u.s. rocket propulsion industrial base assessment
TRANSCRIPT
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
U.S. Rocket Propulsion
Industrial Base Assessment
Final Results
2018
1
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security
Office of Technology Evaluation
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
2
• Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE)
Mission: OTE is the focal point within BIS for assessing the capabilities
of the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense and the
effectiveness of export controls.
• Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
Mission: Advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic
objectives by ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance
system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership.
• Develops export control policies
• Issues export licenses
• Prosecutes violators to heighten national security
• Develops and implements programs that ensure a technologically
superior defense industrial base
Who We Are:
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
OTE Industry Surveys & Assessments
Background
•Under Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and Executive
Order 13603, ability to survey and assess:
•Economic health and competitiveness
•Defense capabilities and readiness
•Data is exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests
•Enable industry and government agencies to:
•Share data and collaborate in order to ensure a healthy and
competitive industrial base
•Monitor trends, benchmark industry performance, and raise
awareness of diminishing manufacturing and technological capabilities
3
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Rocket Propulsion Survey Assessment
Background
• Partnership with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and in collaboration with the Joint Army, Navy, NASA, Air Force (JANNAF) Working Group
• The principal goal is to gain an understanding of the supply chain network supporting
the development, production, and sustainment of products and services supporting both
USG and commercial propulsion-related systems
• Objectives:
a) Map the propulsion industrial base supply chain in detail;
b) Identify interdependencies between respondents, suppliers, customers, and USG agencies;
c) Benchmark trends in business practices, competitiveness issues, financial health, etc. across many tiers of the propulsion industrial base; and
d) Share data results with USG stakeholders to aid planning, outreach, and problem resolution
4
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Methodology
• The scope of the survey and assessment was limited to U.S. based organizations with Propulsion-related activities, defined as:
• “Any activity/component/subsystem/test/product/service that contributes to U.S. Government or Commercial propulsion systems (including the propulsion of a launch vehicle, missile, and in-space spacecraft propulsion). The activity/component/subsystem/test/product/service does not have to be specifically intended to support propulsion applications.”
• Survey exemptions were provided on a case-by-case basis with careful consideration provided by the BIS and relevant stakeholders
• Organization size was established based on sales from Propulsion related products manufactured in the U.S.:• Small: Under $10M in annual sales
• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales
• Large: Over $50M in annual sales
5
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Survey Taxonomy
6
Propulsion Business Categories - 7Propulsion Business Lines - 24
1. Composite Materials
2. Composite Materials Processing
3. Electrical Systems
4. Engineering Services
5. Fabrication, (sub)system assembly
6. Instrumentation, sensors, transducers
7. Insulation
8. Interconnects, fasteners, standards, seals
9. Launch services
10. Liquid propellant materials
11. Machining
12. Maintenance/aftermarket/refurbishing services
13. Material preparation
14. Material processing/finishing
15. Mechanical controls
16. Ordnance/ignition components or systems
17. Raw materials
18. Research and development
19. Solid rocket linear material
20. Solid rocket propellant material
21. System integration
22. Test equipment
23. Testing services
24. Other
1. Large liquid propulsiona) Large chemical liquid propulsion systems
b) All engines with turbopumps
c) Features of the MPS that reside in the tanks
d) Booster/upper/in-space transit stages, propellant, pressurant
2. Small liquid propulsiona) Small chemical liquid propulsion systems
b) Pressure-fed engines
c) Spacecraft propulsion
d) Pressurant and propellant tanks, flow-control components,
dedicated sensors, and engines
3. Large solid rocket motora) 40” and larger motors requiring more than one mix to cast a
single motor and relatively limited production rate
4. Small solid rocket motora) 40” and smaller motors allowing casting of multiple motors
from a single mix and relatively limited production rate
5. Science and technologya) Interagency collaboration for propulsion science and
technology across all segments of the rocket propulsion
industrial base (e.g. strategic missile boosters to space lift, in-
space chemical and electric propulsion for satellites, to tactical
missiles and missile defense)
6. Test and evaluationa) Connected with the National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance
7. Electric propulsiona) Electrothermal rocket propulsion
b) Electrostatic or ion propulsion engine
c) Electromagnetic or magneto plasma engine
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Overview of Survey Data
2013-2016
7
Data is aggregated to allow public distribution of
business confidential responses
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Respondent Profile
• The data presented in this assessment represents the submissions of
361 organizations with 531 owned/internal facilities
8
361 respondents
Small: Under $10M in annual sales Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales Large: Over $50M in annual sales
128
104
129
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Respondents by Organization Size
Num
ber
of R
espondents
Small Medium Large
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion Business Lines - 24Involvement by Industrial Base Business Category (8 Total)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Num
be
r of
Re
sp
on
se
s
Large Liquid Propulsion Small Liquid Propulsion
Large Solid Rocket Motor Small Solid Rocket Motor
Science and Technology Test and Evaluation
Electric Propulsion Other
Q1c, A 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion Business Categories – 8 TotalCompany Participation by Category
452
403 399 389 389
311 301
203
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Small LiquidPropulsion
Test andEvaluation
Large LiquidPropulsion
Small SolidRocket Motor
Science andTechnology
Large SolidRocket Motor
Other* ElectricPropulsion
Num
ber
of R
esponses
10
Q1c, A 531 Facilities
*Other includes lower tier
facilities who were unsure of
how they supported
propulsion-related engines
and systems
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Organization Information
11
Q1a, A 33 respondents
Countries (16) with Equity Ownership in
U.S.-based Propulsion-Related
Companies (33)
United Kingdom 9
Japan 6
Germany 3
Norway 3
Cayman Islands 2
Switzerland 2
France 2
Belgium 2
Netherlands, Canada,
Austria, Sweden, United
Arab Emirates, India, Israel
and Luxembourg
1 each
33 respondents identified non-U.S. based
organizations with equity ownership
16 unique countries were identified with equity
ownership
4 respondents each had two countries with
equity ownership, for a total of 37 non-U.S. based
organizations with equity ownership
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Organization Reporting
Level
Corporate/Whole Organization,
69%
248
Business Unit/Division,
31%
113
12
Q1a, A361 Respondents
Percentage of Respondents
with Parent Organizations
Yes, 39%
139No, 61%
222
Both questions are not mutually exclusive (e.g. respondents can report at the
Business Unit/Division level and not have a parent organization)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Headquarter Location by State (361 Total)
13
Q1a, A 361 Respondents
82
3
14 1
1
1
11
1
1
1
112
4
19
15
4
5
10
14
5 1418
4
1512
18
24
15
3
8
4
8
2
26
3
9
Top States
California 82
Florida 24
Arizona 19
NY, PA 18
AL, CT 15
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Special Small Business TypesNumber of Respondents by Special Business Types
152
186
3 5 1929 22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Not Qualified Small BusinessAdministrationCertified Small
Business
8(a) Firm HUBZone Minority-ownedBusiness
Woman-ownedBusiness
Veteran-OwnedBusiness
Num
ber
of R
espondents
14
Q1a, D 361 Respondents
55 respondents identified as multiple special business categories, and therefore are counted twice.
31% self-identified as being
dependent on the USG for continued
viability
10% self-identified as being “unsure”
if they were dependent on the USG
for continued viability
18% were at moderate to severe
financial risk according to 2016
financials
HUBZone businesses are
located in and employ people
living in Historically Under-
utilized Business Zones as
defined by the SBA
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Special Small Business TypesBreakdown of 186 Certified Small Businesses
111
26 25 4 412 1 1
18
4232
50 359
14 2 20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Num
ber
of R
esponses
Business Type
Primary Additional
15
Q1b, B 186 Respondents
Some respondents identified multiple “Additional”
business types and multiple agencies
28 24 2735
2019
23
29
34 41
55
47
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Navy Army Air Force NASA
Num
ber
of R
esponses
JANNAF Agency Contracts
Direct Both Indirect
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Special Small Business TypesBreakdown of 186 Certified Small Businesses
9
10
12
16
20
32
33
34
37
40
41
43
45
48
48
49
55
61
76
98
99
101
128
Solid rocket propellant material
Liquid propellant material
Maintenance/aftermarket/repair/refurbishing
Ordnance/Ignition components or systems
Insulation
Mechanical controls
Test equipment
R & D
Interconnects, fasteners, standards, seals
Electrical systems
Launch services
Instrumentation, sensors, transducers
System integration
Composite materials processing
Material processing/finishing
Material preparation
Composite materials
Testing services
Prototyping
Fabrication/system assembly
Raw material provider
Engineering services
Machining
Number of Small Businesses by Business Line (some respondents identified multiple business lines)
16
Q1c, A 186 Respondents
80
125
131
138
140
146
174
201
Electric Propulsion
Large Solid
Science & Technology
Other
Small Solid
Test & Evaluation
Large Liquid
Small Liquid
Number of Small Businesses by Industrial Base Category (some respondents identified multiple
industrial base categories)
“Other” includes lower-tier companies who were unsure how they supported
propulsion-related engines and systems
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Top 5 State LocationsBy Organizations, Facilities, Suppliers, Customers
17
Q1A, Q2A, Q6B, & Q10B 361 Respondents
Organization Locations (158)
California 82
Florida 24
Arizona 19
NY, PA 18
AL, CT 15
Internal Facility Locations (224)
California 122
Florida 30
Alabama 28
AZ, PA 23
New York 21
Supplier Locations (850)
California 464
New York 108
CT, PA 99
Texas 96
Arizona 83
Customer Locations (713)
California 354
Alabama 103
Virginia 91
Florida 90
Colorado 75
California is the number
one state in all four
categories
A significant portion of
the supply chain is
located in Alabama,
Arizona, Florida, New
York, and Pennsylvania
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Highlight: CaliforniaBy Top Cities (27 total)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Num
ber
of R
espondents
HQ Locations (2 or more) Facility Locations (3 or more)
Supplier Locations (10 or more) Customer Locations (10 or more)
18
Q1A, Q2A, Q6B, & Q10B 361 Respondents
Top Cities by Category:
HQ Locations – Torrance (5)
Facility Locations – El Segundo (9)
Supplier Locations – Los Angeles (26)
Customer Locations – Hawthorne (40)
172 cities in California
have at least one
organization, facility,
supplier, or customer
Customers may be double counted (e.g.
an organization can list a single
customer 10 times which is represented
below)
40 respondents listed 10 or more of
their customers are based in
Hawthorne
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related NAICS CodesTop 10 Most Common NAICS Codes
16
17
27
28
29
31
36
36
37
52
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing(332999)
Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and LifeSciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) (541715)
Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing(336413)
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing (336412)
Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (336414)
Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and LifeSciences (except Biotechnology) (541712)
Engineering Services (541330)
Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and AuxiliaryEquipment Manufacturing (332710)
Machine Shops (336419)
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and PropulsionUnit Parts Manufacturing (336415)
Number of Responses
19
Q1b, A 361 respondents
North American
Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes
identify the category of
product(s) or service(s)
provided
361 respondents’
products and services
were categorized by
173 unique NAICS
codes out of 2,196 total
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related Product & Service Codes (PSC)Top 10 Most Common PSC Codes
11
11
12
12
12
13
14
16
20
27
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Inert Propulsion Units,Solid Fuel, and Components (1338)
R&D - Defense System: Missile/Space Systems(Engineering Development) (AC24)
R&D - Defense System: Missile/Space Systems (AppliedResearch/Exploratory Development) (AC22)
R&D - Defense System: Missile/Space Systems(Advanced Development) (AC23)
R&D - Space: Aeronautics/Space Technology(Engineering Development) (AR14)
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Explosive PropulsionUnits, Solid Fuel, and Components (1337)
Gas Turbines and Jet Engines, Aircraft, Prime Moving,and Components (2840)
Guided Missile Components (1420)
Space Vehicle Components (1675)
Rocket Engines and Components (2845)
Number of Responses
20
Q1b, A 361 respondents
Product and Service
Code(s) (PSC) are
federal supply codes
used by the U.S.
Government to describe
the products, services,
and research and
development purchased
by the government
361 respondents’
products and services
were categorized by 349
unique PSC codes out
of 2,907 total recorded
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Business Categories – 9 TotalBusiness Category by Primary and Additional Focus
61
37
5
6
38
31
232
7
7
31
22
71
88
65
92
31
0 50 100 150 200 250
Holding Company
Non-Profit
Laboratory
Distributor
Testing Facility
Prototype Manufacturer
Service Provider
Research & Development
Manufacturer
Number of Responses
Primary Additional
21
Q1b, B 361 respondents
34.3% of respondents either
primarily or additionally
participated in manufacturing
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Business Categories by Financial Risk
“Primary” Business Category by Financial Risk Levels
1
43
4
23
26
26
151
1
2
72
52
1
3
3
10
3
1
3
4
7
19
0 50 100 150 200 250
Holding Company
Laboratory
Testing Facility
Non-profit
Prototype Manufacturer
Research and Development
Distributor
Service Provider
Manufacturer
Number of Responses
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
17% of responses are classified as
Moderate/Elevated Risk and 5% are
classified as High/Severe Risk
22
Q1b, B 361 respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Business Categories Financial Risk“Additional” Business Category by Financial Risk Level
23
Q1b, B 361 respondents
4
4
15
21
18
38
43
55
55
2
2
4
5
4
14
15
20
17
2
3
3
5
4
5
6
1
1
1
2
6
8
9
8
14
0 50 100 150 200 250
Holding Company
Non-profit
Distributor
Laboratory
Manufacturer
Service Provider
Testing Facility
Prototype Manufacturer
Research and Development
Number of Responses
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
2.0% are classified as
Moderate/Elevated Risk and 6.8%
are classified as High/Severe
Risk
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Internal/Owned FacilitiesAnticipated Change (2017-2021)
395
83
2516 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
No AnticipatedChanges
ExpandingOperations
Other Closing/ShuttingDown/Reducing
Operations
Moving Operations
Num
be
r of
Facili
ties
24
Q2, A 531 Facilities
66 respondents indicated
their organization intends
to invest in Additive
Manufacturing/3-D
technology capabilities
(propulsion-related 45,
non-propulsion 21)
Owning: 28
Leasing: 10Both: 9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Future InvestmentInvesting in New or Improved Facilities
Of the 83 respondents that plan
to expand operations, 47
respondents plan to invest in
new or improved R&D facilities
(owning, leasing or both)
Respondents can have
more than one facility
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Internal/Owned FacilitiesExpanding vs Closing/Reducing Operations
25
Q2, A 99 Respondents
Closing Operations/Reducing Operations - 16Expanding Operations - 83
6
11
1
1
2 1
11
1
1
25
31
1
2
3
3
4
2 1 1 6
6
3
1 1
22
3
1
5
32
1
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Internal/Owned FacilitiesMoving vs Closing/Reducing Operations
1
2
1 1
2
5
1
2 2
3
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Large LiquidPropulsion
Small LiquidPropulsion
Large SolidRocket Motor
Small SolidRocket Motor
Science andTechnology
Test andEvaluation
ElectricPropulsion
Other
Num
ber
o F
acili
ties
Moving Operations Closing/Shutting Down Facility
26
Q2, A 28 Respondents
54% of these 28 facilities that are
expecting to close or move are
manufacturers
60% of those manufacturers are
expected to close/shutdown
“Development work has gone away and we
don't see any more work coming to us. Just
structural support to Rocket launcher OEM.”-Large Company
“California business climate is poor, intending
to relocate to another state.”-Small Company
“Other” includes lower-tier companies
who were unsure how they supported
propulsion-related engines and systems
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
27
Q3, B 108 Respondents
2 2
8
12
33
6
8
9
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of J
Vs
JV-Propulsion JV-Non Propulsion
Joint Ventures (JVs)
U.S. and Non-U.S. - 2013-2017
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
28
Q3, B 108 Respondents
2
8 8
3 3
31
38
51
58
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of M
AD
s
MAD-Propulsion MAD-Non Propulsion
Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestitures (MADs)
U.S. and Non-U.S. - 2013-2017
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestitures (MADs) and
Joint Ventures (JVs) – by Country 2013-2017
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Num
ber
of M
AD
s &
JV
s
JVs MADs
29
Q3, A-B 17 Respondents
MADs & JVs 2013-2017:
Total MADs: 249
Total JVs: 56
For more information on Chinese
MAD and JV activity, see slide 164
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
30
Q3, B 17 Respondents
1
2
3 3
2
1
5
3
11
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Num
ber
of M
AD
s &
JV
s
JV-Propulsion JV-Non Propulsion MAD-Propulsion MAD-Non Propulsion
All Foreign Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestitures (MADs)
and Joint Ventures (JVs) - 2013-2017
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Products and ServicesOrganization Participation by Propulsion-Related
Product/Service Category (6 Total)
48
108
111
129
141
169
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Other
Propellants and Other Materials
Electrical, Ignition, and Control
Systems and Services
Production Techniques
Manufactured Components
Number of Responses
31
Q4a, A-F 361 Respondents
Respondents may supply
product/services under more
than one category
“Other” includes maintenance,
cleaning agents, propellant
tanks, and misc
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Products and ServicesRespondent Financial Risk by Propulsion-Related Product/Service Categories
31
65
69
79
96
116
12
26
23
25
23
30
1
6
6
7
9
10
4
11
13
18
13
13
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Other
Propellants and Other Materials
Electrical, Ignition, and Control
Systems and Services
Production Techniques
Manufactured Components
Number of Responses
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
Insufficient data is a result of unavailable/missing
data and source data mismatches
32
Q4a, A-F 361 Respondents
Financial Risk: based on
profit margins, debt
levels, liquidity, product
dependence, and
performance over time
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Respondent CapabilitiesBy Electrical, Ignition, and Control – 385 Total
3
3
5
5
6
10
8
8
11
12
12
16
14
20
20
3
3
7
7
9
3
8
9
4
9
6
9
12
8
10
2
4
4
7
5
7
5
6
9
4
11
6
8
8
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Fuses
Igniter material
Transducers
Pyrotechnics, cartridge & propellant actuated devices
Batteries
Arm fire device/Armed or safe
Harnesses
Sensors
Power electronics
Ordnance systems and components
Igniter system and components
Mechanical controls
Avionics (sub)systems and components
Actuators
Electrical systems and components
Number of Responses
Product Service BothQ4b, A361 Respondents
An additional 27 responses
were reported as “Other”
electrical, ignition, and
control products/services as
they fell outside the listed
product/service categories
(i.e. combustion chamber,
circuit boards, welding
equipment, etc.)
33
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Respondent CapabilitiesBy Manufactured Components – 438 Total
3
4
3
5
8
9
8
9
15
10
16
22
17
20
19
30
24
36
1
3
2
2
4
2
6
2
7
4
4
9
4
10
5
6
14
1
1
1
5
1
1
3
3
1
2
5
4
2
8
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Dampers
Springs
Curvics
Strut
Regulators
Spun metal domes
Bellows
Castings
Bearings
Fairings and skirts
Turbopump
Pressure vessels/motor cases
Rotating machinery components
Ducts, tubing, and hoses
Thrust chamber
Valves
Fasteners, gaskets, o-rings, seals
Nozzles
Number of ResponsesProduct Service Both
34
Q4b, B 361 Respondents
An additional 53 responses
were reported as “Other”
manufactured components
as they fell outside the
listed product/service types
(ex. textile cutters, cover
plates, coils, etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Respondent CapabilitiesBy Production Techniques – 528 Total
2
7
6
10
11
9
12
13
10
16
15
15
21
19
39
36
42
1
2
3
3
4
8
7
3
8
4
6
13
12
11
10
15
15
2
2
3
3
1
5
3
6
6
8
7
6
6
10
7
10
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Flow forming
Casting
Plating
Forging
Turbopump machining
Coating
Forming
Molding
Brazing
Metal jointing
Sheet metal fabrication
Heat treating
Large machining
Additive manufacturing
Fabrication
Small machining
Precision machining
Number of Responses
Product Service Both
35
Q4b, C 361 Respondents
An additional 23 responses
were reported as “Other”
production techniques as they
fell outside the listed
product/service types (i.e. cold
treating, filament winding, rapid
prototyping, etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Respondent CapabilitiesBy Propellants and Other Materials Category – 273 Total
2
3
2
3
3
5
3
5
10
11
9
11
7
9
17
7
11
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
6
3
6
4
1
10
8
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
5
3
4
3
4
6
7
5
6
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
HC polymer
Pressurant
Rayon
PBI-NBR rubber
Weld wire
Fuels
Solid rocket liner material
Liquid propellant and/or materials
Polymer
Insulation
Oxidizer
Solid rocket propellant material
Carbon fibers
Adhesives and resins
Raw materials
Coatings
Composite materials
Number of Responses
Product Service Both
36
Q4b, D 361 Respondents
An additional 19 responses
were reported as “Other”
propellants and other
materials as they fell outside
the listed product/service
types (ex. propellant fracture
modeling, thruster,
intermediate chemicals, etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Respondent CapabilitiesBy Systems and Services – 509 Total
7
9
6
4
9
7
12
16
17
27
2
19
6
7
8
7
19
11
19
15
6
12
10
32
21
49
10
10
14
5
8
8
10
15
12
9
12
14
13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Test stand design
Engine/motor system testing
Launch services
Test equipment
Composite materials testing
Materials testing
System/subsystem integration
Fabricated assemblies
System/subsystem assembly
Machine parts and tooling
Test services
Component testing
Engineering services
Number of Responses
Product Service Both
37
Q4b, E 361 Respondents
An additional 12 responses
were reported as “Other”
systems and services as they
fell outside the listed
product/service categories (i.e.
electric propulsion services,
software services, Satellite
ground systems and
operations, etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Respondent CapabilitiesBy “Other” Category – 92 Total
2
3
12
5
10
5
1
7
4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cleaning Agents
Maintenance/Aftermarket/Repair/Refurbishing
Propellant Tanks
Number of Responses
Product Service Both
38
Q4b, F361 Respondents
An additional 43 responses were
reported as “Other” miscellaneous
products/services as they fell
outside the listed product/service
types (ex. aerostructure fairing,
risk analysis, etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Domestic & Foreign SuppliersNumber of Propulsion-Related Suppliers by Respondent
1% of Respondents
3% of Respondents
70% of Respondents
26% of Respondents
500+ Suppliers 100-499 Suppliers
1-99 Suppliers 0 Suppliers
39
Q6, A 361 Respondents
Companies that are service providers can report zero suppliers. Lower-
tier companies can report zero propulsion-related suppliers if they do
not consider themselves part of the supply chain
*269 respondents had 1 or more
suppliers
71
163
219
311
313
840
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
C: Production Techniques
E: Systems and Services
F: Other
A: Electrical, Ignition, and Control
D: Propellants and OtherMaterials
B: Manufactured Components
Number of Suppliers
Input Category by Supplier*
“F: Other” includes maintenance,
cleaning agents, propellant tanks, and
misc
Total Suppliers
(not unique): 1,917
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
40
Q6, A 269 respondents
342
33
2
4
74
12
67
8
3
17
24
10
49
33
17613
54
21
78
44
19
1044
14
73
49
65
67 12
21
83
4
7
4
SuppliersDomestic Unique Suppliers by State: 1,343
1
4
7
40
1
1
1
3
1 supplier in Puerto Rico
Domestic unique suppliers (unique by
name only) refers to the headquarter
location since suppliers may be associated
with multiple state locations
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
33
45
47
49
54
55
56
57
68
77
0 20 40 60 80
Turbopump
Pressure vessels/motor cases
Nozzles
Electrical systems and components
Other Electrical, Ignition, and Control
Solid rocket propellant material
Fasteners, gaskets, o-rings, seals
Actuators
Valves
Raw materials (including AdditiveManufacturing Stock)
Number of Responses
41
Q6, A269 Respondents
Propulsion-Related SuppliersBy Top Inputs Sourced from Domestic Suppliers
68
147
204
260
298
798
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Production Techniques
Systems and Services
Other
Propellants and OtherMaterials
Electrical, Ignition, andControl
ManufacturedComponents
Number of Responses
1,343 domestic suppliers (unique by name) supplied 1,775
products/services across 6 distinct input categories
Domestic Inputs – By Category Domestic Inputs – Top 10 Types
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related SuppliersTop Inputs Sourced from Foreign Countries
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
15
18
32
0 20 40
Ordnance systems andcomponents
Insulation
Other Systems and Services
Launch services
Turbopump
Solid rocket propellantmaterial
Thrust chamber
Other
Other ManufacturedComponents
Raw materials
Number of Responses
Foreign Inputs – Top 10 Types
42
97 foreign unique suppliers (unique by name) provided 142
products/services across 6 distinct input categories
3
13
15
16
42
53
0 20 40 60
Production Tehniques
Electrical, Ignition, andControl
Other
Systems and Services
ManufacturedComponents
Propellants and OtherMaterials
Number of Responses
Foreign Inputs – By Category
“Other” includes maintenance, cleaning agents, propellant tanks,
and misc.
269 RespondentsQ6, A
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related SuppliersForeign Unique Suppliers – (97) by Country – (28)
Country Unique Suppliers Country Unique Suppliers Country Unique Supplier
Canada 19 Norway 2 Austria 1
Germany 12 Switzerland 2 Malta 1
China 10 Israel 2 Ireland 1
Japan 7 New Zealand 2 United Kingdom 1
France 6 Norway 2 Swaziland 1
Belgium 5 Taiwan 2 Malaysia 1
Italy 4 Finland 2 Thailand 1
Russia 3 Chile 2 Sweden 1
New Zealand 3 Mexico 1 Ukraine 1
India 2
43
269 RespondentsQ6, A
Foreign unique suppliers refers to the headquarters location since suppliers
may be located in multiple countries
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Supply Chain Practices Defined
• MRP (Materials Requirements Planning): obtaining the correct quantity of materials and precise timeline to support production
• Multiple Sourcing: using various suppliers
• ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning): connecting producers with makers of raw materials
• Bar Coding: using a bar code as an identification tool to track products
• CRM (Customer Relationship Management): managing and tracking relationships with customers
• MRPII (Manufacturing Resource Planning): orchestrating the correct quantity of materials throughout the entire value stream
44
Q7
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related Supply Chain
184
105
343357
256
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Supply ChainDisruptions
NegativeImpact ofImports
Supply ChainManagement
Practices
Num
ber
of R
esponses
Disruptions/Impacts Experienced
Yes No
45
Q7, A-C 361 Respondents
41
46
51
52
63
64
67
71
73
77
Manufacturing ResourcePlanning
Customer RelationshipManagement
Full Time Manager
External Consultants
Outsourcing
Subcontracting
Bar Coding
Enterprise ResourcePlanning
Multiple Sourcing
Materials RequirementsPlanning
0 20 40 60 80
Number of Responses
Number Companies Using Top 10 Supply Chain Practices
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment - Space PrimesTotal U.S. Employment vs Propulsion-Related Employment
61,312
13,413
Total Space Primes - 11
Total Employees
Propulsion Employees
46
Q8, A 11 Respondents
53,828
11,507
Legacy Space Primes - 5
TotalEmployees
PropulsionEmployees
7,484
1,906
New Space Primes - 6
TotalEmployees
PropulsionEmployees
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment at Legacy and New Space PrimesPercentage of Propulsion Employees by Age and Education
0% 10% 20% 30%
25 or Younger
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-64
65+
Percent of Total Workforce
Legacy Space Primes
Associates and Below BA/BS
Masters/Professional Ph.D.
47
Q8, B 11 Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
25 or Younger
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-64
65+
Percent of Total Workforce
New Space Primes
Associates and Below BA/BS
Masters/Professional Ph.D.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment - 2016Total Number of Employees (All Respondents) by State: 268,545
48
Q8, A 361 Respondents
4,161
9,483
43,172
24,315
20,894
21,789
225301 940
29
26
Maryland
5,107
7,854
2,296
7597
3
201
New Hampshire
1,218
New Jersey
14,999
6,408
2739,893
7,081
110
2,376
31,890
2,841
138
11,717
13,217
6,532
4,300
118
459
1,773
Massachusetts
672
Connecticut
2,431
Delaware
2,066
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment - 2016Total Number of Propulsion-Related Employees (All Respondents) by State: 29,238
49
Q8, A 361 Respondents
13,383
386Connecticut
541
Delaware
239
3
Maryland
803
Massachusetts
199
2
New Hampshire
135
New Jersey
265
1,998
23
525
921
2,850 823
11
201
11
25
191
362
768
220
680
1,528
12
113
291
49
49 252439
589135
13,384.00
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2013-2016 Total U.S. Citizen vs Total Non-U.S. Citizen Employees
251,033 254,731262,869 262,118
4,493 4,678 5,932 6,0510
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2013 2014 2015 2016
Num
ber
of E
mplo
yees
U.S. Non-U.S.
50
Q8, A 361 Respondents
Total U.S. citizen employment
increased by 4.4%
Total Non-U.S. citizen employment
increased by 34.7%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2013-2016Total Propulsion-Related vs Non Propulsion-Related Employees
255,526 259,786269,178 268,545
26,568 27,184 28,063 29,238
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2013 2014 2015 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Em
plo
yees
Non Propulsion Propulsion
Non-propulsion related employment
increased on average annually by 1.7%
compared to 3.1% for propulsion-related
employment
Q8, A 361 Respondents
51
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2013-2016U.S. Citizen Propulsion vs Non-U.S. Citizen Propulsion Employees
26,002
26,676
27,443
28,423492
508
620
729
24,000
24,500
25,000
25,500
26,000
26,500
27,000
27,500
28,000
28,500
29,000
29,500
2013 2014 2015 2016
Num
ber
of E
mplo
yees
U.S. Non-U.S.
52
Q8, A 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2013-2016Average Percentage of FTEs by Occupational Category
47.2%
46.8%
46.7%
45.0%
30.5%
31.2%
31.2%
31.6%
15.2%
15.1%
14.4%
15.0%
6.0%
5.9%
6.2%
6.2%
2.6%
2.5%
2.8%
3.2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
2013
2014
2015
2016
Percentage of Total Workforce
Production Line Workers Engineers Testing Operators/Support Technicians Scientists IT Professionals
53
Q8, A 361 Respondents
Values are industry averages
and will not total to 100%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2013-2016Average Turnover Rate by Operations
7.9%8.4%
9.2%
9.8%
3.1%
4.0%4.4% 4.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Avera
ge T
urn
over
Rate
Overall Turnover Rate Propulsion-Related Turnover Rate
54
Q8, A 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2016Total STEM Degree Propulsion-Related FTEs by Age
566
1,453
1,404
1,830
1,602
275
497
1,684
1,077
1,227
1,484
257
63
604
590
629
780
166
73
114
178
149
92
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
25 or Younger
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-64
65+
Total Number of Employees
Associates and Below BA/BS Masters/Professional Ph.D.
55
Q8, B 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2016Average STEM Degree Propulsion-Related FTEs by Age
4
9
9
11
11
2
3
9
6
7
9
2
1
4
4
4
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
25 or Younger
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-64
65+
Average Number of Employees
Associates and Below BA/BS Masters/Professional Ph.D.
56
Q8, B 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2016Total Non-U.S. FTE Employees and Contractors by Visa Type
1838 256 305 338
2,116
39
309
264
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
H-2B O-1A F-1Student Visa
H-1B Other L:Intracompany
Transferee
Green Card
Num
ber
of N
on
-U.S
. F
TE
Em
plo
yees a
nd C
ontr
acto
rs
FTE Employees FTE Contractors
57
Q8, C 94 Respondents
In 2016, 94 respondents employed 6,051 Non-
U.S. Citizen FTEs
*Some respondents were unable provide a visa-based
breakdown of their Non-U.S. Citizen FTEs. Their
responses are only included in the aggregate total.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Employment – 2016Non-U.S. FTE Employees and FTE Contractors by Top 10 Countries
23 29 30 3154 59
133158
246
884
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Num
ber
of N
on
-U.S
. F
TE
Em
plo
yees a
nd
Contr
acto
rs
58
Q8, C 94 Respondents
Mexico accounts for 54% of all Non-U.S.
citizen FTE Employees and Contractors
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
CustomersBy Type of Customers Supported
59
Q10, B 361 respondents
36, 16%
42, 18%
58, 26%
90, 40%
Foreign Customers - 226
Non-USG Non-Defense
Non-USG Government Defense
Non-U.S. Commercial Defense
Non-U.S. Commercial Non-Defense
167, 12%
388, 27%
383, 27%
473, 34%
Domestic Customers - 1,411
USG Non-Defense
USG Defense
U.S. Commercial Defense
U.S. Commercial Non-Defense
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
CustomersTotal Propulsion-Related Unique Customers by State: 637
60
361 RespondentsQ10, B
One propulsion-related customer reported in Hawaii.
112
20
109
74
32
4
12
1
2
1
6
2
13326
34
127
4
12
26
58
19
2210 39
52
1
8
3
61
5
16
Washington, DC:
22
Maryland:
21
Delaware:1
New Jersey:
13
Connecticut:
16
Rhode Island:
1
17
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
61
Q10, D 361 Respondents
CustomersTotal Foreign Unique Customers by Country: 156
4
2
1
12
5
12
9
21
2
2
1
6
5
2
5
5
6
2012
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
2Top 10 #
Japan 21
UK 20
France 12
Germany 12
Israel 9
Italy 9
Norway 6
Turkey 6
India 5
South Korea 5
156 total foreign unique customers
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
CustomersTop 15 Product/Services Provided to U.S. and Non-U.S. Customers
10
9
11
31
11
8
10
13
8
13
14
9
1
4
9
14
22
23
31
35
35
36
39
41
41
50
54
60
116
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Propellant tanks
Solid rocket propellant material
Maintenance/aftermarket/repair/refurbishing
System and or subsystem integration
Electrical systems and components
Composite materials (including carbon)
Launch services
Fasteners, gaskets, o-rings, seals
Other
Valves
Raw materials
System and/or subsystem assembly
Test services
Precision machining
Engineering services
Number of Products/ServicesU.S. Customers Non-U.S. Customers
62
Q10, A 361 Respondents
Products/services were reported as
“Other” if they fell outside the
listed product/service types (i.e.
combustion chamber, textile
cutters, filament winding,
propellant fracture modeling, etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D, Testing, and EvaluationGeneral Participation
63
Q11a, A 361 Respondents
Yes178, 49%
No183, 51%
Percentage of All Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D Expenditures – 2013-2016Total and Propulsion-Related R&D Expenditures by Value
$635
$849
$1,034
$1,191
$10,096
$10,587
$10,965
$11,827
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000
2013
2014
2015
2016
R&D Expenditures ($ Millions)
Total R&D Expenditures Propulsion Related R&D
64
Q11a, C 178 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D Expenditures – 2013-2016R&D Intensity Ratio by Average Sales
$723.7
$732.6
$718.0
$713.7
10.1% 10.0%
8.9%
10.2%
2.1% 2.0% 2.2%2.6%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
$700
$705
$710
$715
$720
$725
$730
$735
2013 2014 2015 2016
R&
D Inte
nsity R
atio
Avera
ge S
ale
s (
$ M
illio
ns)
Average Sales Average R&D Intensity Ratio Median R&D Intensity Ratio
65
Q11a, C 178 Respondents
Average R&D Intensity Ratio = Average
R&D Expenditures / Average Total Sales
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D Expenditures – 2013-2016Top Categories of R&D Expenditures by Percentage
22.6% 22.9% 21.6% 20.8%
30.6% 30.1%33.3% 32.7%
65.7% 65.4% 65.0%67.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Perc
enta
ge o
f R
&D
Expenditure
s
Basic Research Applied Research Product/Process Development
66
Q11a, C 178 Respondents
Values are industry averages
and will not total to 100%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D Expenditures – 2013-2016Average R&D Expenditures by Company Size
$2.1 $2.9 $3.0 $3.7
$97.1
$112.4$115.9
$124.1
$64.4
$58.1 $59.4$64.0
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
2013 2014 2015 2016
Avera
ge R
&D
Expenditure
s (
$ M
illio
ns)
Small Medium Large
67
Q11a, B 178 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related R&D ExpendituresTop Sources of Propulsion-Related R&D Expenditures by Percentage
6.5% 5.6%3.9%
7.1%
19.2%
22.7% 22.6% 23.4%
32.2%
35.7% 36.0% 36.7%
39.9% 39.8% 40.6%42.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Perc
enta
ge o
f Top S
ourc
es o
f P
ropuls
ion
-Rela
ted
R&
D E
xpenditure
s
Other USG-Related NASA-Related DOD-Related Non-USG-Related
68
Q11a, C 178 Respondents
Values are industry averages
and will not total to 100%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related R&D Expenditures – 2013-2016Average Propulsion-Related R&D Expenditures by Company Size
$0.8 $0.9$1.0
$1.2
$1.8$2.1 $2.2
$4.9
$3.2
$4.2
$5.8
$6.1
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
2013 2014 2015 2016
Avera
ge P
ropuls
ion
-Rela
ted R
&D
Expenditure
s
($ M
illio
ns)
Small Medium Large
69
Q11a, B 178 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D FundingTotal R&D Funding, Expenditures, and Refunds - 2013-2016
$14.1$13.7
$12.8
$9.1
$10.1$10.6
$11.0
$11.8
$2.8 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
2013 2014 2015 2016
Tota
l R
&D
Expen
diture
s/F
un
din
g/R
efu
nded
($ B
illio
ns)
Total R&D Funding Total R&D Expenditures Total R&D Expenditures Refunded by USG
70
Q11a, B 178 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D Expenditures Reimbursed – 2013-2016Total R&D Expenditures Reimbursed by USG Agencies
35.6%
32.9%33.7% 33.8%
18.9% 19.3%20.5%
22.3%
12.8%14.7% 14.9%
14.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Perc
enta
ge o
f Tota
l R
&D
Expenditure
s
Reim
burs
ed b
y U
SG
Agencie
s
DOD-Related Propulsion-Related NASA-Related
71
Q11a, C 178 Respondents
Values are industry
averages and will not
total to 100%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D Funding – 2013-2016Top 3 Sources of R&D Funding by Percentage
72.2% 72.0% 73.1% 73.5%
45.5%47.8% 48.2%
46.5%
8.4% 9.2% 8.8%
13.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Perc
enta
ge o
f R
&D
Fundin
g S
ourc
es
Internal/Self-Funded R&D USG U.S. Industry, Venture Capital, Non-Profit
72
Q11a, C 178 Respondents
Values are industry
averages and will not
total to 100%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
USG-Related R&D Funding – 2013-2016Top Sources of USG-Related R&D Funding by Percentage
40.1%41.3%
43.6% 43.1%
20.7%22.7%
20.8%22.1%
8.7%10.5%
6.4%7.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Perc
enta
ge o
f U
SG
Rela
ted R
&D
Fundin
g S
ourc
es
DOD NASA Other
73
Q11a, C 178 Respondents
Values are industry
averages and will not
total to 100%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
74
R&D Funding – 2013-2016Average Value of R&D Funding by Company Size
$2 $3 $3 $4
$169
$146
$124
$35
$78.4$83.0 $83.4
$86.6
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
2013 2014 2015 2016
Avera
ge R
&D
Fundin
g (
$ M
illio
ns)
Small Medium LargeQ11a, C 178 Respondents
Average R&D funding for
medium sized companies
decreased by 79%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationR&D Tax Credit Use and Type
105
19
54
R&D Tax Credit Usage
Yes Unsure No
75
5843
4
Type of Tax Credit Used
Both Federal and State
Federal Credit Only
State Credit Only
Q11a, D178 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationR&D Tax Credit Use by Company Size
17, 37%
6, 13%
23, 50%
R&D Tax Credit Usage
(Small Companies)
Yes Unsure No
76
Q11a, D 178 Respondents
57, 67%
7, 8%
21, 25%
R&D Tax Credit Usage
(Large Companies)
Yes Unsure No
31, 66%
6, 13%
10, 21%
R&D Tax Credit Usage
(Medium Companies)
Yes Unsure No
85 Respondents47 Respondents46 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationR&D Application by Propulsion-Related Areas: 400 Total
12222
4666
77
888
1010
1111
1313
15171717
1919
21232323
2841
0 10 20 30 40 50
Laser electric propulsion
Laser thermal rockets
Hydropropulsion
Fuel oils
Satellite tethers
Supersonic retropropulsion
Thermal rockets
Casings
Inert propellants
Missiles - liquids
Retropropulsion
Solid propellant and fuels
Storable oxidizers
Hybrid rockets
Missiles - solids
Sensors
Large solid rockets
Nuclear thermal/nuclear fusion propulsion
Environmentally friendly propellant/fuel
Liquid propellant and fuels
Gas turbines
Hypersonic
Boosters
Electric propulsion/rockets
Large liquid rockets
Small solid rockets
Propellant tanks
Small liquid rockets
High-temperature materials
Combustion chambers
Nozzles
Thrusters
In-space propulsion
Analytical modeling
Number of Responses
77
Q11b 178 Respondents
1 company reported R&D related to
hydro-propulsion
No companies reported R&D
related to laser electric propulsion
or laser thermal rockets
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D, Testing, and EvaluationR&D Application Areas by Industrial Base Business Participation (Part 1 of 2)
7
5
3
2
7
16
4
7
4
12
15
5
1
4
1
7
17
1
6
2
4
10
9
2
3
7
2
5
6
3
4
1
2
4
2
1
3
10
1
1
15
4
4
2
3
5
2
3
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
1
8
2
4
2
2
11
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Environmentally friendly propellant/fuel
Liquid propellant and fuels
Gas turbines
Hypersonic
Boosters
Electric propulsion/rockets
Large liquid rockets
Small solid rockets
Propellant tanks
Small liquid rockets
High-temperature materials
Combustion chambers
Nozzles
Thrusters
In-space propulsion
Analytical modeling
Number of Responses
Small Liquid Propulsion Large Liquid Propulsion Other Small Solid Rocket Motor
Science and Technology Large Solid Rocket Motor Electric Propulsion Test and Evaluation
78
Q11b 178 Respondents
“Other” includes material
suppliers, materials testing, and
prototyping
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D, Testing, and EvaluationR&D Application Areas by Industrial Base Business Participation (Part 2 of 2)
2
5
2
1
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
3
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
2
3
1
5
2
1
2
2
8
1
3
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Laser electric propulsion
Laser thermal rockets
Hydropropulsion
Fuel oils
Satellite tethers
Supersonic retropropulsion
Thermal rockets
Casings
Inert propellants
Missiles - liquids
Retropropulsion
Solid propellant and fuels
Storable oxidizers
Hybrid rockets
Missiles - solids
Sensors
Large solid rockets
Nuclear thermal/nuclear fusion propulsion
Number of Responses
Small Liquid Propulsion Large Liquid Propulsion Other Small Solid Rocket Motor
Science and Technology Large Solid Rocket Motor Electric Propulsion Test and Evaluation
79
Q11b 178 Respondents
“Other” includes manufacturing
and additives, basic and applied
research services, and
experimental 3D printing
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D, Testing, and EvaluationFinancial Risk by R&D Application Area (Part 1 of 2)
5
6
5
10
7
5
9
8
9
8
9
11
11
10
10
16
22
2
4
4
1
2
8
3
8
6
8
6
6
9
9
9
6
10
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
3
5
2
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Nuclear thermal/nuclear fusion propulsion
Environmentally friendly propellant/fuel
Liquid propellant and fuels
Gas turbines
Hypersonic
Boosters
Electric propulsion/rockets
Large liquid rockets
Small solid rockets
Propellant tanks
Small liquid rockets
High-temperature materials
Combustion chambers
Nozzles
Thrusters
In-space propulsion
Analytical modeling
Number of Responses
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
80
Q11b 178 Respondents
Financial risk is defined as
downside risk, estimating the
potential for financial loss and
uncertainty about its extent.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
R&D, Testing, and EvaluationFinancial Risk by R&D Application Area (Part 2 of 2)
1
1
3
3
4
1
5
3
3
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Laser electric propulsion
Laser thermal rockets
Hydropropulsion
Fuel oils
Satellite tethers
Supersonic retropropulsion
Thermal rockets
Casings
Inert propellants
Missiles - liquids
Retropropulsion
Solid propellant and fuels
Storable oxidizers
Hybrid rockets
Missiles - solids
Sensors
Large solid rockets
Number of Responses
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
81
Q11b 178 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationReceived Federal Research and Development Funding
(Direct and Indirect Funding)
No, 122, 69%
Yes, 56, 31%
82
Q11c, A 178 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationUSG Propulsion-Related Spending Practices
Adversely Impact Organization’s R&D Activities
83
130, 73%
22, 12%
26, 15%
No
Yes
Unsure
Q11c, A 178 Respondents
USG Propulsion-Related Adverse Practices
Contract Type
Decreased Spending
Fluctuation/ Erratic Spending
Inadequate Guidance/ Outreach
Inadequate Budget
Program Cancellations
Domestic Sourcing/ Buy America/ Set Asides
Reliance on Prime Contractors
Revision of Requirements
No/ Limited R&D Reimbursement
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationUSG-Funded Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Contracts: 128
41
15
43
12
7
1 1 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 Contract 2 Contracts 3 Contracts 4 Contracts 5 Contracts > 5 Contracts
Num
ber
of R
espondents
SBIR STTR
84
Q11c, C 69 Respondents
USG Agency SBIR STTR
DOD 54 4
NASA 56 12
DOC - National Institute of
Standards and Technology
2 0
(e.g. 41 respondents had 1 contract
under SBIR funding. 15 respondents
had 2 contracts from SBIR funding).
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationSBIR Contract Financial Risk
29
14
3 3 1 1
6
1
6
1
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 Contract 2 Contracts 3 Contracts 4 Contracts 5 Contracts > 5 Contracts
Num
ber
of R
espondents
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
85
Q11c, C 61 Respondents
USG AgencySBIR
Responses
DOD 54
NASA 56
DOC - National Institute of
Standards and Technology2
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationSTTR Contract Financial Risk
3
1 1
1
2
1
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 Contract 2 Contracts 3 Contracts 4 Contracts 5 Contracts > 5 Contracts
Num
ber
of R
espondents
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
86
Q11c, C 8 Respondents
USG AgencySTTR
Responses
DOD 4
NASA 12
DOC - National Institute of
Standards and Technology0
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationProgram Technology Transfer
87
Q11c, D 178 Respondents
• Program Technology Transfer - defined as the movement of knowledge or
technology developed by a federal laboratory for private organizations in the
commercial marketplace
• Examples: patent dissemination, licensing of intellectual property, and R&D
collaborative relationships such as Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements (CRADAs)
• 6 organizations each identified they participated in one propulsion-related
technology transfer activity between 2013 and 2016
• The federal agencies/departments involved included: U.S. Navy, U.S. Army,
U.S. Air Force, NASA, and U.S. Department of Energy
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationNumber of Organizations with Testing Needs
45
7
2
Propulsion-Related
Both Past & Future Use
Anticipated Future Use (2017-2020)
Past Use (2013-2016)
88
Q11d, A 178 Respondents
27
8
Engine and/or Motor-Related
Both Past & Future Use
Anticipated Future Use (2017-2020)
Past Use (2013-2016) (0 Total)
“No” and Blank
responses are
not included
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationLocation of Testing Facilities Used By Testing Needs
11
15
14
19
28
36
11
12
14
17
21
36
14
17
19
20
31
42
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Other
Other government facilities
Leased facilities
NASA facilities
Non-government facilities
Facilities owned by other industry entities
Facilities owned by your company
Number of Facilities
Past Use (2013-2016) Current Use (2017) Anticipated Future Use (2018-2020)
89
Q11d, A 178 Respondents
One additional testing facility
was reported as “Other” as it
fell outside the types listed
(Test Launch application)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Research, Development, Testing, and EvaluationOrganization’s Ability to Perform Test Type (Internal/ External)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Altitude Engine (100K+ Lb Thrust)
Altitude Engine (50K-100K Lb Thrust)
Altitude Hybrid
Altitude Engine (25K-50K Lb Thrust)
Altitude Stage (100K+ Lb Thrust)
Altitude Stage (50K-100K Lb Thrust)
Altitude Hypergolic
Ambient Hybrid
Ambient Engine (100K+ Lb Thrust)
Ambient Engine (50K-100K+ Lb Thrust)
Ambient Engine (25K-50K Lb Thrust)
Ambient Hypergolic
Altitude Stage (< 50K Lb Thrust)
Altitude Engine (0-25K Lb Thrust)
Thermal Vacuum (Engine or Stage)
Ambient Solid
Ambient Engine (0-25K+ Lb Thrust)
Ambient Stage
Component (e.g. Preburner, etc.)
Number of Responses
Internal Capability Procured Externally
90
Q11d, B 178 Respondents
An additional 40 test types (23
internal and 17 external) were
reported as “Other” as they fell
outside the listed test types
(i.e. altitude electric engine,
nuclear fusion, cryogenic
fueled stages, etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
91
$157.4$164.6
$157.6$153.2
$62.4 $65.1 $62.0 $63.5
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
2013 2014 2015 2016
To
tal S
ale
s (
$ B
illio
ns)
U.S. Sales Total Non-U.S. Sales Total
SalesTotal U.S. and Non-U.S. Sales – 2013-2016
Q9, A 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
SalesTotal U.S. and Non-U.S. Propulsion-Related Sales – 2013-2016
$22.4
$24.0
$26.0
$28.0
$2.3 $2.1 $2.0 $2.0
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
2013 2014 2015 2016
Tota
l P
ropu
lsio
n-R
ela
ted
Sale
s (
$ B
illio
ns)
U.S. Propulsion-Related Sales Non-U.S. Propulsion-Related Sales
92
Q9, A 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
SalesU.S. and Non-U.S. Propulsion-Related Sales as a Percent of Total Sales
2013 – 2016
93
15.8%
17.2% 17.4%
18.4%
4.1%4.5% 4.2% 4.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Pro
puls
ion-R
ela
ted S
ale
s (
% o
f Tota
l)
U.S. Non-U.S.Q9, B 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Sales
Combined Total U.S. and Non-U.S. Propulsion, NASA, and Defense Related
Sales – 2013-2016
94
Q9, B-D 361 Respondents
$24.7$26.0
$28.1
$29.9
$4.6$5.4 $5.3 $5.3
$36.8$37.6 $36.9 $36.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
2013 2014 2015 2016
Tota
l S
ale
s (
$ B
illio
ns)
Total Propulsion-Related Sales (U.S.+Non U.S.) Total NASA-Related Sales (U.S.+Non-U.S.)
Total Defense-Related Sales (U.S.+Non-U.S.)
Total sales can be accounted for in
more than one category (e.g. total
sales can be both NASA and
Propulsion-related)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Growth 2013–2016Median Net Sales, Gross Profit, EBIT
$18.4
$21.6$22.5 $22.1
$6.4 $6.5 $6.4 $6.0
$1.32 $1.20 $1.00 $0.94
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2013 2014 2015 2016
($ M
illio
ns)
Net Sales ($) Gross Profit ($) (Net Sales - COGS) EBIT ($) (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes)
95
Q12 361 Respondents
*Values used are industry medians
*Data reflects all organizations activities
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Growth 2013–2016Average Gross Profit Margin % by Business Size
42.1% 42.0%40.3%
41.7%
29.6% 30.2%28.8% 28.1%
24.4% 25.0%24.0% 24.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Avera
ge G
ross P
rofit M
arg
in
Small Business Medium Business Large Business
96
Q12 361 Respondents
*Values used are industry averages
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Growth 2013–2016Average Net Sales by Business Size
$14.3$5.7
$20.8 $19.0
$304.3$297.7
$268.6 $264.9
$2.1 $2.1
$1.9 $1.9
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
2013 2014 2015 2016
Avera
ge N
et S
ale
s (
Larg
e, $ B
illio
ns)
Avera
ge N
et S
ale
s (
Sm
all
& M
ediu
m, $ M
illio
ns)
Small Business Medium Business Large Business
97
Q12 361 Respondents
*Values used are industry averages
Change in average net sales (2013-2016):
Small Businesses: +33.2%
Medium Businesses: -13.0%
Large Businesses: -9.6%
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk – 2013-2016
Current Ratios
2.51 2.48
2.262.31
2.91
2.502.77
2.56
1.861.95
1.79
1.99
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2013 2014 2015 2016
Curr
ent R
atio
*Values used are industry medians
Small Business Current Ratio Medium Business Current Ratio
Large Business Current Ratio
98
Q12 361 Respondents
Liquidity ratio - measures if current
assets can meet liabilities when
due. Includes: current ratio and
quick ratio
Current ratio - ability to pay short-
term and long-term liabilities
through the proportion of current
assets to current liabilities. A
higher current ratio is better than a
lower one
*Data reflects all
organizations activities, 25
organizations had
insufficient data and were
excluded
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk – 2013-2016Quick Ratios
1.59
1.69
1.49
1.57
1.741.72 1.77
1.48
1.201.17 1.19
1.23
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2013 2014 2015 2016
Quic
k R
atio
Small Business Quick Ratio Medium Business Quick Ratio
Large Business Quick Ratio
99
Q12
361 Respondents
*Values used are industry medians
*Data reflects all
organizations activities, 25
organizations had
insufficient data and were
excluded
Liquidity ratio - measures if
current assets can meet
liabilities when due.
Includes: current ratio and
quick ratio
Quick ratio - ability to meet
short-term liabilities with
quick/near cash assets.
Excludes inventories. A
higher quick ratio is better
than a lower one
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk – 2013-2016Debt Ratio by Business Size
0.470.46
0.430.43
0.40
0.36
0.34
0.39
0.40
0.44
0.43 0.42
0.3
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
2013 2014 2015 2016
Debt R
atio
*Values used are industry medians
Small Business Debt Ratio Medium Business Debt Ratio
Large Business Debt Ratio
100
Q12 361 Respondents
Debt Ratio – capability to pay long-
term debt by measuring the
proportion of assets financed by
debt. Ratio < 0.5 indicates most
assets are financed by equity
*Data reflects all organizations
activities, 25 organizations had
insufficient data and were excluded
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk – 2013-2016Debt/Equity Ratio by Business Size
0.46
0.40 0.40
0.33
0.51
0.47 0.45
0.48
0.58
0.48
0.67
0.46
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
2013 2014 2015 2016
Deb
t/E
qu
ity R
atio
Small Business Debt/Equity RatioMedium Business Debt/Equity RatioLarge Business Debt/Equity Ratio
101
Q12
361 Respondents
*Values used are industry medians
Debt/Equity Ratio – Extent
debt is utilized to finance
assets relative to value of
equity. Ratio lower than 1
indicates more assets
financed by equity rather than
debt
*Data reflects all organizations
activities, 25 organizations had
insufficient data and were
excluded
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk – 2013-2016Asset and Industry Turnover Ratios
1.57 1.50 1.44 1.40
4.884.74 4.69 4.67
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2013 2014 2015 2016
Asse
t a
nd I
nve
nto
ry T
urn
ove
r R
atio
*Values used are industry medians
Asset Turnover (sales/average total assets)
Inventory Turnover (COGS/average inventory)
102
Q12 361 Respondents
Asset Turnover Ratio - Indicates the
efficiency in which an organization
utilizes its assets to generate revenue.
A higher ratio is better than a lower
one
Inventory Turnover Ratio – Measures
the effectiveness that inventory is
managed through a comparison of
cost of goods sold with average
inventory. A lower ratio indicates
weaker sales and excess inventory
*Data reflects all
organizations activities
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk – 2013-2016Profitability Measures
5.8% 6.0%5.2% 5.2%
8.1% 7.9%6.6%
5.7%
16.6%
21.0%
24.4% 24.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2013 2014 2015 2016
*Values used are industry medians
Net Profit Margin (net profit/ total revenues)
Return on Assets (net income/ total assets)
Percent of Companies with Elevated and Above Financial Risk
103
Q12 361 Respondents
Net Profit Margin -
Indicates the extent of
profit associated with each
dollar sold
Return on Assets (ROA) –
Indicates the efficiency in
which an organization can
manage its assets to
generate profits
*Data reflects all
organizations activities
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk and Facility Reduction/Closing
40
4853 55
20
28
35 34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2013 2014 2015 2016
Num
ber
of R
espondents
Number of Respondents by Financial Risk - 2013-2016
Moderate/Elevated Risk High/Severe Risk
104
Q2, Q9 361 Respondents
97
0
2
4
6
8
10
Reducing Operations Closing/Shutting Down
Num
ber
of F
acili
ties
Propulsion-Related Facility Reductions/Closings (Projected
for 2017-2020)
From 2013 to 2016:
-Total companies identified as moderate/elevated risk
and high/severe risk grew by 48.3%
3% of propulsion-related facilities (16 of 531) are
projected to either reduce operations (9) or close (7)
between 2017 and 2020
Financial risk is defined as downside risk which
estimates the potential for financial loss and uncertainty
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Organization Standards/CertificationsStandards/Certifications Organizations are Currently Holding or Pursuing
13
25
27
38
46
68
54
136
225
2
1
1
3
3
7
84
12
12
0 50 100 150 200 250
AMS
J-STD-001DS
FAA
ISO 14001
Independent/Internal (From Customer)
NADCAP
AS9100D
AS9100
ISO 9001
Number of Responses
Currently Holding In Process
105
Q13, A 361 Respondents
Currently Holding Total: 962
Pursuing Total: 175
19 of 361 respondents had to requalify
for propulsion-related purposes,
which cost an average of $33,067 with
potentially high variability
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Additive Manufacturing / 3-D PrintingLevel of Involvement
273
926
53
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
None Propulsion Non-Propulsion Both
Num
ber
of R
espondents
None Propulsion Non-Propulsion Both
106
Q14, A 361 Respondents
24% of survey respondents utilize additive
manufacturing/3-D Printing. Most lower-tier respondents
do not
The business types covered include:
distributor, holding company, laboratory, manufacturer,
non-profit, prototype manufacturer, research and
development, service provider, and testing facility
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Additive Manufacturing / 3-D PrintingParticipation
107
Q14, B 88 Respondents
2
2
8
6
7
10
10
1
5
9
10
16
19
22
22
4
4
12
12
21
25
33
33
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Other
A.M./3-D Design Outsourcing
A.M./3-D Design Products/Services
Integration into Systems/Subsystems
Direct Manufacturing
Tooling/Machining
Prototyping
Research and Development
Number of Responses
Participation By Application Area
Propulsion Non-Propulsion Both
Other Prop Non Both
Fixtures - - 3
Testing - - 1
Advisory Services - 1 -
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Additive Manufacturing / 3-D PrintingParticipation By Process Type
108
Q14, C 88 Respondents
2
2
2
7
1
4
10
1
2
2
3
3
8
4
10
11
10
1
4
1
4
3
6
8
14
13
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Continuous Liquid Interface Production
Sheet Lamination
Binder Jetting
Material Jetting
VAT Photopolymerization
3-D Welding
Other
Directed Energy Deposition
Material Extrusion
Powder Bed Fusion
Machining/Finishing A.M./3-D Products
Number of Responses
Propulsion Non-Propulsion Both
Other Prop Non Both
FDM/FFF 1 2 2
Plastic-related - 3 -
SLA Castings 1 - -
Cold Spray - 1 -
Composite Lay-up - 1 -
EBAM - - 1
Liquid Additives - 1 -
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Additive Manufacturing / 3-D PrintingPropulsion-Related Investment – 2013-2016
$511.4
$2,028.6
$1,515.9
$353.3
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
2013 2014 2015 2016
Investm
en
t S
pen
din
g (
$ M
illio
ns)
109
Q14, D 62 Respondents
62 respondents listed either
“Propulsion” or “Both” to indicate
their level of involvement in additive
manufacturing/ 3-D printing.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Capital ExpendituresMedian Capital Expenditures by Year – 2013-2016
110
$374.0
$474.0
$610.0 $595.0
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
2013 2014 2015 2016
Me
dia
n C
ap
ita
l E
xp
en
ditu
res (
$ T
ho
usa
nd
s)
Q15a, A 338 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Capital ExpendituresAverage Capital Expenditures by Year – 2013-2016
111
$57.4$51.7
$47.5$43.3
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
2013 2014 2015 2016
Ave
rage
Capital E
xpe
nd
itu
res (
$ M
illio
ns)
Q15a, A 338 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Capital ExpendituresMedian Propulsion-Related Capital Expenditures by Year – 2013-2016
112
Q15a, A 153 Respondents
$114.7
$133.0
$172.5$164.7
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
2013 2014 2015 2016
Med
ian P
ropu
lsio
n-R
ela
ted
Capital
Expe
nd
itu
res (
$ T
hou
sa
nd
s)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Capital ExpendituresAverage Propulsion-Related Capital Expenditures by Year – 2013-2016
113
$4.4
$9.4
$10.5
$6.6
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
2013 2014 2015 2016
Ave
rage
Pro
puls
ion
-Rela
ted
Capital
Expe
nd
itu
res (
$ M
illio
ns)
Q15a, A 153 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
114
15a, B 361 Respondents
No Negative
Impact
82.23%
Negative
Impact
10.8%
Capital ExpendituresOrganization CapEx Adversely Impacted by Reductions in
USG Spending – 2013-2016
54, 15%
307, 85%
Overall CapEx
Adverse Impact
No Adverse Impact
38, 11%
323, 89%
Propulsion-Related CapEx
Adverse Impact
No Adverse Impact
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Capital ExpendituresAnticipate Organization’s CapEx Will Be Adversely Impacted by
Reductions/Fluctuations in USG Spending – 2017-2020
115
15a, B 361 Respondents
No Negative
Impact
84.5%
47, 13%
314, 87%
Overall CapEx
Anticipate Adverse Impact
Do Not Anticipate Adverse Impact
35, 10%
326, 90%
Propulsion-Related CapEx
Anticipate Adverse Impact
Do Not Anticipate Adverse Impact
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Production/Capacity Capacity and Utilization - 2016
116
Q15a, C 311 Respondents
• “Utilization” refers to the fraction of an organization’s potential output that is
actually being used in current production. Potential output is based on a 7
day-a-week, 3x8-hour shift production schedule
• 311 organizations reported an average utilization rate of 61.4%, with 231 of
these organizations reporting a propulsion-related utilization rate of 38.8%
• 262 organizations reported an average of 18 weeks to reach 100% utilization,
with 240 organizations reporting an average of 22 weeks to reach 100%
propulsion-related utilization
• Some organizations had difficulty reporting utilization rates because they are
distributors, service providers, etc.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Production/CapacityWhich constraints listed would your organization face during a surge in demand
for propulsion-related products?
117
164
105
7974
55
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Workforce Capital Inventory Funding Quality Control
Num
ber
of R
esponses
Types of Constraints
Q15a, C 311 Respondents
Comments:
• Labor, time, and inventory constraints
• Accommodate for recruitment, training, equipment, modification of
facilities, suppliers, regulatory approval, and funding
• Need technical skilled workers
• Noted productivity impact of regulatory burdens and audits
• Ability to rapidly shift resources to face a surge in demand due to
their small percentage of propulsion-related work
• Already plan for potential surges in demand
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Participation in Propulsion-Related Cost Sharing
Arrangement Types
4
6
6
9
15
13
20
8
8
8
12
18
16
26
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
University-Sponsored
Inter-Agency Cooperation
Partnership With Subsidiary
Partnership With Downstream Suppliers
Public-Private Partnerships
Partnership With Subcontractor
U.S. Government-Sponsored
Number of Responses
Cost S
haring A
rrangem
ent T
ype
Most Common Past and Future Cost Sharing Arrangement Types
Future (2017-2020) Past (2013-2016)
118
Q15b, A 361 Respondents
Examples:
University-Sponsored: For R&D and non-
profit goals
Inter-Agency: Reduce risk, leverage
investments, utilize different talent and skill
sets, required by sponsor
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Cost Sharing Arrangements By Deterrents
8
10
10
11
13
13
17
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Export Control Adherence
Logistics/Operations
Legal Costs
Legal Time/Burden
Regulatory Burden
Contract Vehicle
Intellectual Property Concerns
Financial Concerns
Number of Responses
119
Q15b, B 28 Respondents
28 organizations responded
“Yes” for deterrents to cost
sharing arrangements
“The intense requirements
and regulations required to
obtain and maintain
classified computing
equipment (are a deterrent)”- Small Business
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGSupport to U.S. Government Agencies by Organization Size
2013-2017
67
61
82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Small (<$10M) Medium ($10M - $50M) Large (>$50M)
Nu
mb
er
of R
esp
on
de
nts
Organization Size Based on Revenue
120
Q5c, A 210 Respondents
42% of respondents did not
support USG agencies
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGTop 10 Federal Agencies Supported (All Contracts)
8
11
36
23
22
17
38
49
48
61
11
11
11
16
23
22
45
50
57
61
12
35
14
30
39
62
73
85
98
88
0 50 100 150 200
Intelligence
USMC
Other/Misc
DOE
DARPA
MDA
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
USAF
NASA
Number of Responses
Direct Both Indirect
121
Other Direct Both Indirect
DOD Other 14 4 4
Misc. 6 1 3
Department of Transportation
4 1 1
Defense Logistics Agency
4 - -
National Science Foundation
2 1 -
Research Laboratories
1 2 -
Classified - 1 2
Coast Guard 1 - 1
EPA 2 - -
Department of Agriculture
1 - 1
U.S. Postal Service - - 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1 - -
FDA - - 1
IRAPA - 1 -Sample does not include “N/A” entries
Q5a, A 210 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related Support to USGTop 10 Federal Agencies Supported (All Contracts)
7
4
7
3
17
37
16
28
51
74
11
38
40
49
37
26
75
80
60
45
13
15
14
17
30
38
65
76
92
91
0 50 100 150 200
Intelligence
USMC
Other/Misc
DOE
DARPA
MDA
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
USAF
NASA
Number of Responses
Propulsion Non-Propulsion Both
122
Sample does not include “N/A” entries
Q5a, A 210 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGPrograms Supported by 25 or More USG Dependent Respondents
6358
49 48 46 4339 38 36 36 35 34
30 29 29 29 28 27 26 25 25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Num
ber
of R
esponses p
er
Pro
gra
m
123
Q5c, B 210 Respondents
210 respondents
supported USG
Programs. Some
reported supporting
multiple USG Programs
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGPrograms Supported by 25 or More USG Dependent Respondents
With Non-U.S. Employees (Top 5 Countries)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Num
ber
of R
esponses p
er
Pro
gra
m
India Mexico China Canada Philippines
124
Q5c, B 210 Respondents
India and China account for 55% of
all Non-U.S. employees that support
USG programs.
Non-U.S. employees are not program
specific and can be accounted for in
more than one USG program
33% of Non-U.S. employees were
identified as engineers
14% of Non-U.S. employees supported
small liquid propulsion systems
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGPropulsion/Non-Propulsion-Related Support to USG JANNAF Agencies
48
33
24
18
48
41
24
22
62
61
43
34
13
15
26
20
13
16
26
23
26
37
41
39
0 50 100 150 200
NASA
USAF
U.S.Navy
U.S.Army
Number of Responses
Direct-Propulsion Both-Propulsion Indirect-Propulsion
Direct-Non Propulsion Both-Non Propulsion Indirect-Non Propulsion
125
Q5a, A-E 210 Respondents
156
184
203
210
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Financial Risk of Organizations that Support USG JANNAF Agencies
140
106
146
124
34
30
29
35
17
11
25
16
12
9
10
9
0
50
100
150
200
250
USAF Army NASA Navy
Num
be
r o
f R
espo
nses
High/Severe
Insufficient Data
Moderate/Elevated
Low/Neutral
Insufficient data is a result of
unavailable/missing data
and source data mismatches
126
Q5a 210 Respondents
Financial Risk
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
High/Severe Risk Organizations That Support USG JANNAF Agencies – 2013-2016
127
Q5a 16 Respondents
Army
NASA
Navy
USAF 4
4 out of 16 or 25% of high/severe risk
organizations support all 4 listed
USG JANNAF Agencies across 10
programs
Not Shown:
USAF & NASA: 1
Army & Navy: 1
1
21
1
1
1
2
1
USG/Commercial
Program*
Number of
Respondents
SpaceX - Falcon 9 2
M270 MLRS 2
RAM 2
Antares 1
Atlas V 1
SLS Exploration Upper State 1
EELV 1
Griffin 1
Javelin 1
MGM-140 (ATacMS) 1
*Denotes respondents that support all
JANNAF agencies
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
High/Severe & Moderate/Elevated Risk Organizations
that Support USG JANNAF Agencies – 2013-2016
128
Q5a 63 Respondents
Army
NASA
Navy
USAF 19
19 out of 63 or 30% of high/severe or
moderate/elevated risk organizations
support all 4 listed USG JANNAF
Agencies across 10 programs
Not Shown:
USAF & NASA: 3
Army & Navy: 3
3
71
3
2
9
6
3 2
2
USG/Commercial
Program*
Number of
Respondents
Atlas V 7
Delta IV 6
Delta IV - Heavy 6
Atlas V - Centaur 5
Atlas V - CCB 5
Delta IV - CBC 5
Vulcan 5
Antares 4
Blue New Shepard 4
CST100 4
*Denotes respondents that support all
JANNAF agencies
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGParticipation in Small Solid Engine/ Motor Programs – 2017-2018
53
4
5
5
6
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
23
2
1
1
1
2
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Other
Trident V5 - Fairing Eject Motors
NASA Peregrine Army Motor
Trident V5 - Third Stage Eject Motors
Black Brant V (third stage)
Trident V5 - Vector Control Motors
Trident V5 - Post Boost Motors
NASA Oriole Rocket Motor (second stage)
STAR 48BV Solid Rocket Motors
SLS Attitude Control Motor
Trident V5 - Launcher System Motors
SLS Booster Separation Motor
SLS Jettison Motor
SLS Launch Abort
Number of Responses
Yes No, But Supported Between 2013-2016
129
Q5b, A 361 Respondents
An additional 55 responses were
reported as “Other” small solid
engine/motor programs (53 currently
and 2 between 2013-2016). These fell
outside the programs listed (ex.
THAAD Motors, Hydra Motors,
Tomahawk Motors, Atlas Motors, etc.)
These programs are either directly or
indirectly related to USG. They may be
commercial, but used by the military
or other agencies
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGParticipation in Small Liquid Engine/Motor Programs – 2017-2018
36
9
11
10
13
15
2
2
1
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other
Virgin Galactic NewtonFour
SpaceX Kestrel (upper stage)
Virgin Galactic NewtonThree
SpaceX Draco Thrusters
SpaceX SuperDraco
Number of Responses
Yes No, But Supported Between 2013-2016
130
Q5b, B 361 Respondents
An additional 38 responses were
reported as “Other” liquid
engine/motor programs (36 currently
and 2 between 2013-2016). These fell
outside the programs listed (ex.
NASA Lunar Flashlight, Moog
Monarc, NASA NEA Scout, etc.)
These programs are either directly or
indirectly related to USG. Participation
can be commercial and used by the
military or other agencies
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGParticipation in Large Solid Engine/Motor Programs – 2017-2018
13
20
22
25
25
30
3
1
1
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Other
Orbital ATK GEM 63XL
Orbital ATK Castor 30 (A, B and/or XL)
Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ-60A*
Orbital ATK GEM 60
Orbital ATK SLS Booster
Number of Responses
Yes No, But Supported Between 2013-2016
131
Q5b, C 361 Respondents
An additional 16
responses were reported
as “Other” large solid
engine/motor programs
(13 currently and 3
between 2013-2016).
These fell outside the
programs listed (ex.
Super Strypi (Leonidas),
Minotaur, Orbital ATK
EELV, Atlas 5, etc.)These programs are either
directly or indirectly related to
USG. They may be
commercial, but used by the
military or other agencies.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGParticipation in Large Liquid Engine/Motor Programs – 2017-2018
21
1
1
1
1
2
9
9
9
15
15
17
21
21
23
26
32
35
41
49
1
1
3
1
4
2
1
6
2
1
3
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Other
Energomash RD-151
Energomash RD- 191
Energomash RD- 193
Energomash RD- 181
IHI Aerospace BT-4
Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 (first stage)
Energomash RD-180
Vulcan XR-8H21 (TBC)
SpaceX Raptor
SpaceX Merlin 2 concept
SpaceX Merlin 1D Vacuum (MVacD)
Blue Origin BE-3
Blue Origin BE-4
SpaceX Merlin 1D
Aerojet Rocketdyne J-2X
Aerojet Rocketdyne AR-1 Booster
Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25
Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-68 (including A)
Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10 (A, B and/or C)
Number of Responses
Yes No, But Supported Between 2013-2016
132
Q5b ,D 361 Respondents
An additional 21 responses
were reported as “Other”
large solid engine/motor
programs. These fell outside
the programs listed (ex. Delta
IV EELV, Blue Origin Shepard,
SpaceX Dragon, etc.)
These programs are either directly or
indirectly related to USG. They may be
commercial, but used by the military
or other agencies
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGTop 15 Supported USG Programs and Systems
63
58
49 4846
4339 38
36 36 35 34 3329 29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Num
ber
of P
rim
ary
Pro
duct/
Serv
ice A
ssocia
ted
USG Programs and Commercial Systems
133
Q5c, B 361 Respondents
C: Centaur
SM: Standard Missile
CCB: Common Core Booster
PAC: Patriot Advanced Capability
SLS: Space Launch System
THAAD: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Support to USGFinancial Risk of Organizations by Program/System - 2016
4540
36 35 32 32 29 3124 26 25 22 23
19 21
10
10
95 10 9
56
8 7 68 7
66
6
5
4
44 2
4
1
3 33 4 2
32
2
3
4
11 1
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Num
ber
of R
eponses
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk Insufficent Data High/Severe Risk
134
Q5c, B 210 Respondents
Financial Risk: based on profit margins, debt
levels, liquidity, product dependence, and
performance over time
High/Severe Risk: organizations with low
profit margins, high debt levels, high product
dependence, and poor performance over time
Insufficient data is a result of
unavailable/missing data and
source data mismatches
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
USG Contract InformationMost Common Propulsion-Related Contract Type
709
163
43 26 23 22 90
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Fixed Price CostReimbursement
Other Time andMaterials
Best Value Lowest PriceTechnicallyAcceptable
(LPTA)
Incentive
Num
ber
of C
ontr
acts
Type of Contract
Types of Contracts Used to ProvidePropulsion Support
135
Q16, B-C 242 Respondents
30
212
119
Do Particular Contract Types Inhibit/Discourage Ability to
Provide Propulsion Products/Services?
Do not Contract
with USG
No
Yes
An additional 43 responses were reported
as “Other” contract types as they fell
outside the programs listed (ex. Indefinite
Delivery/Indefinite Quantity [IDIQ], Federal
Acquisition Regulation [FAR], etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
USG Contract InformationMost Concerning Contract Vehicles, Ranked 1-3
13
5 5
32 2
23
3
1
1
3 1
1
1
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Fixed Price Other CostReimbursement
Time andMaterials
Lowest PriceTechnicallyAcceptable
(LPTA)
Incentive Best Value
Num
ber
of C
ontr
act V
ehic
les
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3
136
Q16, C, 1-3 30 Respondents
30 organizations reported particular contract types
inhibited/prevented them from providing propulsion-
related support to the USG. Some reported multiple
contract types as concerning
Fixed Price Comments:
• Reported the high risk put on
contractors with this type of contract,
especially for small organizations
• Reported the difficulty in accounting
for R&D estimates
• Suggested there should be variable
scope if utilizing this type of contract
“Other” included contract types beyond those
listed (ex. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
[IDIQ], Federal Acquisition Regulation [FAR], etc.)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
USG Contract Information
13, 7% 17,
9%
Neither,151, 84%
Effect of USG Acquisition Reform on Business Lines*
Hindered
Helped
137
Q16, D-E 361 Respondents
Yes, 100, 28%
No, 199, 55%
27, 7%
35, 10%
Does Your Organization Consider Itself Dependent on
the USG?
Dependency is based on an
organization’s own assessment of
its sustainability and operations
Unsure
Not Applicable
“Nobody comes to the small companies to get
knowledge. USG not willing to understand
lower tier and know who is making the parts for
the programs.” – Small Company
* Blank
responses
were not
included
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
5
13
2161
Respondents that are USG Dependent by Financial Risk
High/Severe Risk Insufficient Data
Moderate/Elevated Risk Low/Neutral Risk
138
Q16, E 100 Respondents
Perceived Support to USGPerceived Dependence USG - 2016
Of the 100 organizations that identified
their dependence on USG, 13
respondents did not provide enough
data to calculate financial risk.
11 respondents identified being
dependent on USG and identified
engaging in DMSMS activities.
4, 36%
7, 64%
Financial Risk of Respondents that are USG Dependent and Engaging in DMSMS Activities
Low/Neutral Risk Moderate/Elevated Risk
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Perceived Support to USGSelf-Determined Dependence USG JANNAF Agencies
20
25
24
25
20
22
27
26
22
24
22
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
NASA
USAF
Number of Responses
Direct Both Indirect
139
Q16, E, 1 100 Respondents
76: USAF
support
73: NASA
support
71: U.S. Navy
support
62: U.S. Army
support
Dependency is based on an
organization’s own assessment of
its sustainability and operations.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Counterfeit Parts
• Six organizations reported identifying counterfeit parts in 2013, 2014, and 2015
• Reported counterfeit parts included bearings, fabrications, electrical systems and components, and igniter systems and components
• Four organizations identified counterfeit parts as originating in the U.S., while two organizations identified counterfeit parts as originating outside the U.S.
• Nineteen organizations identified cyber security breaches as a threat to long-term viability. Of the nineteen organizations identified, three organizations also identify counterfeit parts as a threat
140
17b, D 6 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
U.S. Air Force Release of Surplus ICBM MotorsRespondent Perspectives - 2016
Yes, 52, 14%
No, 309, 86%
Are you familiar with USAF plans to release surplus ICBM
motors into the commercial market?
141
17b, E 361 Respondents
Yes36,
10%
No167, 46%
Unsure158, 44%
Does your organization perceive the release of ICBM motors as damaging?
Perceived Harm Respondents (361)
Direct 14
Indirect 16
Both 6
Unsure 158
None 167
Indicate your organization’s
anticipated harm/benefit
resulting from the proposed
release of surplus ICMB
solid rocket motors by USAF
Perceived Benefit Respondents (361)
Direct 12
Indirect 3
Both 4
Unsure 82
None 260
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Propulsion-Related Patents
• How many of your organization’s patents registered with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) are propulsion-related?
• Thirty (30) respondents reported a total of 1,119 propulsion-related patents from 2013-2017• Of the 30 respondents identified: 15 were large companies, 7 were medium companies,
and 8 were small companies
• A single organization reported detecting a patent infringement
• The organization reported being unable to resolve the patent infringement issue• “They published proprietary information which they were prohibited from doing under an
NDA they signed.” – Small Company
142
17b, G 30 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material
Shortages (DMSMS)• 19 respondents indicated their facilities engage in DMSMS activities
• A Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) issue is the loss, or impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers of items, raw materials, or software
• Support of U.S. Agencies by those 19 respondents:
143
1917
1513 12
97 6
4 4 3 2 10
10
20
Num
ber
of R
espo
nses
Q17b, C 19 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material
Shortages (DMSMS)Propulsion Industrial Base Support – By Business Categories
144
1
3
5
11
14
1819
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
ElectricPropulsion
Large SolidRocket Motor
Test andEvaluation
Small SolidRocket Motor
Small LiquidPropulsion
Large LiquidPropulsion
Other
Num
ber
of R
esponses
Business Category
Q17b, C 19 Respondents
“Other” was most commonly
identified by companies who
were unsure of how they
supported propulsion-
related engines and systems
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortages
By DMSMS Spending – 2013-2016
$127,023
$106,228$102,633 $102,253
$9,378 $10,353 $10,378
$30,809
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
2013 2014 2015 2016
DM
SM
S S
pen
din
g (
$ T
hou
sa
nd
s)
Total DMSMS Spending NASA-Related DMSMS Spending
145
Q17b, C19 Respondents
Average DMSMS Spending:
$5.76 Million
Average NASA-Related DMSMS Spending:
$0.80 Million
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Security: Cyber/Physical
• Cyber Security: The body of technologies, processes, and practices
designed to protect networks, computers, programs, and data from attack,
damage, or unauthorized access
• Commercially Sensitive Information (CSI): Privileged or proprietary
information which, if compromised through alternation, corruption, loss,
misuse, or unauthorized disclosure could cause serious harm to the
organization owning it
• CSI Can Include: Customer/client financial records, intellectual property,
internal communications, manufacturing and production line information,
patents and trademarks, R&D information, and supplier/supply chain
information
146
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Security: Cyber/PhysicalExpenditures – 2013-2016
$622
$849
$924
$1,020
$378 $384
$705$679
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
2013 2014 2015 2016
Tota
l C
yber/
Physic
al S
ecurity
Expenditure
s
($ M
illio
ns)
Total Expenditure on Cyber and Physical Security
Cyber Spending Physical Spending
147
Q18, A 361 Respondents
$2.59
$3.32 $3.38$3.59
$1.83 $1.81
$3.11
$2.83
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
2013 2014 2015 2016Avera
ge C
yber/
Physic
al S
ecurity
Expenditure
s
($ M
illio
ns)
Average Expenditure on Cyber and Physical Security
Cyber Spending Physical Spending
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Security: Cyber/PhysicalNetwork Administration – 2016
1
4
5
12
37
66
231
0
9
5
67
46
94
130
0 50 100 150 200 250
Only Non-U.S. External ServiceProvider
Both U.S. and Non-U.S. ServiceProviders
Internal IT Department and Externalnon-U.S. Service Provider
Not Applicable
Only U.S. External Service Provider
Internal IT Department and externalU.S. Service Provider
Internal IT Department
Number of ResponsesResponsibility for Computer Networks
External Network Internal Network
148
Q18, C 361 Respondents
115 130224
0
50
100
150
200
In Storage(at rest)
Transmitted AcrossInternal Networks
TransmittedOutside
Oraganization'sNetworks
Encryption of CSI Data
No, 62
Yes, 196
Unsure, 103
Able to Detect the Theft of CSI?
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Security: Cyber/PhysicalDirect JANNAF Suppliers and CSI Theft Detection
14 1418
14
16 16
28
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
USAF Army NASA Navy
Num
ber
of R
espondents
Organizations that Cannot/Are Unable to Detect CSI Theft
Cannot/Are Unable Unsure
149
Q18, E 165 Respondents
30 30
46
31
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Security: Cyber/PhysicalDirect JANNAF Suppliers
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Num
be
r of
Re
sp
on
de
nts
Cyber Impacts by Type of DOD Service - 2013-2016
USAF Army NASA Navy
150
Q18, E 361 Respondents
7263
29 24
17
17
2
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Security Measures by Organization SizeLarge: >$50M Medium: $10M - $50M Small: <$10M (2016)
151
Q18, D 360 Respondents
0% - 60% 61% - 84% 85% - 100%1 respondent excluded because they did
not begin sales until after 2016
Values denote % of Companies (e.g. 85-
100% of Large Companies employ Malware
Defenses
0% 100%
Malware Defenses
Data Recovery Capability
Controlled Use of Admin. Privileges
Wireless Access Control
Data Protection
Controlled Access for Need to Know
Account Monitoring and Control
Secure Configurations Network Devices
Application Software Security
Limit/Control of Network Ports/Services
Secure Configurations on Hardware
Incident Response and Management
Secure Network Engineering
Boundary Defense
Inventory of Software
Inventory of Devices
Maintain/Monitor/Analysis of Audit Logs
Continuous Vulnerability Assessment
Security Skills Assessments & Training
Penetration Test & Red Team Exercises
Large (129)0% 100%
Medium (104)
0% 100%
Small (127)
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Companies Seeking Cyber Security SupportLarge: >$50M Medium: $10M - $50M Small: <$10M (2016)
152
Q18, D 66 Respondents
29, 45%Small
25, 37%Medium
12, 18%Large
44% of companies seeking
additional cyber security support
are Small Businesses
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Cyber SecurityImpacts and Actions of Malicious Cyber Activity – 2013-2016
2
9
11
12
20
38
57
5
6
14
26
106
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Theft of Software and/or Source Code
Exit from Product or Business Line
Exit from Foreign Markets or Market Segments
Exfiltration of CSI Data
Damage to Production Capabilities or Systems
Damage to IT Infrastructure
Significant Change in R&D Strategy
Loss of Sales/Business Interruption
Revised Approach to International Partnerships
Costs from Damage Assessment/Remediation
IT Downtime
Major New Investment in Cyber Security
Number of Respondents
Impact Experience
Action Undertaken
153
Q18, E 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Top Organizational ChallengesLarge-Size Organizations (>$50M) Top 15 Rankings
1
1
1
1
3
5
2
3
3
6
5
5
8
11
13
11
10
12
4
12
11
8
9
10
12
12
14
13
16
8
10
12
10
17
8
12
14
16
12
8
11
12
11
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Material Price Volatility
Export Controls/ ITAR Regulations
Labor Costs
Government Regulatory Burden
Material Availability - U.S.
Competition - Foreign
Labor Skills
High Fixed Costs
Skills Retention
Government Purchasing Volatility
Aging Equipment
Labor Availability
Government Acquisition Process
Reduction in U.S. Government Demand
Competition - Domestic
Number of Responses
Primary Ranked Other Ranked Concerns Unranked Concerns
154
Q17a 129 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Top Organizational ChallengesMedium-Size Organizations ($10M - $50M) Top 15 Rankings
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
5
11
6
2
7
5
5
4
8
7
7
12
12
9
13
6
5
13
19
15
21
8
6
5
8
8
4
6
9
5
11
7
4
5
9
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Program/System Cancellation
QA/QC Requirements (sosts, Lead Time, etc)
Supplier Reliability - U.S.
Taxes
Labor Costs
Access to USG R&D Funding
Export Controls
Government Purchasing Volatility
Competition - Domestic
Government Regulatory Burden
Reduction in U.S. Government Demand
Healthcare
Government Acquisition Process
Labor Skills
Labor Availability
Number of Responses
Primary Ranked Other Ranked Concerns Unranked Concerns
155
Q17a 104 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Top Organizational ChallengesSmall-Size Organizations (<$10M) Top 15 Rankings
9
1
4
1
2
8
6
6
3
4
6
6
9
7
12
7
9
15
9
10
12
7
16
18
17
15
16
19
4
9
14
13
4
13
13
6
15
8
10
10
12
11
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Access to USG R&D Funding
Labor Costs
Program/System Cancellation
QA/QC Requirements (Costs, Lead Time, etc.)
Aging Equipment
Export Controls
Taxes
Availability of Capital
Government Purchasing Volatility
Government Regulatory Burden
Healthcare
Labor Skills
Competition - Domestic
Government Acquisition Process
Labor Availability
Number of Responses
Primary Ranked Other Ranked Concerns Unranked Concerns
156
Q17a 128 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Competitiveness/Long-Term ViabilityExport Controls
66, 19%
26, 7%
156, 43%11, 3%
102, 28%
Sell Product/Services That Are Export Controlled (248)
Yes - International Traffic in Arms Regulations
Yes - Export Administration Regulations
Yes - Both
Unsure
No
157
Q17b, A 361 respondents
19, 12%
35, 22%
104, 66%
Export Product/Services That Are Export Controlled (158)
Yes - International Traffic in Arms Regulations
Yes - Export Administration Regulations
Yes - Both
158 of 361 respondents reported
exporting product/ services that
are export controlled
248 of 361 respondents
reported selling export
controlled product/services.
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Competitiveness/Long-Term ViabilityExport Controls – 2013-2016
158
158 Respondents
61
8
45
Loss of Export Sales Opportunities of Propulsion-Related Products/Services (60)
Yes - International Traffic in Arms Regulations
Yes - Export Administration Regulations
Yes - Both
Unsure
19
35
104
Export Product/Services That Are Export Controlled (158)
Yes - International Traffic in Arms Regulations
Yes - Export Administration Regulations
Yes - Both 15 of 158 directly attributed
losses in export sales to
export controls.
Q17b, A
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Competitiveness/Long-Term ViabilityExport Controls – 2013-2016
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
India
Italy
Netherlands
New Zealand
Poland
Russia
Turkey
China
Switzerland
Taiwan
South Korea
Israel
United Kingdom
France
Germany
Number of Organizations Who Lost Sales
Countries Where Export-Related Sales Were Lost
159
17b, A&B 361 Respondents
Respondents reported top three
countries where sales were lost
303
232
96
Impact of Export Control Reform on Propulsion-related Technology
Favorable Unfavorable No Effect Unsure
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Competitiveness/Long-Term ViabilityExport Controls – 2013-2016
160
Actions Taken in Response to Export Controls ITAR Both EAR
Avoid Exporting 19 15 3
Incentivize "design-out" 14 6 -
Incentivize "ITAR Free" 13 6 -
Engage in Cost-sharing 7 3 1
Modify to avoid export-control 5 4 1
Reduce/eliminate investment in R&D 7 3 -
Related production outside the U.S. 6 3 -
Reduce/eliminate investment in production 6 3 -
Discontinue Production 2 5 1
Related R&D outside the U.S. 5 2 -
17b, A&B 361 Respondents
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
OutreachTop 10 Areas that Organizations Request Information for USG
Programs/Services
33
34
34
34
38
38
44
53
55
66
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Design for Manufacturability
SBIR and STTR Contracts
Export Assistance
Technology Acceleration
Quality Management and Control
R&D Assistance and Partnership
Continuous Improvement/Lean Manufacturing
Market Expansion/Business Growth
Export Licensing (ITAR/EAR)
Cybersecurity
Number of Responses
161
Q19, A 361 Respondents
ITAR: International Traffic in Arms
Regulations
EAR: Export Administration
Regulations
SBIR: Small Business Innovation
Research
STTR: Small Business Technology
Transfer
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Highlight on China
162
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
HighlightChina and the Propulsion Supply Chain
Quotes Regarding China
and the Supply Chain
• “Chinese suppliers dump tungsten
powders and semi-finished products
in the U.S.”
• “Undercutting of price structure by
dumping of aluminum powder by
China.”
• “Availability of foreign made
spherical aluminum powders,
particularly in the case of China
market dumping practices, in
conjunction with the severe export
licensing requirements for export of
our product renders our Company
unable to compete in the non-U.S.
commercial market.”
163
27
15
110
3 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Chinese Employees By Visa Type
H1B F1 Green Card L O1A
A total of 158 Chinese Nationals
(excluding Taiwan, Hong Kong, and
Macau) were reported by 17
propulsion-related organizations.
However, most do not work in
propulsion-related roles for the
surveyed organizations.
China and Ownership Structure
• Zero companies reported a Chinese parent company
• One company reported an internal/owned facility in China, with no anticipated change in the next four years
• Zero companies reported using external facilitates inside China
BIS/OTE U.S. Rocket Propulsion Assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, RPIBA, 2018
FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
10
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
Supplier/Customer
China as Propulsion Supplier
China as Propulsion Customer
164
3
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mergers, Acquisitions, Divestures (MADs) and
Joint Ventures (JVs)
China MADs China JVs
As a supplier, China provides Raw
materials (including Additive
Manufacturing Stock), Solid rocket
propellant material, Weld wire,
Other Systems and Services, and
All Other
As a customer, China buys
propulsion-related Raw materials
(including Additive Manufacturing
Stock)
Companies engaging in JVs in
China reported “Broaden customer
base” and “Improved access to
foreign markets” as the top reasons
Companies engaging in MADs in
China reported “Broaden customer
base” and “Reduce costs” as the
reasons
HighlightChina and the Propulsion Supply Chain
BIS/OTE 165
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security
Office of Technology Evaluation
HCHB 1093, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
http://www.bis.doc.gov/DIB
BIS/OTE Contact Information
Brad Botwin
Director, Industrial Studies
(202) 482-4060
Erika Maynard
Special Projects Manager
(202) 482-5572
Government Analysts:
Jennifer Rice, Trade and Industry Analyst (Project Lead)
Moriah Phillips, Trade and Industry Analyst
Support Staff: Alex Csanadi, Alexander Werner, Ashira Naftali Greer, Caela Mandigo, Camden Landew,
Christopher Whittle, Cole Welch, Connie Lee, Gauri Deshpande, Hannah Kim,
Ian Bonanno, Ian Kearns, Kimberly Kruse, Lea Carroll, Lena Richenberg, Morgan Hughes,
Norris Kpamegan, Ormond Derrick
Jason Bolton
Senior Trade and Industry Analyst
(202) 482-5936