?
• 5.3. Commercial services launch timeline
  • 5.3.1. Legacy LEOs first: focus on narrowband/limited broadband
  • 5.3.2. Earth Observation services: next to come
  • 5.3.3. Broadband-focused services: a more distant (and uncertain) future

6. Market and strategies

• 6.1. Player strategies
  • 6.1.1. Legacy satellite players
  • 6.1.2. Newcomers
• 6.2. Drivers and challenges
  • 6.2.1. Drivers for LEO developments
  • 6.2.2. Challenges
• 6.3. Value chain evolution
  • 6.3.1. Which changes and impacts?
  • 6.3.2. Success or failure?

Report tables and figures

Tables

• Table 1: Presentation of various orbits
• Table 2: Satellite orbits, coverage and period
• Table 3: Frequency bands and main areas of use
• Table 4: Main LEO constellation projects, launched or failed
• Table 5: Iridium subscribers and ARPU as of June 2016
• Table 6: ORBCOMM financial information
• Table 7: Globalstar financial and operational data
• Table 8: Main LEO constellations being launched
• Table 9: Main future LEO constellations
• Table 10: Markets served by LEO projects
• Table 11: Benefits and drawbacks of LEO systems as compared to

Figures

• Figure 1: Orbital speed and elevation
• Figure 2: SES remarks on the limited experience regarding controlled sharing
• Figure 3: Traditional bent-pipe satellite architecture
• Figure 4: Compared advantage for signal propagation for satellite and fiber
• Figure 5: Samsung mesh-satellite architecture
• Figure 6: SkyBridge planned architecture
• Figure 7: Iridium KPIs (2011-2015)
• Figure 8: ORBCOMM subscriber growth (2005-2015)
• Figure 9: Range of devices provided by Globalstar
• Figure 10: Polar orbit
• Figure 11: Multiple form factors for OneWeb end-user terminal
• Figure 12: OneWeb satellite coverage
• Figure 13: OneWeb technology to limit interference with nearby satellites
• Figure 14: Successful landing of SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket on a drone ship
• Figure 15: Coverage of the US by constellation of LEO satellites proposed by Boeing
• Figure 16: SpaceBelt use cases
• Figure 17: Evolution between SkySat 1-2 and 3
• Figure 18: PlanetLab satellite launching
• Figure 19: PlanetLab constellation project
• Figure 20: Google Loon antennas on the ground used for New Zealand test ( in the ISM band)
• Figure 21: 40th parallel South
• Figure 22: Rendering of O3b satellite coverage areas and visibility around the Equator
• Figure 23: Comparison of O3B performances
• Figure 24: Multi-Radio Access Technology Control / User plane splitting
• Figure 25: Percentage of resource elements used for U-plane signalling
• Figure 26: LEO satellite constellation commercial timeline
• Figure 27: Evolving capacity of some Ka-band satellites recently launched
• Figure 28: Should GEO operators support LEO constellations?
• Figure 29: GEO networks are capable to handle increased data demand?
• Figure 30: Very small launch vehicles with announced investment
• Figure 31: What is the biggest threat to existing networks?
• Figure 32: Number of pieces of debris, by altitude
• Figure 33: Combined 2015 GSO and NGSO historical launches and launch forecasts
• Figure 34: Traditional satellite value chain
• Figure 35: Evolution of the revenues of the satellite industry (in billion USD)

List of players

• Boeing
• Facebook
• Globalstar
• Google
• Intelsat
• Iridium
• LeoSat
• O3B/SES
• OneWeb
• Orbcomm
• Planetlab
• Skybox imaging
• Skybridge
• Spacebelt
• SpaceX
• Teledesic
• Telesat