By Adam Gilmour
Bloomberg TV recently highlighted our upcoming launch at Gilmour Space Technologies as an historic milestone for Australia.
In that segment, a space policy commentator cautioned viewers to temper their expectations about the size and potential of the Australian launch market citing Australia's small domestic market, the dominance of SpaceX in the US, and their reusable rocket technology.
Comments like these are often made by people outside the launch industry, so let’s talk about it today.
First of all, space is a global market.
Being an Australian launch provider does not limit us to launching Australian satellites and payloads. Our customers are commercial and defence satellite operators and payload developers from across the world — from the Asia-Pacific to Europe, and even the US.
What about SpaceX?
Yes, SpaceX dominates the market with the largest share of launches and satellites in space. And yes, their partially reusable Falcon 9 and fully reusable Starship prototype are engineering marvels... But does that mean there’s no room for anyone else?
To answer that, we need to consider some lesser-known facts about the impact, and cost, of orbital mechanics.
1. Changing a satellite’s orbit might sound simple, but in space, it's a costly manoeuvre
Rockets must reach incredible speeds - approx. 28,000 km/h - to overcome gravity and place satellites into orbit. At this velocity, changing direction isn't as simple as turning a steering wheel. Think of it like sprinting at full speed. If you’re running fast, making a sharp turn to the left or right is tough because of your momentum. But jumping up or down is much easier.
Satellites face a similar challenge. Once in orbit, they maintain this extreme speed, making lateral (left or right) movement extremely energy-intensive and costly. On the other hand, changing their altitude (up or down) requires less effort.
One example I often use: Shifting a satellite's inclination (the tilt of its orbit relative to the equator) by just 30 degrees requires as much energy (called delta-v in space terms) as it takes to go from low Earth orbit (LEO) to the Moon.
That’s a lot of fuel, time, and cost for a single satellite...which makes orbital changes at launch a lot cheaper, and more efficient, than in orbit.
2. Constellation satellites need to be in multiple orbital inclinations; the higher the inclination, the more satellites needed
The inclination of a satellite’s orbit determines how often it passes over a specific area. E.g.,
Equatorial orbit (0° inclination): Flies over the same spot every 90 minutes.
10° inclination: Passes over a location a few times a day.
55° inclination: Might only pass over an area once a day or less.
The higher the inclination, the more ground area the satellite covers — but the fewer times it passes over the same spot. This is why customers with global satellite constellations often need satellites in multiple inclinations and phases to ensure consistent coverage.
If you want frequent coverage of a location from a high-inclination orbit, you’ll need more satellites. For example, a 55° inclination orbit requires significantly more satellites to match the coverage frequency of a low-inclination orbit.
Companies deploying large constellations (like Starlink) launch 20-30 satellites at a time using large rockets. Since these constellations are massive, it's efficient to send a large batch of satellites to the same orbit on one big launch.
But of course, not all customers operate like Starlink. If you're only launching 1-5 satellites at a time, it’s far more cost-effective to book a ride on a smaller rocket... Using a large rocket for a small batch of satellites is like chartering a Boeing 737 for a family holiday — overkill, costly, and inefficient.
3. There's more to launch than the cheapest price per kg
It's naive to think that big rockets will launch all the world's satellites into orbit. You don’t see that in aviation, where not everyone flies on jumbo jets... Indeed, just as regional flights use smaller planes, the space industry needs small rockets to meet the diverse needs of modern satellite constellations.
With LEO constellations, it's also worth noting that satellites have a lifespan of about 5 to 7 years, and that they won’t all fail at once. Since these constellations operate across multiple inclinations and orbital phases, satellite replacements are needed on a staggered, ongoing basis.
Relying on a large rocket to replace just a few satellites at a time is neither practical nor economical. Instead, it makes more sense to use small launchers that can target specific orbits and inclinations when and where they’re needed. This flexibility is crucial for constellation operators and addresses a key pain point in the space market.
A healthy, competitive market with multiple small launch providers ensures greater resilience, reliability, and access for satellite operators.
What about reusability
We’ve spoken to many SpaceX engineers over the years, and they all echo the same advice: Master launch first, then think about reusability.
Developing reusable rocket technology is expensive and complex. So our plan is start with non-reusable launches to generate revenue; and as we approach more than 10-20 launches a year, then we need reusability. We will start working on low cost re usable technology in the next few years.Â
My focus now is on two things right: getting Eris to orbit reliably; and then building rockets fast enough to meet demand. I'm sure our customers would agree.
Adam Gilmour is CEO and Co-Founder of Gilmour Space Technologies
Comments