In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the company’s plans and ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
We asked PlaneWave what the company’s biggest wins in 2023 were. They replied with the following information:
PlaneWave had a very successful year where our fist batch of space antennas flew on a LEO mission.
In addition to deploying our line of spaceborne antennas, we have been working with several space startups designing their communication system architectures and future mission hardware.
PlaneWave also shared the company’s strategic aims and ambitions for this year:
We have already booked several new spaceborne antennas for varieties of missions and space vehicles.
In addition to the customer-driven designs, we have few very intriguing ideas for emerging space applications for in our R&D departments.
PlaneWave also shared a useful piece of advice for any space mission designer:
Space is very harsh environment and very unforgiving to any complacency in the design or test.
We cannot leave any t’s uncrossed or any i’s undotted.
This section includes a variety of PlaneWave’s products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
]]>In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the company’s plans and ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
We asked KP Labs what the company’s biggest wins in 2023 were. They replied with the following information:
Success of the Transporter 9 mission with Intuition-1 and Antelope on board: The Transporter 9 mission, using SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, effectively placed the Intuition-1 satellite and our Antelope Onboard Computer (OBC) into orbit. Intuition-1 is designed for Earth observation using a hyperspectral instrument and AI for data processing thanks to KP Labs Oryx OBCS, The Herd algorithms and Leopard Data Processing Unit (DPU), while Antelope OBC with a DPU module, aboard D-Orbit’s ION Satellite Carrier, is ultimately responsible for satellite control and task performance with a DPU module running telemetry data algorithms monitoring the satellite’s subsystems.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Leopard DPU in orbit: The Leopard DPU, a key component of the Intuition-1 mission, successfully ran artificial intelligence in space. This was achieved through the execution of a real neural network for hyperspectral data processing, utilizing its FPGA accelerator. This operation earned the Leopard DPU its flight heritage status.
Operational milestone for Antelope OBC with a DPU module: Integrated into D-Orbit’s ION Satellite Carrier, the Antelope OBC successfully passed its initial testing phase in orbit. This achievement not only confirmed its functionality but also granted it flight heritage status, highlighting its readiness for space missions.
Leopard DPU shortlisted for ISS experiment: The Leopard DPU is set for a significant ISS experiment. In collaboration with the European Space Agency and Polish Space Agency, this experiment aims to test the Leopard DPU’s AI and data processing capabilities in space, aligning it with the upcoming Axiom-4 mission with the Polish astronaut Slawosz Uznanski on board.
VIREO satellite launch with KP Labs AI technology: Launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, the VIREO satellite from C3S Electronics Development LLC features KP Labs’ AI technology for on-board cloud-coverage detection. This technology, based on a custom convolutional neural network, enhances the satellite’s Earth Observation (EO) capabilities.
KP Labs’ Anomaly Detection System on OPS-SAT: KP Labs successfully demonstrated its anomaly detection algorithm on the European Space Agency’s OPS-SAT satellite. This experiment validated the effectiveness of our machine learning algorithms in space conditions, showcasing advancement in space-based anomaly detection technology.
KP Labs also shared the company’s strategic aims and ambitions for this year:
Leopard DPU’s role in OPS SAT VOLT mission: The Leopard Data Processing Unit (DPU) by KP Labs is set to play a crucial role in the upcoming OPS SAT VOLT mission, led by Craft Prospect for the European Space Agency (ESA). This mission, valued at approximately €12 million, aims to bring advanced hardware and software technologies into a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment, addressing global challenges like the climate crisis and securing cyber communications.
The Leopard DPU will serve as a key element, enabling real-time AI-based data classification and compression, significantly reducing data transfer loads and processing times back to Earth. This contribution will be pivotal in testing Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) space hardware and autonomous operations software within a Versatile Optical Laboratory for Telecommunications (VOLT), enhancing capabilities for optical communications and climate resilience applications.
Expanding the product portfolio and advancing technology readiness Levels: KP Labs is focusing on expanding our product portfolio and elevating the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of our offerings. This approach is in line with our commitment to advancing the state of space technology and providing innovative solutions to industry. We aim to continuously improve and diversify our range of products, ensuring they meet the highest standards of technical readiness and applicability for various space missions.
Introducing a new service: This service will significantly enhance KP Labs’s capabilities and provide clients with more comprehensive solutions. Designed to complement KP Labs’ existing portfolio, this service aligns perfectly with the mission of delivering cutting-edge technology in the field of space exploration and observation, making hardware easily accessible.
KP Labs also shared some insights on the wider space industry, and how they relate to the company’s strategic aims and ambitions:
For engineers planning missions in 2024 and beyond, KP Labs encourages paying attention to Edge AI to increase returns on a mission on the one hand but on the other enter new markets enabling decision-making in space.
Various tools for on-board data processing, like the ones KP Labs provides, are crucial for managing the challenges posed by the high volume of data generated in space missions. They enable fast processing and efficient compression, which are essential given the limitations in downlink capabilities.
For example, a single, unprocessed hyperspectral image takes up 2 GB, whereas the speed of data transfer to the ground station is 50 Mb/s. As a result, transmitting one image to Earth can take almost 7 min., while the length of a typical communication session is 5-10 min.
The use of field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) combined with artificial intelligence, could face the challenge. These technologies not only increase the speed of data analysis but also enable real-time data classification and compression, reducing the size of the transmitted data significantly, sometimes by up to 100 times.
This advanced architecture, exemplified by the Leopard DPU, ensures smooth performance in space and allows for high throughput, achieving up to 3 Tera Operations Per Second.
KP Labs products (software, hardware, algorithms) dedicated to Edge AI, which you can find detailed on the company’s satsearch profile, are specifically designed to meet these requirements.
They are tailor-made for efficient data processing in space, addressing the current and future needs of various space missions. For more information about our range of products and how they can support your mission requirements, visit KP Labs Products.
This section includes a variety of KP Labs’ products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
Jatan is a writer, speaker, and consultant covering various aspects of the space industry, and authors the Moon Monday and Indian Space Progress newsletters.
In this episode our host Hywel Curtis discussed various topics with Jatan relating to planetary science, lunar missions and the space ecosystem in India. In particular the podcast covers:
You can find out more about Jatan’s work at the links below:
]]>In the episode we discuss:
You can find out more about John’s work at the links below:
]]>In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the company’s plans and ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
We asked IENAI SPACE what the company’s biggest wins in 2023 were. They replied with the following information:
2023 has seen a lot of work and effort from the team, which means our biggest wins were tied to our ongoing product development! For our 360™ mission analysis & space mobility software (360) we carried out an extensive closed BETA with more than 30 renowned players in the industry, which allowed us to provide actionable insights for the design of space mobility layers in their upcoming missions while in turn receiving very valuable feedback.
Based on this, we released 360 commercially in its first version in October, and are currently working on the next releases as we expand the functionalities of the tool towards more general mission analysis, while doubling down on our unique space mobility analysis capabilities. We have already secured a number of clients for the tool and are looking to expand on our client base next year.
For the ATHENA – Adaptable THruster based on Electrospray for Nanosatellites system, this year saw the kick-off of two projects with ESA. An ESA MAKE for technology maturation of our thruster with which we intend to take the propulsion system to TRL8; and an ESA DRISK to develop novel capabilities for the future.
These projects have been extremely successful to date and have allowed us to advance and consolidate the technology under the independent validation of ESA, with a major milestone being the successful closure of the Preliminary Design Review for the thruster at the end of the year.
We have also received additional funds both regionally as well as in the form of an additional ESA contract for further efforts to miniaturize the ATHENA technology, which in the future would pave the way for pico-satellite class thrusters or RCS for nano-satellites.
IENAI SPACE also shared the company’s strategic aims and ambitions for this year:
During 2023 we booked our next IOD for ATHENA in partnership with EnduroSat and were also awarded a spot on the Cassini IOD initiative, led by ISISpace. This means that at the end of 2024 we could see not one but TWO IODs for our propulsion systems happening in parallel. This is part of our goal to release a commercial product with more extensive heritage than your average space product, which we believe will go a long way toward building trust with our future clients.
Ideally, if all things go well, we should see a commercially ready ATHENA Nano thruster by the beginning of next year! On our software capabilities side, we will continue building on the foundations of 360, expanding its capabilities into general mission analysis capabilities but with a “New Space” twist, and of course touting our unique space mobility analysis features. We believe the tool can become a new standard for mission analysis software and are looking forward to many more users being onboarded throughout the year.
Finally, 2024 is the year we kickstart the development on ORBITAL, our flight dynamics and maneuvering operations tool, which will be based on a unique digital twin approach and should remove many of the pain points we currently see in the industry when it comes to moving satellites in space.
IENAI SPACE also shared some insights on the wider space industry, and how they relate to the company’s strategic aims and ambitions:
In general, space mobility is becoming more and more relevant, first because constellations are THE next big thing (and have been for a while) and it is clear that propulsion plays a major role here; specifically electric propulsion, considering that more than 65% of all satellites launched to orbit in the last 10 years carried an electric thruster.
So our advice is to take space mobility seriously and plan ahead early on in the mission to reduce pain points later down the line (and we’re always standing by to help solving this particular problem).
As an example, for constellation deployment planning there are currently a lot of missed optimization opportunities for cost and time that can be accessed if the launcher and on-board propulsion system can be selected (or even tailored) by looking at the problem holistically; luckily, this is one of the upcoming features of 360 that we’re most excited about and we hope the users of the tool value it as a very unique capability.
Secondly, regulations are coming for propulsion-less satellites in the very near future; the wild-west years of the space industry focusing on LEO are behind us and we hope we can bring a no-compromise solution to the market in terms of performance, cost and availability, one which is customized around our clients’ satellite platforms, and not the other way around, which I hope our clients find refreshing.
This section includes a variety of IENAI SPACE’s products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
]]>In the episode we discuss:
You can find out more about TerraWatch and Aravind’s work at the links below:
]]>In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the company’s plans and ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
We asked NewSpace Systems what the company’s biggest wins in 2023 were. They replied with the following information:
In 2023, NewSpace Systems (NSS) celebrated a decade of expertise marked by remarkable achievements. The company’s growth skyrocketed, doubling both its workforce and operational capacity.
NSS strengthened its global presence by expanding exports, now delivering products to over 33 countries across 6 continents. The launch of their latest Reaction Wheel products, the Libra-6, Libra-8, and Libra-80, specifically designed for spacecraft missions weighing above 100kg, has collectively attracted >500 unit sales.
NSS further demonstrated its commitment to growth by acquiring two new buildings. 2023 not only signified the continuous expansion of the industry but also underscored the increasing demand for NewSpace Systems’ reliable Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) products and its capability to deliver them at scale.
NewSpace Systems also shared the company’s strategic aims and ambitions for the rest of this year:
In 2024, NewSpace Systems (NSS) is strategically positioned for sustained growth, with a primary focus on expanding manufacturing capabilities.
The company will soon kick off the construction of a new building featuring cleanrooms three times larger than the current ones, a move aimed at enhancing production capacity and supporting larger-scale projects.
Furthermore, NSS is preparing to launch additional Gen-2 products, which will include GPS Receivers, Sun Sensors, and Magnetometers, all boasting enhanced performance and even greater reliability in higher orbits.
The company is also actively developing new products, such as advanced communication systems encompassing S, X, and Ka-band transmitters, as well as an S-band transceiver.
This section includes a variety of NewSpace Systems products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
In the episode we discuss the progress that has been made in the industry to make space a safer and more sustainable operating environment – as well as all of the work still to do. In particular we cover:
You can find out more about the Space Sustainability Rating (SSR) here on the organization’s website.
Interested in finding out more about the rating? Feel free to contact the SSR team at contact@ssr.space
]]>It also provides insights into the qualities and significance of EXA‘s PCDU in relation to NewSpace missions, also offering insight into its distinct approach to space technology.
The article was developed in collaboration with Ecuadorian Space Agency (EXA), a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The NewSpace sector has pushed the innovation boundaries in the space industry, giving rise to both technologically advanced components as well help accelerate the commercialization in the space industry. In this dynamic landscape of NewSpace industry, the Ecuadorian Space Agency (EXA) is one of the players in the industry serving the high demands of the global space market. The COLOSSUS Power Conditioning and Distribution Unit (PCDU), which was particularly built for space operations, is a critical component of EXA’s success. EXA has recently established itself as a prominent player by shipping the first PCDU designed, built, and tested in Ecuador, Latin America.
In the further sections of the article, we will take a deeper look at EXA’s COLOSSUS PCDU and its importance in small and microsatellite missions.
A PCDU is like the heart of a satellite, a big satellite, not a CubeSat or nanosatellite. It takes the power generated by the solar panels, or arrays, and conditions it, meaning it transforms it into the multiple needs of the multiple devices in the spacecraft that need different types of power.
For example, 50 volts at 5 amperes, 12 volts at 3 amperes, 28 volts at 3 amperes, and so on, keeping those different power streams steady and stable, so the satellite can work. In general, the PCDU is a critical component that contributes significantly to the success of these missions. It is the backbone of spacecraft power systems, meeting the unique problems and requirements of NewSpace initiatives.
Traditional satellites are enormous and complicated, with several systems and redundancies. Small and microsatellites, on the other hand, have an emphasis on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and simplified design. These satellites are frequently used for a variety of applications, including earth observation, scientific research, and technological demonstration. Given their small size and weight limits, each component on board must be tuned to maximum functionality while utilizing limited resources.
Simultaneously, small and microsatellites are frequently outfitted with solar panels to harvest solar energy for power generation. The PCDU is critical in properly controlling and regulating incoming power to guarantee a consistent and uninterrupted supply. This is especially difficult in space environments, where variations in solar exposure and orbital circumstances can affect power output.
COLOSSUS is the most advanced PCDU of its kind designed by EXA. It has the highest power-to-volume and weight ratio for its class. The device weighs only 7.6 Kg and yet is capable of delivering 1.6 KW of power (more or less like what a small house consumes in a day) it means that a 150 Kg satellite accounts for 5% of its mass and yet powers the entire spacecraft.
And yes, 7.6 kg INCLUDING THE BATTERIES in the same device.
EXA plans a family of COLOSSUS models, scalable up to 16 KW (like you could power your entire apartment for 16 days, non-stop) with the same efficiency in mass and power as the first COLOSSUS L2A shipped in December 2023, the design is carried out by the EXA. The onboard computer that controls the device was designed by another Ecuadorian company, Quantum Aerospace (QAS) and also fabricated in Ecuador, along with the flight software (operating system) also written by QAS engineers.
COLOSSUS design started back in 2018 with a team led by EXA’s Chief Designer AND Academician Ronnie Nader, later in 2022 after the proper validation of all models prototyping and testing started and a contract was awarded by a US-based company building its own fleet of 15 satellites of 150 Kg each. The unit first shipped was an Engineering Development Unit (EDU), later in 2024 the first Flight Unit will be shipped, and then 15 units more.
The NewSpace sector focuses on cost-effectiveness and quick deployment. EXA’s PCDUs are designed specifically for small and microsatellites and contribute to this approach by providing cost-effective solutions that maintain functionality. The improvement of power management with efficient PCDUs helps to make NewSpace flights more affordable. In the next section of the article, we will take a deeper look into these characteristics of PCDU for small and microsatellites.
1. Cost-effective design: EXA’s PCDU is distinguished by its cost-effective design. Recognizing the cost restrictions that NewSpace projects frequently confront, EXA has focused on production efficiency while maintaining the PCDU’s quality and performance. This strategy is consistent with the NewSpace principles, which emphasize cost-effectiveness as a driving force behind project success.
2. Lightweight construction: EXA’s PCDU prioritizes lightweight construction, recognizing the influence of weight on overall mission expenses. The PCDU is meant to be small and lightweight using innovative materials and engineering processes, resulting in greater payload capacity for scientific equipment and other critical components.
3. Adaptability to different orbits: The current global space missions frequently use many orbits, ranging from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) for Earth observation to Geostationary Orbit (GEO) for different satellites. The EXA PCDU is designed to adapt smoothly to varied orbits, optimizing power distribution depending on the variable solar light levels faced in each orbit. This flexibility increases the versatility of EXA’s spacecraft, enabling a wider range of mission goals.
4. Diverse missions and importance in small and microsatellites: Small and microsatellites perform a variety of functions, including Earth observation, communication, scientific study, and technological demonstration. The versatility and customization possibilities provided by EXA’s PCDUs enable satellite developers to design a variety of mission profiles, broadening the scope and effect of NewSpace initiatives. It is designed to work smoothly with the fast-paced development processes, reducing total time-to-launch.
As the NewSpace sector evolved, the importance of small and microsatellites in altering space exploration becomes increasingly clear. The PCDU remains a key component in this change, ensuring that these satellites function efficiently, reliably, and cost-effectively. The customisation, downsizing, and adaptability provided by PCDUs built for NewSpace missions enable satellite makers to push the limits of innovation, propelling the industry ahead into new horizons.
EXA is committed to developing indigenous space capabilities, with an emphasis on capacity building and technology transfer. The company’s PCDU is being developed in partnership with local industry and educational institutions, which will create a competent workforce and contribute to Ecuador’s technological success. This strategy is consistent with the NewSpace ideal of fostering local expertise and innovation.
EXA‘s PCDU demonstrates Ecuador’s capabilities to upgrade space technology within the NewSpace landscape. By tackling the particular issues of cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency, EXA’s PCDU contributes significantly to the agency’s success in space missions. As Ecuador continues to carve out a position in the global space market, EXA’s efforts in space product development remain a symbol of creativity and dedication, demonstrating the potential for new space programs to make significant contributions to the global space community.
To find out more about EXA, please view their supplier hub here on the satsearch platform.
]]>In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the company’s plans and ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
We asked IQ spacecom what the company’s biggest wins in 2023 were. They replied with the following information:
Our biggest win in 2023 is increased business with the Asian market e.g., Japan and Korea.
We have first projects successfully completed and we see a huge growth and potential in this market.
IQ spacecom also shared the company’s strategic aims and ambitions for this year:
Our major plans for 2024 are to strive for higher frequency bands and further develop our existing powerful and flight proven XLink transceiver platform and to extend to higher orbits.
Some further thoughts from IQ spacecom, on the mission success in 2024:
For the best success of missions, you have to collaborate and work together with different experts.
Every mission is unique, however you need a lot of knowledge and expertise in various fields for making your mission successfully.
Therefore, it is always good to discuss with experienced engineers and find suitable solutions together specifically for your mission.
As a small German company, we are proud to have built such a strong network in the space industry over the last 15 years.
This section includes a variety of IQ spacecom’s products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
]]>In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the plans and company’s ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
We asked Unibap what the company’s biggest wins in 2023 were. They replied with the following information:
We started 2023 in the best way possible with the signing of a constellation order.
During the year, we have continued to deliver to our customers while recasting ourselves to a purely space-focused venture.
In October, we crowned these achievements by presenting our strongest quarter ever.
Unibap also shared the company’s strategic aims and ambitions for this year:
During 2024, we will continue to develop our newly established production facility, aiming to reach a capacity of 100 flight ready computers per year.
We are also setting our sights on getting our SpaceCloud iX10 product family to space.
Some further thoughts from Unibap, on the company’s solutions and portfolio:
Don’t let curbed storage capacities and slow downlinks limit your data creation.
With our SpaceCloud solutions you can bring intelligence to your spacecraft by implementing advanced data-processing and machine learning algorithms in orbit.
With our comprehensive suite of hardware, software, and services, we help you maximize the life-time value of your space mission.
This section includes a variety of Unibap’s products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the company’s plans and ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
Global business development – in 2023 Remos Space Systems delivered products to valued customers all over the world, from Mexico to South Korea. This included becoming the primary supplier for transceivers and ground operations software solutions for Astralintu Space Technologies.
New financing and support – last year the company also closed its pre-seed round, enabling Remos to strategically expand the team and accelerate innovation. Remos also graduated from the ESA-BIC program and was accepted into the Techstar Pre-accelerator in Saudi Arabia and the Cassini accelerator.
Commercial success – with a growing customer base, Remos overshot 2023 sales projections. A few other notable contract wins were Contec in Korea and DLR in Germany, Mexico, and in Sweden.
This year Remos’ major plans include:
The company also plans to raise a seed round to further accelerate growth and innovation.
The use of software-defined radio technology and new ground segment systems is growing in the industry, bringing new capabilities to mission designers.
But it is important that mission operators are familiar with the technologies that can be utilized in order to get the most value from them.
To achieve this, Remos Space Systems recommends that engineers think about the ground segment from the beginning of the mission.
If you purchase a ground station solution, and learn how to use it with open satellites, you will have much easier time operating your system when its launched.
This section includes a variety of Remos Space Systems’ products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
]]>Fortuna Investments is a US-based private investment company operating in various high growth sectors including, space. Int he podcast we discussed various aspects of investing in space companies in today’s economy and business climate, including:
You can find out more about Fortuna Investments here on their website.
]]>In this article we discuss their growth over the last 12 months, look ahead to the company’s plans and ambitions in 2024, and share further information about their portfolio.
We asked Dhruva Space what the company’s biggest wins in 2023 were. Dhruva Space CEO, Sanjay Nekkanti, provided the following:
It has been a very encouraging year and our team has doubled in number which is very exciting, from 40 people to nearly 80!
In April 2023, onboard ISRO’s PSLV-C55, we completed our third space mission in less than 12 months since receiving authorisation from IN-SPACe, the regulatory authority of India for private space activity.
This means we have space-qualified three classes of our Satellite Deployers, our P-DoT cubesat platform through the Thybolt Mission, and our Orbital Link transceiver, paving the way for more missions.
On the partnerships front, we also announced two key partnerships which will be crucial to our growth. Our partnership with Kinéis will come to fruition in a joint satellite mission for IoT applications. Our partnership with Comat is for the supply of their reaction wheels and SADM, and our Spacecraft Solar Arrays.
In October, during World Space Week, Dhruva Space also unveiled the grand plans of our upcoming 280,000 square-foot facility for spacecraft manufacturing. With World Space Week’s theme being ‘Space Entrepreneurship’, this unveiling was done at a reception dinner hosted for the 27 French space companies that visited India. So it was just right that we showcase Dhruva Space’s capability of offering distinct space missions for diverse payloads.
To meet the increasing commercial opportunities for mass production of space systems (satellite subsystems, satellite platforms, ground terminals), the Design, Engineering, Assembly, Integration and Testing facility – located very close to the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad – will be a critical strategic turning point for growth and resilience. The facility will be integral for us to realize our full potential as a full-stack space company.
We were also recognized by the Government of India with the Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Telecom Skill Excellence Award 2022, for our work in satellite communications.
This is our second Government-award accolade after the National Startup Award in 2020 for our work in Space and Satellite Technology. We were also awarded the ‘Best Startup – Silver’ at the Telangana State Industry Awards, highlighting the potential of Hyderabad as a hub for space startups.
Abhay Egoor, Chief Technology Officer at Dhruva Space, shared the company’s strategic aims and ambitions for this year:
Dhruva Space has an order book of missions till 2025 for our nanosatellite (P30 platform) and microsatellite (P90 platform). Dhruva Space will be realizing its LEAP (Launching Expeditions for Aspiring Payloads) initiative ahead in the coming missions with one of our flagship platforms which we call the P30.
The P30 platform is a 30-kilogram nanosatellite for which we have designed and developed various subsystems, including Spacecraft Solar Arrays, the platform structure, power systems, onboard controllers, radio frequency link, and attitude determination and control systems (ADCS).
We plan to use the P30 for a mission, slated for early 2024, with an Australian company aiming to validate its imaging camera payload, marking our first international mission.
UPDATE: Dhruva Space reported success of the P30 platform’s qualification, in the LEAP initiative, in January 2024.
Some further thoughts from Sanjay Nekkanti, CEO of Dhruva Space, on the future of the company and the wider industry:
Innovation, inclusivity, capacity building, and broader collaboration are the touchstones of the New Space economy today.
So, I encourage all space industry professionals, no matter your vertical of work, to build strong relationships across the spectrum.
The ecosystem is forging ahead with a lot of innovation and collaboration, so be sure to be on the pulse of space business.
Dhruva Space has nurtured and followed through on a variety of partnerships that build upon our full-stack offerings across the building, launching and operations of satellites, to diversify our missions and projects portfolios.
This section includes a variety of Dhruva Space’s products available on the global market today. Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
You can then make requests for quotes, documents, or further information, and we’ll handle these for you (find out more about how this simple process works on this page). You can also submit an open tender here and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
The links below will take you to other satsearch resources where you can learn more about some of the topics mentioned on this page:
As the sector grows and democratizes, with new suppliers and innovations coming to market every quarter, understanding how best to manage your procurement and supply chain is becoming challenging.
New space missions and services have more commercial options than ever, from emerging sources of supply across the world. But supplier communications and marketing are still immature in the industry and there is a lack of standardization in many areas of the marketplace.
Whether developing and testing novel innovation, or creating a new service for an established space-based concept (to compete in terms of price, speed, or quality) mission designers and program managers need a robust supply chain.
On this page you can find a range of insights and advice designed to help space suppliers to build one and to navigate challenges in space procurement today.
Please note that the experts named below have provided procurement advice in a personal capacity, and nothing that they have shared should be taken as representing official positions of any of their current or former employers, or of any boards, organizations, or associations they may be associated with.
Spire’s constellation of multipurpose satellites is used by organizations and businesses all over the world. The satellites provide advanced data and analytics about the Earth and its atmosphere in order to inform operations and decisions across a variety of fields.
Some of the most well-known categories of the services offered by Spire are maritime monitoring (via AIS technology), aviation tracking, weather solutions, and Earth intelligence.
With offices on 3 continents, hundreds of employees, and over 130 satellite missions to date, Spire has a complex and extended supply chain with multiple vendors and engineering disciplines involved.
To find out more about how some at Spire view the changing nature of space procurement today, we asked Ralph Kirkwood, Supplier Relationship Manager at Spire, for his advice to engineers and mission designers. He said;
For 2024 I’d recommend remembering three key things: know your values; know what you’re looking for; and know what you don’t know.
Firstly, any sourcing needs to be in line with your company’s values. A supplier that doesn’t match your values will not be a supplier that can deliver the best outcomes for your company.
Given the vastly changing space industry, you need to be clear on the critical success factors to achieving your procurement mission. Having these critical success factors spelled out clearly will act as your guiding star through your projects.
On the flip side, you need to be aware of what you don’t know and keep your eyes open for opportunities to learn. Use the expertise of suppliers to add to your own and help you achieve your goals faster.
Although space is primarily a B2B or B2G industry, vendor relationships need to go beyond technical compatibility. As Ralph points out, buyers and suppliers should be aligned at multiple levels to ensure success.
Space missions are complex and have long time horizons. Teams need to be able to communicate and work together effectively throughout, and companies need to ensure they are happy to be associated with those in their supply chain for extended periods.
Ralph also discusses the critical challenge of identifying the most relevant options in a changing market, where supplier marketing and communications can often be weak. This is something we’ve helped hundreds of mission teams with and we definitely agree that Ralph has highlighted a crucial issue.
His emphasis on understanding the critical success factors to achieving your procurement mission is a great place to start this journey.
As you know, the United States Space Force (USSF) is the branch of the US military responsible for dealing with military-related matters in space. It consists of more than 8,000 military personnel and has an operating budget of around $30 billion.
Since its inception in 2019, the USSF has operated or contributed to a variety of different programs and spacecraft including:
With such a diverse array of activities, at larger scales than much of the rest of the industry, it is tricky to extrapolate general advice about procurement from USSF’s activities.
Instead, we spoke with Gabriele McStanislav-Cudjoe, Executive Officer and Space Acquisitions Program Manager at USSF about how he is approaching the supply chain in 2024. He explained:
The days of designing military systems are over. If we don’t design capabilities that are resilient and reliable to be used when needed, all the time and money spent on it will be a waste.
This is a really interesting insight given how the industry is evolving and there are clear overlaps with changes in more general defense procurement, of which USSF is a part.
For example, in the US the Pentagon’s 2024 budget request has been described as primarily a “procurement budget”, rather than mainly focussing on R&D. Also, in Europe military leaders have published proposals to update the continent’s defense capabilities with a focus on more conventional equipment and filling gaps in existing resources.
Government procurement from companies that have already developed the capacity to rapidly and reliably offer solutions that agencies like the USSF regularly need is more attractive than one-off, bespoke, and extended engineering projects for individual systems. This is a common discussion in the space industry of course!
We believe that achieving this comes down to greater flexibility and understanding, on both sides (public and private) of the supply chain, of the higher-level requirements that industry sectors must meet.
The lead procurement official at Space Force, Frank Calvelli, has been something of a pioneer in this area.
In 2022 he openly published nine “space acquisition tenets” designed to be used as a framework to improve procurement. The aim is to encourage commercial contractors to meet their timelines and obligations, and to develop new, more efficient ways of working to fulfil contracts.
By publishing the tenets openly, Space Force is being upfront with industry actors about its expectations and needs, enabling the supply chain to adapt where relevant.
The Zimbabwe National Geospatial and Space Agency (ZINGSA) is a wholly owned Government of Zimbabwe entity responsible for coordinating and encouraging development in several areas of space activity.
ZINGSA has four main departments; Space Operations and Launch Services, Space Engineering, Space Science, and Geospatial Science and Earth Observation. It also offers services in drone technology and commercial fleet tracking.
We spoke with Tatenda G S Marimo Lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe and Space Operations & Launch Services Scientist/Engineer at ZINGSA, to hear his advice on space procurement for 2024 and beyond. He said:
The buyers and engineers in the space sector need to consider the increasingly complex supply chain management issues which constantly expose organizations to novel risks.
It is also important for organizations to craft innovative strategies and approaches that take advantage of the supply chain disruptions which are likely to persist in the year 2024 while leveraging on the anticipated increase in demand for space related services and products.
Since it was formed in 2018, ZINGSA’s remit has steadily broadened to several areas of space and unmanned vehicles. This has clearly led to the agency being involved in increasingly complex supply chains and ecosystems, that bring with them a greater exposure to risk, as Tatenda has highlighted.
It is also interesting that he has emphasized seeing supply chain disruptions as opportunities. This is something that we have seen at satsearch across the industry – it’s simple supply and demand.
In recent years there have been disruptions in many industries and organizations have learned to be flexible, adjust expectations, and rely on trusted relationships. However, in the space industry we’ve seen many examples of market inefficiencies that have become embedded in the ecosystem due to the lack of competition.
But this is changing as capabilities are growing around the world.
Today, wherever manufacturers are offering prices or lead times that are unacceptable to mission designers, new entrants have the potential to capture market share. We see this data first-hand while supporting thousands of engineers with their procurement and trade studies – and it is certainly making for a dynamic and exciting industry!
Vast is a US-based space company developing a private space station, called Haven-1, in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The company has facilities in Long Beach and Hawthorne, California, as well as a test facility at the Mojave Air and Space Port.
Haven-1 is being designed to be deployed by and dock with the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, with the first mission targeted for launch before August 2025. This is then set to be followed by a crewed mission to the station, with a 4-man team docking and utilizing the facility for up to 30 days.
If everything goes to plan, future missions will see Haven-1 being transitioned from acting as an independent crewed space station to being connected as a module to a larger Vast space station that is currently in development.
This is a huge endeavour and involves an extensive and complex supply chain. To find out more about the challenges involved, we contacted Tim Berry, former Vice President of Manufacturing at Vast and a former engineering lead at SpaceX, to ask about space procurement in 2024. Today, Tim is Head of Manufacturing & Quality at JetZero – a US company building an advanced jet liner.
He explained:
Identifying and planning for risks is a must for any supply chain leader. Although we are moving on from the days where COVID could be blamed for every delay or difficulty (true or not), we are still mired in a situation where many vendors are backed up on orders.
Vendors can only staff up so much to catch up before it doesn’t make economical sense for them. So ultimately understanding where you have the biggest risks in your supply chain and creating an alternates/spares plan or dual sourcing is essential to ensuring no shortfalls.
In addition, with the advent of additive manufacturing and a renewed focus on re-shoring of American manufacturing, there are many opportunities to eliminate international difficulties by looking at US suppliers, especially those leveraging 3d printing.
The flexibility of various cutting-edge additive manufacturing technologies allows US-based vendors to be nimble with responding to demand growth by not relying on hard tooling or long-lead forgings.
To summarize, figure out where you have the biggest risks in your supply chain, make a plan to bridge the gap or eliminate the risk, and while doing so keep American manufacturers at the forefront of your mind.
A privately built and operated space station was inconceivable to most just a couple of decades ago – so the fact that it there are now several in progress just shows how far the industry has come.
But as Tim highlights; this is a project with very low tolerance for risk. Safety concerns in any environment are amplified when humans take part in missions – doubly so for an environment as inhospitable as space.
And mitigating such risks must be done holistically, including at the supply chain level. While a CubeSat startup can be flexible to get the best deal, Vast can’t tolerate year-long lead times on replacement parts for Haven-1’s life support system.
Pre-emptively planning for supply chain disruptions, whether or not they arise, is critical – and scales with the complexity of the mission. Let us know if you need an expert partner to assist with this.
Based in Nairobi, the Kenya Space Agency (KSA) is the national space agency coordinating activities and projects across Kenya.
Kenya’s involvement in space activities stretches back to 1964 when the government collaborated with Italy to create a satellite launching and tracking base in Malindi. Over the next few decades more than 20 sounding rockets and 9 rockets launched from the facility.
Kenya then established a National Space Secretariat in 2009 which was succeeded by the Kenya Space Agency in 2017.
Today KSA promotes research activities and nurtures the private space sector, with a range of education- and business-focussed initiatives including research grants, satellite imagery data provision, and STEM outreach.
Given the range of activities that the agency is focussing on, we asked Geovian T. Stowers, Aerospace Engineer at KSA, for his advice for those focussed on space procurement. He provided the following:
Given the dynamic nature of the space industry and potential disruptions, it’s crucial to prioritize resilience and diversification in your supply chain, by considering the following:
Stay updated on international trade regulations and compliance standards. Changes in regulations can impact procurement processes, and staying compliant is essential for maintaining a smooth and uninterrupted supply chain. A good example is the AS9100D Quality Management System for Aerospace Industry.
Stay abreast of emerging technologies and alternative suppliers. Regularly evaluate the market for new innovations and potential partners to enhance the agility and competitiveness of your supply chain. Be sure to check the Technology Readiness Level TRL Levels of the components before purchase.
Diversify your supplier base to mitigate the impact of potential disruptions and ensure a more resilient supply chain. Relying on a single supplier for critical components can pose significant risks and late product development times.
One should conduct thorough risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities in their supply chain. Evaluate geopolitical, environmental, and technological risks that could affect the timely delivery of components and services.
Maintain strategic stockpiles of essential components to buffer against unforeseen disruptions. This can be particularly important for items with long lead times or those prone to supply chain bottlenecks.
Foster open communication and collaboration with suppliers. Develop strong relationships to gain insights into their capabilities, potential challenges, and contingency plans. This collaboration can prove invaluable during times of uncertainty.
Embrace digital tools and technologies, such as blockchain and real-time tracking systems, to enhance transparency and traceability within the supply chain. This can improve overall efficiency and responsiveness.
Consider integrating sustainable and environmentally friendly practices into your supply chain. This not only aligns with global trends but can also contribute to long-term cost savings and positive brand perception.
By prioritizing resilience, diversification, and staying adaptive to emerging trends, buyers and engineers in the space industry can navigate the complexities of procurement and supply chain management in 2024 effectively.
National space agencies always need to focus on the needs of their citizens when developing missions or fostering their domestic industry. But this is no easy task when resources are limited and the agency doesn’t have a large amount of established assets and capabilities to build on.
Nevertheless, domestic demand in Kenya, and across East Africa, is growing and both the KSA and the industry in the region are developing capacities to meet it – as can be seen from the diverse array of supply chain information that Geovian has mentioned.
These are very important aspects of any space procurement program, in the public or private sector, and show how many areas of improvement there can be for any organization.
RUAG Aerostructures is a global manufacturer of aerospace parts and related technologies. In the space industry the company supplies various parts for launchers and satellites, as well as providing semiconductor lithography solutions.
RUAG offers products and services to the space industry through the brand Beyond Gravity, which was previously called RUAG Space. Today, Beyond Gravity is the largest space supplier in Switzerland and has recently opened a new Innovation & Digital Hub in Portugal which it intends to grow significantly over the next few years.
The company has provided parts and systems to several recent, or ongoing, missions including 4 components on ULA’s Vulcan Centaur Rocket that launched in January 2024, a constellation On Board Computer (cOBC) for Quantum Space’s inaugural flight of the Ranger multi-purpose vehicle, and several products for ESA’s Euclid telescope, which launched in July 2023.
There are many parallels between the space and aerospace industries, and RUAG is one of many companies with a commercial presence in both areas.
To find out more about how people at the company approach supply chain management, we spoke with Federico Leopardi who is a Demand Planner at RUAG Aerostructures. He explained:
Space is the next frontier where private companies can finally compete and this will lead Supply Chains (SCs) to become the real field where competition is won.
In my opinion this technology has always started from an elite point of view, where only a selected group of people could use it, due to its high operating costs. Usually, Governments have started projects, as is in this case for space.
Nonetheless, the more the technology advances the more popular it gets (see cellphones, computers and now space), therefore the linchpin to success would be: make it more accessible, cheaper, and more efficient.
It is important to find the right balance between multiple sourcing, to minimise the risk of disruptions along the SC, as well as recognising the importance of supplier knowledge, which can save the project when it comes to real priority setting, helping to make it more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible.
It is very interesting in this advice that Federico has highlighted how supply chains can be a core aspect of business success, in the face of growing competition.
Your supply chain partially determines the lead times, prices, product availability, reliability, and performance metrics that you can go to market with. Improvements in the three key areas Federico highlights, accessibility, cost, and efficiency, let you build better products, faster, and for lower costs.
Again, the importance of minimizing disruptions is also mentioned. But, as Federico states, the solution is to find the right sourcing balance, and this means different things to different companies. Too few vendor options and you have a vulnerable supply chain, too many and decision-making slows down while managing the ecosystem gets harder.
The aim is to get the most suitable and relevant options for your mission or service. And if you need any advice or support for this, we’d love to help.
ClearSpace is a European in-orbit servicing (IOS) company building next-generation robotics for space. The company was founded to take advantage of growing demand for unmanned in-orbit solutions as well as the removal of space debris.
Today the company has offices in Switzerland, the UK, Luxembourg, and the USA, and is working with a variety of organizations to advance IOS and active debris removal solutions.
In particular, ClearSpace is currently pursuing two major missions; ClearSpace-1 and CLEAR. ClearSpace-1 is described as the world’s first active debris removal mission and will involve the capture and deorbiting of a derelict space debris object of more than 100 kg. Launch is targeted for 2026, onboard the Arianespace Vega C rocket.
The CLEAR mission (Clearing of the LEO Environment with Active Removal) is a UK Space Agency project to remove two UK-registered derelict objects from LEO. ClearSpace is leading a consortium of several other organizations, and completed the design phase at the end of 2023.
Effective IOS hardware is going to require a high level of both operational versatility (compared to standard satellite missions) and risk mitigation due to the expected applications – a tricky balance!
A robust supply chain will be critical in such missions and many are looking for ideas and inspiration from outside of the space sector, such as from the automotive industry, to inform their approach. However, as Marco Sacchettino, Former Satellite Lead Engineer and Flight Segment Manager at ClearSpace, explains; this can be a difficult challenge:
At the component level, in order to use automotive components in the space sector, I consider the traceability of the components, the certification of the processes and the availability of data relating to radiation tests to be important.
In my experience, every time we hypothesized the use of automotive components, we ran into the problem of traceability and radiation tests results.
At the equipment level, again, the traceability of the components used and the visibility of the V&V, including burn-in which would allow the use of equipment designed for automotive use also in the space sector.
Many industry commentators have discussed how space companies can use technology and learn from other industries, particularly aerospace and automotive. But as Marco explains, this isn’t a simple process.
Space missions have unique technology requirements and qualification processes, so re-using components from other domains needs to be approached carefully.
In addition, as Marco also highlights, traceability is becoming more important as supply chains are extending and crossing national borders. There are many areas of space missions where sensitive information and/or dual-use technologies are involved, and certain end-user applications can define hardware origins and export controls.
The ability to trace the sources and journeys of components is crucial to ensuring that regulations are adhered to, lower mission risks, and develop more robust technology production in house.
CONTEC is a space technology manufacturer based in Daejeon, South Korea. The company was founded in 2015 and today offers a variety of services including satellite image processing and data analysis along with technical support across areas such as launch operations.
CONTECT also offers a managed ground station network service with facilities in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia, as well as ground segment planning for new missions.
The company plans to build the first commercial launch site in Asia and develop its own satellite. It also intends to develop new satellite communication capabilities and expand on its existing ground station resources.
Ultimately, if successful, this will mean it can offer a complete, one-stop solution enabling CONTEC to build, launch, deploy, and operate satellites totally in house.
This multi-faceted challenge requires CONTEC to coordinate a variety of supply chains. To get some insights into how this is being managed in the company, we spoke to Kihwan Choi, Space Technology Development Team Manager at the company, who explained:
Compatibility in the system is very important between the satellite and ground system.
Firstly, we recommend communication subsystems which comply with CCSDS or other standards.
There are lots of compatible equipment for CCSDS and we have a lot of experience operating these.
Although it is possible to use SDR or other COTS equipment with modification of the source or parts, following standards makes it simpler to build a communication channel.
Standardization is always a hot topic in the space industry, particularly as new markets open up around the world.
The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) standards have been developed by experts from more than 28 different nations and used by over 1,000 space mission teams.
However, many subsystems and components are custom-developed for space missions or are altered during the engineering, design reviews, and even qualification processes.
Therefore, when procuring new technology you should certainly consider what standards are applicable for the technology you need, but be flexible enough to consider alternatives, as long as you have the expertise to work with them effectively, as Kihwan mentions.
Geospatial data and satellite imagery have revolutionized many industries and services on Earth and Satellogic has become one of the primary providers to offer access to them.
The company was founded in 2010 and went public, with a listing on the Nasdaq, in 2022. Today Satellogic offers a variety of space-based services including data for terrestrial fields such as agriculture, mining, infrastructure, environmental monitoring and more.
The company also provides complete Earth Observation (EO) satellite packages (including launch, mission operations, and support) as well as a Constellation-as-a-Service model for EO applications.
Lilium is a new generation aerospace company based in Germany. It was founded in 2015 and went public in 2021, with a vision to bring to market an electric vertical take-off and landing jet that can offer very low emission and flexible transport options around the world.
Elio Santoro is a Supply Chain Operations Manager at Lilium and former Global Supply Manager at Satellogic, and he had the following to say as advice for space procurement executives:
My main advice is to spend more time in the sourcing process, i.e. in scouting the market for potential suppliers: the number of space hardware suppliers or simply of companies willing to enter the space market has increased tremendously in the last few years, with a healthy effect on available technologies, lead times and of course prices.
As mentioned, there is a lot of crossover between aerospace and space companies, so it is interesting to hear Elio’s clear advice here, as influenced by both domains.
Identifying relevant suppliers takes time and expertise. The quality of information that different manufacturers make available about their portfolios differs significantly from company to company and it is challenging for any individual team to identify potential new innovations they can use.
But extra time spent in the sourcing progress can save significant costs and engineering time further down the line.
Managing your supply chain effectively and efficiently isn’t easy in any technical domain – and this is certainly the case in the space industry.
The experts quoted in this article have highlighted several areas that experienced mission teams are likely to very familiar with, and that newer teams need to bear in mind when assessing the market.
Here’s a brief summary of the main pieces of procurement advice shared above:
Hopefully these pointers will help you improve your supply chain management and procurement approaches in the space industry.
And if you need extra assistance, our expert procurement team can help. We have supported over 400 missions and assisted thousands of engineers and executives in identifying suitable suppliers for their specific needs.
Please click here to find out more about how this works or, if you have any immediate requirements for an upcoming mission or project, simply fill out this short form today and we’ll get you answers from the market fast (and for free).
Thanks for reading!
We are very grateful for the insights of the experts shared above. And as mentioned, all of this advice was provided in a personal capacity, and nothing quoted here should be taken as representing official positions of any current or former employer, or of any board, organization, or association that any of the named contributors may be associated with.
Please note that input for this article was requested from a wide range of industry experts from multiple organizations, countries, genders, nationalities, departments, job seniorities, and operating areas. We have included all responses received, without bias and in good faith.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to get in touch at any time at info@satsearch.com.
]]>Epsilon3 developed a Test software tool to design test cases with reusable test plans and run sequences, as well as to effortlessly record test results across different versions, requirements, and conditions. The article further provides a detailed outlook on the tool and its importance for the space industry.
The article was developed in collaboration with Epsilon3, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The NewSpace industry and its rapidly evolving demand have increased the need for software applications in the space industry. As space missions become more ambitious and technologically advanced, the demand for strong quality assurance (QA), compliance, and testing technologies has increased. Therefore, to overcome such challenges and help companies meet the rising industry demand, Epsilon3 has launched Test, a software platform to build and manage test plans with custom requirements and conditions for space missions. In the next parts of the article, we will look at how Epsilon3 is transforming hardware and flight testing in the space industry, assuring the dependability and success of space missions through improved QA and compliance capabilities.
Before getting into the intricacies of Epsilon3’s new software platform, it’s important to understand the particular issues that the space sector faces in terms of quality assurance, compliance, and testing. Space missions include cutting-edge technology and complicated systems that must be rigorously tested to assure their dependability and safety. Traditional testing procedures, while useful, frequently fall short of keeping up with the fast advances in space technology. The demand for a more efficient and comprehensive testing solution has never been higher.
Epsilon3’s test platform is specifically designed to address the NewSpace industry’s testing requirements, offering a comprehensive suite of tools and features to streamline QA, ensure compliance, and enhance testing processes. To understand these processes, let’s take a brief look at each of test’s components:
The video below showcases a detailed outlook on the Test management software:
Epsilon3’s new software platform, test, which focuses on QA, compliance, and testing, is an important tool for modern space missions and NewSpace companies. The company is well-positioned to shape the future of the space sector by tackling the domain’s specific difficulties and offering a comprehensive solution. As technology advances, the incorporation of new solutions such as test management tools will be critical in guaranteeing the success and safety of future space missions, which will push the frontiers of human knowledge and exploration.
To find out more about Epsilon3, please view their supplier hub here on the satsearch platform.
]]>The Earth is a major reference point in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) so it is relatively straightforward to determine a satellite’s attitude with respect to it, either as a point in space or, for greater accuracy, by focussing on the planet’s horizon.
In this article we take a closer look at how these attitude sensors work and share information on a range of products available on the market today – with links you can use for procurement from the suppliers, if you need such a solution for your mission.
If you’re familiar with how horizon and earth sensors work and would instead like to skip straight down to the information about the products on the market, please click here.
A satellite’s attitude is its orientation relative to an external frame of reference.
The external references must be fixed inertial points or frames, so that attitude measurements are accurate. They are typically a celestial body, orbital plane, or a nearby object such as a space station.
To determine the attitude of a satellite we need to specify the set of 3D coordinate axes of the satellite itself (the body frame) and a set of 3D coordinate axes in the orbit (the orbit frame).
It is important that attitude sensors can accurately, efficiently, and consistently measure the body frame with respect to the orbit frame so that it can be adjusted as required. This is important for several applications such as:
An onboard satellite attitude control system is made up of sensors, which measure the relative orientations of the orbital and body frames, and actuators, which can change the body frame’s orientation by applying torque where required.
Earth/horizon sensors are one of the main forms of sensor used, alongside sun sensors, star trackers, and magnetometers.
Earth sensors work by collecting and processing optical signals (typically in the infrared spectrum) emitted by the Earth and using them to determine the relative position and orientation of the satellite, with respect to the direction of those signals.
This allows for reasonable calculations of the nadir vector – the local vertical, or direction between the Earth itself and the satellite. The process is also sometimes referred to as “limb sensing” – describing the idea of sensing the limbs of the atmosphere, synonymous with horizon sensing.
(Please note that the terms Earth sensor and horizon sensor are used interchangeably, both in the industry and in this article, and you may also see Earth horizon sensor used too.)
The Earth takes up a significant proportion of the observable sky, in 3 dimensions, for any orbit. It is therefore a sensible reference object for attitude determination of satellites.
In higher orbits it can be sufficient to use the Earth as a simple reference point. For example, for a geostationary orbit an Earth sensor can achieve an accuracy of around 10°.
However, lower orbits instead require sensors to use the Earth’s horizon as a reference frame. Specifically, infrared sensors can detect the discontinuity between the horizon and the cosmic background by determining the direction of electromagnetic radiation (in the infrared band; from 2 to 30 µm) emitted by atmospheric carbon dioxide.
This occurs in only a relatively narrow band, and can give a much more precise nadir vector (or other measurement) determination than using the Earth’s as a discrete point.
State-of-the-art Earth and horizon sensors take advantage of many advances in our understanding of the radiation emitted by Earth, the Moon, and the Sun to generate clearer attitude results.
In the next section we share details on some of the specific systems available on the market, which can deliver this performance.
This section includes a variety of Earth / Horizon Sensors available on the global market today.
Click on the links to open pages with more detail on each system.
From these pages you can submit requests for quotes, documents, or further information by the supplier, and we’ll handle the request for you (find out more about how this all works here).
If you want to shortcut this process, or need some assistance refining either your specific horizon/earth sensor or more general attitude measurement requirements, you can instead submit an open tender and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
Thanks for reading! If you need any further help identifying the right attitude sensor option for your specific needs, please share your specifications with us and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find options.
Do you make Earth Sensors or Horizon Sensors for space and want to be included in this article?
Click here to find out how to claim your free profile on satsearch today.
Then, once your pages are live, just send us an email and we can discuss showcasing your products to the global space engineering community on this page.
]]>Epsilon3 developed a Plan software tool to easily plan and manage tasks by scheduling procedures, events, and operations in an interactive Gantt view with powerful filtering, organization, and editing capabilities.
The article was developed in collaboration with Epsilon3, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
Effective project management is the cornerstone of successful organizational endeavors, and the ability to visualize schedules, timelines, and dependencies is critical for ensuring projects stay on track. The space industry’s changing dynamics and technological advancement demand a thorough understanding and planning of work packages to help streamline and deliver on time to save both costs and efforts.
Several NewSpace companies are planning to launch a constellation of satellites; In which some constellations consist of even more than a thousand satellites. Amidst such ambitious and rapid progress in the industry, there is a need for high-quality planning tools to manage multiple tasks simultaneously. Epsilon3’s Plan tool is designed to enhance project planning in the space industry by offering an intuitive and comprehensive way to visualize and manage schedules, timelines, and dependencies. In the next sections of the article, we will take a closer look at the Plan tool.
Before delving into the features of Epsilon3‘s Plan, it’s important to understand the idea of the critical route. The critical route is the longest chain of dependent and interrelated operations in a project that defines its total length. These activities, also known as key activities; any delay in these tasks immediately impact the project’s deadline. In project management, the critical path is the sequence of phases that determines the least amount of time required for a task. Identifying the key route allows project managers to properly allocate resources, set realistic timeframes, and manage stakeholder expectations.
In space missions, the critical path refers to the sequence of actions that must be performed on time to ensure the mission’s success. Unlike many other businesses, delays in space missions can have far-reaching effects, ranging from financial setbacks to compromised mission objectives. Identifying and tracking the key route is therefore crucial for the authority or the organization responsible for the project management.
Epsilon3’s Plan excels at developing dynamic and visually appealing schedules that serve as the foundation for project success. Users may easily input project tasks, assign durations, and create dependencies using a simple interface. The application then creates an interactive visual depiction of the project schedule, making it simple to identify work sequences and their associated deadlines.
The real-time nature of the Plan guarantees that any changes made to the schedule are immediately reflected in the visual depiction. This capability is crucial for project managers looking to respond to unanticipated situations or changes in project needs, offering the necessary flexibility in today’s dynamic business climate.
Some of the other key pointers in the schedule and operations include:
Timelines are an essential component of project management, providing a chronological overview of activities and milestones. Epsilon3’s Plan elevates timeline visualization to a new level, offering a clear and complete perspective of the full project experience. The tool’s ability to generate numerous timelines for individual project components or team members improves communication and coordination. This feature guarantees that all stakeholders, from team members to executives, get a personalized picture of the project’s timetable, promoting a common knowledge of progress and goals.
Epsilon3 uses interactive Gantt charts to create a visual depiction of project timeframes. Space mission planners may see the start and end dates of tasks, dependencies, and the critical route at a glance. The dynamic nature of these charts enables real-time revisions, ensuring that any changes are quickly reflected in the project timeline.
Dependencies are important to hold project tasks together. Identifying and managing dependencies is critical for ensuring that activities are completed in the proper order and project timeframes remain on track. The Epsilon3’s Plan tool streamlines the process of visualizing and maintaining dependencies, allowing users to construct linkages between jobs with a few clicks.
The tool’s dependency visualization feature allows project managers to visualize how modifications to one job may affect another. This foresight is vital for risk mitigation, effective resource allocation, and sustaining the critical path’s integrity. The Plan tool allows users to quickly navigate the complex web of task dependencies, resulting in well-coordinated and synchronized project execution.
The NewSpace sector has helped make space technology accessible to both entrepreneurs and consumers. Nevertheless, space business verticals like the Launch segment, still remain a risky business; Where companies like SpaceX and government space agencies like the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) are only the few players to achieve a high success rate in the launch segment.
In such verticals, Epsilon3’s visualization capabilities help reduce risk by offering a clear picture of possible bottlenecks and enabling proactive interventions to keep the critical path on track. Identifying and minimizing risks is an important part of project management. Epsilon3’s Plan helps with risk management by visualizing possible bottlenecks, job dependencies, and key routes. The tool’s interactive capabilities allow project managers to simulate various scenarios and determine how possible hazards affect project timeframes.
Furthermore, the Plan‘s resource allocation technique enables project managers to maximize resource utilization. Managers may deploy resources strategically by understanding the dependencies and important routes, ensuring that the appropriate staff are available when and where they are required. This proactive strategy reduces the chance of delays while increasing overall project efficiency.
Epsilon3’s Plan emerges as a unique option for project managers in the space industry, looking to improve their project management methods. Plan makes project planning and execution easier by offering a visual framework for plans, deadlines, and dependencies. The tool’s user-friendly layout, collaborative capabilities, and emphasis on real-time updates make it an invaluable asset for organizations seeking to succeed in project management.
The Plan tool not only answers project managers’ immediate demands in the space industry, but it also contributes to a culture transformation inside organizations, where projects are orchestrated with precision and forethought rather than simply handled. As organizations face the difficulties of an ever-changing landscape, Epsilon3’s Plan serves as a beacon, guiding them to more efficient, transparent, and effective project management.
To find out more about Epsilon3, please view their supplier hub here on the satsearch platform.
]]>Control moment gyroscopes are used in the attitude control system (ACS) or attitude determination and control system (ADCS) of a spacecraft or satellite in order to orient it, along three axes, to ensure stable operation and achieve specific mission goals.
In this article we take a look at how CMGs function, the value they can bring to space missions, and then share details of systems on the marketplace today.
If you’re familiar with how CMGs work and would instead like to skip straight down to the information about the products on the market, please click here.
The attitude of a space system is its orientation relative to another important point or frame of reference.
The external references are usually the orbital plane, a celestial body, a space station, or another nearby object. They must provide a fixed inertial reference in order for measurements of the attitude of the space system to make sense.
Typically, to understand the attitude of a satellite, for example, we specify an orbital frame (a set of 3D coordinate axes in the orbit) and a body frame (the 3D coordinate axes of the satellite itself).
Controlling the satellite’s attitude then refers to the process of measuring and affecting the body frame with respect to the orbit frame – i.e. aligning the satellite effectively with the Earth’s surface.
There are various reasons why this is important, for example:
An attitude control system consists of sensors, which measure the relative orientations of the body and orbital frames, and actuators, which change the body frame orientation by applying torque where required.
A control moment gyroscope is one form of attitude control actuator for space systems.
A control moment gyroscope works by creating gyroscopic torque that rotates a spacecraft or satellite, by changing the direction of a spinning rotor’s angular momentum.
A CMG is made up of a flywheel or rotor that spins around an axis at a constant rate. This is placed on one or more motorized gimbals, which can change the orientation of the rotor’s axis.
When the gimbals change the flywheel’s orientation, this alters the direction of the rotor’s angular momentum causing an output of gyroscopic torque onto the space system.
In the absence of any forces acting in the opposite direction, this will cause the spacecraft or satellite to rotate as needed.
The number and placement of the gimbals in a CMG will determine the accuracy and flexibility of the torque that can be produced by each unit.
In addition, the integration of multiple CMGs in a single satellite or spacecraft will enable more powerful and advanced attitude control in orbit.
As attitude actuators, control moment gyroscopes operate in a similar fashion to reaction wheels – but there are a few key differences as explained below.
Reaction wheels are very common attitude control actuators that are used in satellites and spacecraft of all sizes.
Control moment gyroscopes are different to reaction wheels because in a CMG the spin axis can be changed (with a constant rotor speed) to produce gyroscopic torque in the required direction, whereas a reaction wheel has a fixed spin axis enabling it to generate torque in one direction only.
A reaction wheel’s rotational spin can be altered to produce more or less torque (generated when the rotor is accelerated), but the direction in which this torque is applied to the spacecraft remains constant.
When using reaction wheels alone for attitude control, torque along multiple axes is created by integrating multiple wheels, with at least one pointing in each required direction.
On the other hand, a control moment gyroscope’s gimballing enables multi-axis torque generation in a single system. Multiple CMGs are still often used for larger satellites and/or more complex attitude control requirements.
This ability does bring with it added complexity in the mechanical and electrical engineering, as well as in the control of the devices on-board.
A CMG can also typically generate greater torque per unit mass of the actuator, compared with a reaction wheel. However they obviously require greater power input in order to do so.
There are a wide variety of reaction wheels on the market today, suitable for spacecraft and satellites of all sizes, while fewer suppliers offer space-ready CMGs. You can see examples of the systems that are on the market in the next section.
This section includes a variety of CMGs available on the global market today. You can click on any of the boxes to open a page with more detail on the system that you are interested in.
From these pages you can then submit requests for quotes, documents, or further information by the supplier, and we’ll handle the request on your behalf (find out more about how this works here).
If you want to shortcut this process, or need some assistance refining either your specific CMG or more general attitude control requirements, you can instead rapidly submit an open tender and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
Thanks for reading! If you need any further help identifying the right control moment gyroscope for your specific needs, please share your specifications with us and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find options.
Do you make CMGs for space and want to be included in this article?
Click here to find out how to claim your free profile on satsearch today.
Then, once your pages are live, just send us an email and we can discuss showcasing your products to the global space engineering community on this page.
]]>It also features the products from Texas Instruments and their applications for the NewSpace missions.
The article is developed in collaboration with Texas Instruments, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The satellite communications industry is experiencing a significant transformation, driven by the relentless pursuit of innovation and the increasing demands of today’s data-driven world. As satellite technology evolves, so do the subsystems and payloads that enable high-performing satellite communications. New Space companies are at the forefront of this evolution, harnessing cutting-edge technologies to unlock new opportunities in areas such as phased array antennas, quantum key distribution or laser communication systems. In this article, we will delve into the growing demand for high-performing satellite communications payloads and the critical technical systems required to support them.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of satellite communications, the changes observed in antenna technology and the RF signal chain have been nothing short of remarkable. Over the past two decades, several key transformations have taken place, primarily driven by the increasing demand for higher data rates and the ability to handle multiple channels or users concurrently. One of the pivotal factors influencing this evolution has been the significant reduction in launch costs, making Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations an increasingly attractive option.
One notable shift has been the adoption of RF sampling. RF sampling, in essence, involves the direct sampling of RF signals, thereby eliminating the need for intermediate frequency stages and simplifying satellite architecture. This approach has necessitated the development of very high-speed data converters and powerful Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). Furthermore, RF sampling has extended to high-frequency bands, such as X-Band (8-12GHz), with substantial instantaneous bandwidths of several gigahertz. This exponential increase in sample data has driven the development of next-generation FPGAs to handle the immense data processing requirements.
Facilitating multiple end-points in satellite communication presents a formidable challenge, demanding the integration of increased intelligence and processing power to ensure efficient data routing. In the realm of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations, where satellites swiftly orbit the earth’s surface, the need for rapid antenna repositioning and seamless satellite-to-satellite transitions adds another layer of complexity. To navigate these intricacies, phased array antennas, known as electronically steered antennas, have emerged as a crucial solution, harnessing the benefits of beamforming technology.
Electronically steered antennas offer the advantage of swiftly adjusting the antenna beam, facilitating multi-beam connections to multiple end-points, and achieving a higher degree of focus in antenna beam alignment. However, as the number of elements in phased array antennas increases, so does the complexity of electronic design and the associated thermal management challenges. Furthermore, the demand for smaller cell phone antennas in space necessitates even higher antenna gain factors and an even greater number of elements per user in the phased array antenna. Transmitting high-speed data to each cell phone also requires a substantial amount of radiation power.
In summary, RF designers for satellite communication are witnessing a continual increase in sampling rates and the number of elements in phased array antennas, all while the board area per element decreases. This places a premium on electronic components that can deliver high power density, high efficiency and occupy minimal board space. Texas Instruments (TI) has been at the forefront of addressing these evolving needs with a strong focus on very high-speed data converters, high-frequency clocking solutions of exceptional quality, and the integration of functions to enhance overall performance. An example of this integration is the Fully differential Amplifier (FDA) TRF0206-SP, which replaces bulky baluns and gain blocks with RF amplifiers of even better linearity.
The latest power supply and power generation capabilities in satellite communications systems are evolving in response to the increasing demand for high-performance Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) and the associated data processing requirements. FPGAs are becoming a cornerstone of these systems due to their ability to handle vast amounts of data and interface with RF-sampling Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs), Digital-to-Analog Converters (DACs), and Analog Front Ends (AFEs). However, these advanced FPGAs are notably power-hungry, with some of the latest models, like the Xilinx (AMD) Versal FPGA, consuming up to 100W at the core supply, while simultaneously operating at lower core voltages, such as 0.8V. These specifications place immense pressure on power supply designs.
To meet these challenging power requirements, TI offers a range of solutions tailored to the radiation-hardened demands of satellite systems. This includes rad-hard controllers like the TPS7H5001-SP and rad-hard Gallium Nitride (GaN) FET driver TPS7H6003-SP, designed to support the rigorous needs of high-performance FPGAs. For other power rails in the system, lower current Point-of-Load (POL) regulators and Low Dropout Regulators (LDOs) can be employed. TI’s offerings include the TPS7H4002-SP, supporting up to 3A, and the TPS50601A-SP, with a current capability of 6A. Additionally, for applications requiring high Power Supply Rejection Ratio (PSRR), TI’s RF-LDO TPS7H1111-SP provides exceptional PSRR, while alternatives like TPS7H1101A-SP (3A) and TPS7A4501-SP (1.5A) cater to varying needs.
Developing efficient and reliable power solutions for the latest FPGAs is a complex task, which TI is addressing with a wide range of solutions for different radiation hardness requirements. The availability of samples, evaluation modules (EVMs), dummy packages, and comprehensive collateral materials such as application notes, reference designs, and simulation models (PSpice and Simplis) further facilitates the design process.
TI is offering a range of products that have been and are instrumental in pushing the boundaries of the space industry. The LMX2615-SP, for instance, is a wideband synthesizer with phase synchronization and JESD204B support, with a figure of merit of -236 dBc/Hz, signifying remarkably low in-band noise and jitter performance. Complementing this, TI provides the ultra-low noise LDO, TPS7H1111-SP, which limits power supply-generated phase noise and clock jitter to an ideal extent.
TI’s focus on achieving the highest power density in the industry for DC/DC conversion is exemplified by the TPS7H4001-SP, which can double the power density compared to its closest competitor, addressing the power demands of space systems effectively. Furthermore, TI empowers the use of Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology in space applications through advanced gate drivers and PWM controllers, enhancing efficiency and performance.
In the high-speed data conversion domain, TI offers the ADC12DJ5200-SP, a radiation-hardness-assured (RHA) 12-bit ADC with dual 5.2-GSPS or single 10.4-GSPS capabilities, meeting the stringent requirements of space applications. The AFE7950, a 4-transmit, 6-receive RF-sampling transceiver, provides versatile RF capabilities for space systems, covering frequencies up to 12 GHz with a maximum 1.2 GHz instantaneous bandwidth.
Integration is a key facet of TI’s innovation. The company recognizes the importance of generating accurate biasing voltage for solid-state power amplifiers, offering highly integrated solutions like the AFE11612-SEP, which combines 16 ADCs, 12 DACs, temperature sensors, and GPIOs, streamlining satellite subsystems.
Moreover, TI has contributed significantly to the adoption of plastic packaging for space applications, garnering approval from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the QMLP standard. Plastic packages offer advantages in terms of smaller footprint, compatibility with LEO constellations, lower mechanical stress, and ease of integration, while maintaining radiation hardness. This innovation facilitates a cost-effective approach to space missions without compromising performance.
In summary, TI’s areas of innovation span across various dimensions, including efficiency and power density in the power supply domain, ultra-low noise, extremely high-speed data conversion, low-jitter GHz clocking solutions, integration of self-diagnostics, and advancements in packaging technologies.
The emergence of New Space has opened up exciting possibilities in market verticals such as laser communications, ushering in a new era of high-performance electronic component requirements. Laser communication, as compared to traditional radio communication, places significantly greater demands on precision in transmitter and receiver pointing. To achieve the level of precision needed, precise motor control systems are essential, and Texas Instruments offers the TMS570LC4357-SEP, a space-grade lock-step MCU operating at 300MHz with specific features tailored for precision motor control applications. For motor control accuracy, measuring the current in each phase of the motor is crucial, and TI’s rad-tolerant current shunt monitor, INA240-SEP, with an exceptionally wide common-mode voltage range from -4 up to 80V and its unique capability of PWM rejection, proves invaluable in this regard.
In the context of laser communication receivers, the requirements extend to higher-speed data converters and clocking products that enable increased modulation density. TI offers solutions such as the ADC12DJ5200-SP, an RF sampling ADC supporting input frequencies up to 10GHz, and the AFE7950, a multi-channel transceiver featuring six RF-sampling ADCs. Clocking solutions are also paramount, and TI provides options like the LMX2694-SEP, a 15GHz synthesizer, and the LMK04832-SEP, a high-performance clock conditioner with 14 outputs. As the laser communication market continues to evolve and expand, Texas Instruments remains committed to delivering the cutting-edge electronic components required to drive the performance and precision demanded by this emerging vertical.
Europe’s flagship connectivity program, Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS2), has taken a significant leap in embracing Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) capabilities, reflecting the growing importance of laser communication in high-security demand markets, particularly in the realms of defense and intelligence. In the pursuit of enhanced security, it is imperative to stay ahead of competitors and potential threats from hackers. This necessitates the rapid deployment of the latest technology and continuous updates to maintain an edge.
To support such fast development cycles, a “catalogue business approach” becomes paramount, offering readily available space-qualified parts with complete documentation and quality reports. This approach, coupled with published inventory and pricing and sample delivery from an online store within days, expedites the decision and procurement process significantly. Additionally, robust technical support, including TI‘s E2E Forum, ensures that the most cutting-edge solutions can be swiftly integrated into high-security satellite systems.
Furthermore, the adoption of plastic packages compliant to the Defence Logistics Agency’s QMLP (Qualified Manufacturers List – P) standard plays a pivotal role, offering a much faster turnaround to transform commercial devices into space-grade components. This approach streamlines the development process and allows for rapid adaptation of the newest technologies, aligning with the dynamic demands of the high-security market segments served by constellations such as IRIS2.
The next level of evolution in satellite communications holds both opportunities and challenges for satellite manufacturers and integrators. RF sampling at higher frequencies, such as K or Ka band, is expected to simplify the RF front-end architecture, yet it introduces new complexities in high-speed clocking and data processing. The increasing demand for beamforming will lead to a greater number of elements in antenna systems, necessitating more channels for data converters. Additionally, declining launch costs will facilitate larger satellite constellations, offering enhanced system-level resiliency through redundancy.
Inter-satellite communication, connecting nanosatellites and smallsats to backbone systems like IRIS2 and onward to Earth, will play a pivotal role in the future. The semiconductor industry has to rapidly respond to these market shifts, particularly in New Space projects, to enable customers to build communication systems with the latest technology, including critical security aspects.
However, several risks loom on the horizon. Balancing cost and durability becomes crucial in the context of lower launch costs and the move to higher number of satellites. Thermal management poses another challenge as electronic capabilities increase, demanding efficient heat dissipation solutions. Predictability of development time remains a key concern, emphasizing the importance of a catalog approach that offers reliability and speed. TI is poised to address these opportunities and risks. With a commitment to releasing more devices per year and innovations across multiple dimensions, TI offers a catalog business model that ensures project completion predictability and a reliable supply chain. TI‘s strong technical support, encompassing reference designs, application notes, and forums like E2E, equip customers with the resources they need to navigate the evolving landscape of satellite communications.
To find out more about Texas Instruments, please view their supplier hub here on satsearch.
]]>It also features the products from Texas Instruments and their applications for the NewSpace missions.
The article is developed in collaboration with Texas Instruments, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The satellite communications industry is experiencing a significant transformation, driven by the relentless pursuit of innovation and the increasing demands of today’s data-driven world. As satellite technology evolves, so do the subsystems and payloads that enable high-performing satellite communications. New Space companies are at the forefront of this evolution, harnessing cutting-edge technologies to unlock new opportunities in areas such as phased array antennas, quantum key distribution or laser communication systems. In this article, we will delve into the growing demand for high-performing satellite communications payloads and the critical technical systems required to support them.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of satellite communications, the changes observed in antenna technology and the RF signal chain have been nothing short of remarkable. Over the past two decades, several key transformations have taken place, primarily driven by the increasing demand for higher data rates and the ability to handle multiple channels or users concurrently. One of the pivotal factors influencing this evolution has been the significant reduction in launch costs, making Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations an increasingly attractive option.
One notable shift has been the adoption of RF sampling. RF sampling, in essence, involves the direct sampling of RF signals, thereby eliminating the need for intermediate frequency stages and simplifying satellite architecture. This approach has necessitated the development of very high-speed data converters and powerful Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). Furthermore, RF sampling has extended to high-frequency bands, such as X-Band (8-12GHz), with substantial instantaneous bandwidths of several gigahertz. This exponential increase in sample data has driven the development of next-generation FPGAs to handle the immense data processing requirements.
Facilitating multiple end-points in satellite communication presents a formidable challenge, demanding the integration of increased intelligence and processing power to ensure efficient data routing. In the realm of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations, where satellites swiftly orbit the earth’s surface, the need for rapid antenna repositioning and seamless satellite-to-satellite transitions adds another layer of complexity. To navigate these intricacies, phased array antennas, known as electronically steered antennas, have emerged as a crucial solution, harnessing the benefits of beamforming technology.
Electronically steered antennas offer the advantage of swiftly adjusting the antenna beam, facilitating multi-beam connections to multiple end-points, and achieving a higher degree of focus in antenna beam alignment. However, as the number of elements in phased array antennas increases, so does the complexity of electronic design and the associated thermal management challenges. Furthermore, the demand for smaller cell phone antennas in space necessitates even higher antenna gain factors and an even greater number of elements per user in the phased array antenna. Transmitting high-speed data to each cell phone also requires a substantial amount of radiation power.
In summary, RF designers for satellite communication are witnessing a continual increase in sampling rates and the number of elements in phased array antennas, all while the board area per element decreases. This places a premium on electronic components that can deliver high power density, high efficiency and occupy minimal board space. Texas Instruments (TI) has been at the forefront of addressing these evolving needs with a strong focus on very high-speed data converters, high-frequency clocking solutions of exceptional quality, and the integration of functions to enhance overall performance. An example of this integration is the Fully differential Amplifier (FDA) TRF0206-SP, which replaces bulky baluns and gain blocks with RF amplifiers of even better linearity.
The latest power supply and power generation capabilities in satellite communications systems are evolving in response to the increasing demand for high-performance Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) and the associated data processing requirements. FPGAs are becoming a cornerstone of these systems due to their ability to handle vast amounts of data and interface with RF-sampling Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs), Digital-to-Analog Converters (DACs), and Analog Front Ends (AFEs). However, these advanced FPGAs are notably power-hungry, with some of the latest models, like the Xilinx (AMD) Versal FPGA, consuming up to 100W at the core supply, while simultaneously operating at lower core voltages, such as 0.8V. These specifications place immense pressure on power supply designs.
To meet these challenging power requirements, TI offers a range of solutions tailored to the radiation-hardened demands of satellite systems. This includes rad-hard controllers like the TPS7H5001-SP and rad-hard Gallium Nitride (GaN) FET driver TPS7H6003-SP, designed to support the rigorous needs of high-performance FPGAs. For other power rails in the system, lower current Point-of-Load (POL) regulators and Low Dropout Regulators (LDOs) can be employed. TI’s offerings include the TPS7H4002-SP, supporting up to 3A, and the TPS50601A-SP, with a current capability of 6A. Additionally, for applications requiring high Power Supply Rejection Ratio (PSRR), TI’s RF-LDO TPS7H1111-SP provides exceptional PSRR, while alternatives like TPS7H1101A-SP (3A) and TPS7A4501-SP (1.5A) cater to varying needs.
Developing efficient and reliable power solutions for the latest FPGAs is a complex task, which TI is addressing with a wide range of solutions for different radiation hardness requirements. The availability of samples, evaluation modules (EVMs), dummy packages, and comprehensive collateral materials such as application notes, reference designs, and simulation models (PSpice and Simplis) further facilitates the design process.
TI is offering a range of products that have been and are instrumental in pushing the boundaries of the space industry. The LMX2615-SP, for instance, is a wideband synthesizer with phase synchronization and JESD204B support, with a figure of merit of -236 dBc/Hz, signifying remarkably low in-band noise and jitter performance. Complementing this, TI provides the ultra-low noise LDO, TPS7H1111-SP, which limits power supply-generated phase noise and clock jitter to an ideal extent.
TI’s focus on achieving the highest power density in the industry for DC/DC conversion is exemplified by the TPS7H4001-SP, which can double the power density compared to its closest competitor, addressing the power demands of space systems effectively. Furthermore, TI empowers the use of Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology in space applications through advanced gate drivers and PWM controllers, enhancing efficiency and performance.
In the high-speed data conversion domain, TI offers the ADC12DJ5200-SP, a radiation-hardness-assured (RHA) 12-bit ADC with dual 5.2-GSPS or single 10.4-GSPS capabilities, meeting the stringent requirements of space applications. The AFE7950, a 4-transmit, 6-receive RF-sampling transceiver, provides versatile RF capabilities for space systems, covering frequencies up to 12 GHz with a maximum 1.2 GHz instantaneous bandwidth.
Integration is a key facet of TI’s innovation. The company recognizes the importance of generating accurate biasing voltage for solid-state power amplifiers, offering highly integrated solutions like the AFE11612-SEP, which combines 16 ADCs, 12 DACs, temperature sensors, and GPIOs, streamlining satellite subsystems.
Moreover, TI has contributed significantly to the adoption of plastic packaging for space applications, garnering approval from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the QMLP standard. Plastic packages offer advantages in terms of smaller footprint, compatibility with LEO constellations, lower mechanical stress, and ease of integration, while maintaining radiation hardness. This innovation facilitates a cost-effective approach to space missions without compromising performance.
In summary, TI’s areas of innovation span across various dimensions, including efficiency and power density in the power supply domain, ultra-low noise, extremely high-speed data conversion, low-jitter GHz clocking solutions, integration of self-diagnostics, and advancements in packaging technologies.
The emergence of New Space has opened up exciting possibilities in market verticals such as laser communications, ushering in a new era of high-performance electronic component requirements. Laser communication, as compared to traditional radio communication, places significantly greater demands on precision in transmitter and receiver pointing. To achieve the level of precision needed, precise motor control systems are essential, and Texas Instruments offers the TMS570LC4357-SEP, a space-grade lock-step MCU operating at 300MHz with specific features tailored for precision motor control applications. For motor control accuracy, measuring the current in each phase of the motor is crucial, and TI’s rad-tolerant current shunt monitor, INA240-SEP, with an exceptionally wide common-mode voltage range from -4 up to 80V and its unique capability of PWM rejection, proves invaluable in this regard.
In the context of laser communication receivers, the requirements extend to higher-speed data converters and clocking products that enable increased modulation density. TI offers solutions such as the ADC12DJ5200-SP, an RF sampling ADC supporting input frequencies up to 10GHz, and the AFE7950, a multi-channel transceiver featuring six RF-sampling ADCs. Clocking solutions are also paramount, and TI provides options like the LMX2694-SEP, a 15GHz synthesizer, and the LMK04832-SEP, a high-performance clock conditioner with 14 outputs. As the laser communication market continues to evolve and expand, Texas Instruments remains committed to delivering the cutting-edge electronic components required to drive the performance and precision demanded by this emerging vertical.
Europe’s flagship connectivity program, Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS2), has taken a significant leap in embracing Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) capabilities, reflecting the growing importance of laser communication in high-security demand markets, particularly in the realms of defense and intelligence. In the pursuit of enhanced security, it is imperative to stay ahead of competitors and potential threats from hackers. This necessitates the rapid deployment of the latest technology and continuous updates to maintain an edge.
To support such fast development cycles, a “catalogue business approach” becomes paramount, offering readily available space-qualified parts with complete documentation and quality reports. This approach, coupled with published inventory and pricing and sample delivery from an online store within days, expedites the decision and procurement process significantly. Additionally, robust technical support, including TI‘s E2E Forum, ensures that the most cutting-edge solutions can be swiftly integrated into high-security satellite systems.
Furthermore, the adoption of plastic packages compliant to the Defence Logistics Agency’s QMLP (Qualified Manufacturers List – P) standard plays a pivotal role, offering a much faster turnaround to transform commercial devices into space-grade components. This approach streamlines the development process and allows for rapid adaptation of the newest technologies, aligning with the dynamic demands of the high-security market segments served by constellations such as IRIS2.
The next level of evolution in satellite communications holds both opportunities and challenges for satellite manufacturers and integrators. RF sampling at higher frequencies, such as K or Ka band, is expected to simplify the RF front-end architecture, yet it introduces new complexities in high-speed clocking and data processing. The increasing demand for beamforming will lead to a greater number of elements in antenna systems, necessitating more channels for data converters. Additionally, declining launch costs will facilitate larger satellite constellations, offering enhanced system-level resiliency through redundancy.
Inter-satellite communication, connecting nanosatellites and smallsats to backbone systems like IRIS2 and onward to Earth, will play a pivotal role in the future. The semiconductor industry has to rapidly respond to these market shifts, particularly in New Space projects, to enable customers to build communication systems with the latest technology, including critical security aspects.
However, several risks loom on the horizon. Balancing cost and durability becomes crucial in the context of lower launch costs and the move to higher number of satellites. Thermal management poses another challenge as electronic capabilities increase, demanding efficient heat dissipation solutions. Predictability of development time remains a key concern, emphasizing the importance of a catalog approach that offers reliability and speed. TI is poised to address these opportunities and risks. With a commitment to releasing more devices per year and innovations across multiple dimensions, TI offers a catalog business model that ensures project completion predictability and a reliable supply chain. TI‘s strong technical support, encompassing reference designs, application notes, and forums like E2E, equip customers with the resources they need to navigate the evolving landscape of satellite communications.
To find out more about Texas Instruments, please view their supplier hub here on satsearch.
]]>Kelli is an experienced space industry professional who has worked in both the public and private sectors, so we discussed a wide range of issues and insights from both domains, and how they may affect space companies in 2024 and beyond.
In particular we covered:
You can find out more about the Space Foundation here on their website.
If you are interested in the Space Symposium – the Space Foundation’s annual conference held at Colorado Springs, USA – the event website is at this link.
And finally, to find out more about Kelli’s work, take a look at the Space Commerce Institute website and follow her on LinkedIn or X (formerly Twitter).
]]>The emerging standard has found support and uses across a variety of application areas, and its proponents believe this is resulting in more streamlined and secure system development.
In this article we discuss the standard and share details of a range of space hardware that is compliant with it.
If you’re familiar with the SpaceVPX standard and would instead like to skip straight down to the information about compliant products, please click here.
SpaceVPX is an emerging hardware standard that applies to avionics boards and satellite chassis. It is also known as VITA-78, where VITA stands for VMEbus (VersaModular Eurocard bus) International Trade Association, and was developed according to the Next Generation Space Interconnect Standard (NGSIS).
It was created to bring greater alignment to the manufacture of high-performance computing platforms for space applications.
Open standards have been used by both hardware and software manufacturers for many years. Their proponents believe that they make development more efficient and enhance interoperability across supply chains, improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of products brought to market.
SpaceVPX leverages the OpenVPX (VITA 65.0) architecture. It includes profile-level “building blocks” that are modular (for simplified design and iterative development of more complex systems) and a standardized slot profile to ensure third-party interoperability.
Interconnected SpaceVPX compliant subsystems are built up using plug-in cards (PICs). The PICs are created according to the slot, module (or protocol), and backplane profiles the standard specifies.
In space missions, SpaceVPX systems are designed to ensure greater bandwidth and fault tolerance. And by standardizing interconnects with an open architecture, suppliers can develop products that can more easily be utilized in satellite designs and digital engineering processes alongside other components.
SpaceVPXLite is another emerging standard that satellite designers are paying more attention to. It is a derivative of the higher level SpaceVPX standard and is utilized in the fabrication of modules for smaller CubeSats.
The Lite version of the open standard is mainly concerned with 3U systems and has fewer backplane options compared to the VITA-78 version.
The aim is to reduce the complexity, interconnect redundancy, and engineering overhead for smaller and less powerful satellites. It instead places greater focus on the support of the data, utility, and control planes in the system.
In the list below we have included a variety of products that the suppliers have stated are SpaceVPX compliant. You can click on any of the boxes to open a page with more detail on the system that you are interested in.
From these pages you can then submit requests for quotes, documents, or further information by the supplier, and we’ll handle the request on your behalf (find out more about how this works here).
If you want to shortcut this process, or need some assistance refining your requirements, you can instead rapidly submit an open tender and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
Thanks for reading! If you need any further help identifying the right SpaceVPX compliant system for your specific needs, please share your specifications with us and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find options.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article?
Click here to find out the benefits of claiming your free profile on satsearch.
Once your pages are live, just send us an email and we can discuss showcasing your products to the global space engineering community on this page.
]]>It also features products from COMAT and the experience of one of its customers in utilizing these solutions.
This piece is developed in collaboration with COMAT, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The emergence of NewSpace applications has increased the commercial demand in the global market
Satellite technology has advanced significantly in recent years, primarily due to the commercialization of NewSpace technologies, allowing the commercial deployment of spacecraft for a variety of applications ranging from Earth Observation (EO) to communications. As satellite capabilities improve, so do the expectations put on their operation and reliability, especially for missions with rigorous requirements.
Therefore, the Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS) is a vital part of satellite design and operation that plays a critical role in mission accomplishment. In the further sections of the article, we will look at how it is crucial for satellite manufacturers to master their own ADCS algorithm and ensure the dependability of their components.
The ADCS is a critical component of every spacecraft that is in charge of maintaining the appropriate attitude, or orientation, in space. Accurate and consistent attitude control is critical for mission success because it guarantees that the satellite’s sensors, antennas, and instruments are pointing in the desired direction. The ADCS is made up of two major components – attitude determination and attitude control.
The determination of the satellite’s orientation in relation to reference points such as the Earth, the Sun, or distant stars is known as attitude determination. On the other hand, attitude control includes altering the satellite’s attitude using actuators such as reaction wheels, magnetic torquers, or thrusters.
Precision is one of the primary factors that define the quality of ADCS. For example, an EO or weather satellite must be able to point its sensors toward specified locations in order to collect desired data, whereas communication satellites must precisely point their antennas at Earth-based receivers in order to maintain consistent contact.
As the NewSpace technologies have flourished in the global commercial space market, the “low cost and high-quality innovative product” motive is highly integrated into the commercial sector. Of all the components utilized in the satellite, ADCS also contributes to energy efficiency capabilities. The propulsion systems or thrusters primarily rely on ADCS to make the most use of the energy-efficiency resources. Satellites may make the most of their limited fuel supply by optimizing their attitude and orbit.
COMAT’s footprint in the commercial NewSpace sector is well-known and has provided solutions to several space missions in the industry. Along with a range of reaction wheels, the company also develops a solar array drive mechanism. COMAT’s product listings are as follows:
The entry, tracking, and monitoring elements are crucial in project-cycle management, regardless of w
Satellite manufacturers can choose between off-the-shelf and customized ADCS algorithms, depending on the mission requirements. The off-the-shelf algorithms provide a generic solution and might be a good choice for basic missions with lower demands. A customised ADCS algorithm on the other hand is important for demanding missions like high-resolution EO satellites or a spacecraft deployed for removing space debris.
COMAT has also provided its products and solutions to one of the well-known NewSpace companies, U-Space. According to U-Space’s Cyril Brotons, VP of Industrial Strategy & Products, “Demanding satellite missions often have specific and challenging requirements, such as high-precision pointing, stable observation, or complex maneuvers. By developing our own ADCS algorithm, it allows us to tailor the system to meet these unique mission objectives, increasing the likelihood of mission success.”
Customized ADCS algorithms optimize performance by using the satellite’s specific attributes and operational environment. These algorithms take into account aspects such as the satellite’s form, mass distribution, propulsion system, and sensor suite. Satellite manufacturers may maximize performance, efficiency, and mission success by fine-tuning the ADCS to the mission’s unique demands.
By building the ADCS from scratch, the manufacturers can then make sure to select the most beneficial hardware components on the market, including the star trackers, magnetometers, and reaction wheels. “Low-quality or poorly calibrated reaction wheels can introduce vibrations and jitter into the satellite’s attitude control system. These disturbances can negatively impact the satellite’s ability to capture clear images, maintain stable communication links, or conduct precise scientific experiments. High-quality reaction wheels help minimize such disturbances, resulting in better data quality” adds Cyril Brotons.
In a broader view, helping customers master their own ADCS algorithm and ensuring the reliability of its components, particularly reaction wheels, are critical for satellite manufacturers to successfully execute demanding missions. These capabilities allow manufacturers to customize solutions, maintain control over technology, reduce risks, enhance competitiveness, and optimize performance to meet the specific needs of each mission, ultimately increasing the likelihood of mission success in the challenging and dynamic environment of space.
To find out more about COMAT, please view their supplier hub here on satsearch.
]]>The ability to deploy large antennas, solar arrays, cameras, and other equipment outside of the initial system’s envelope can enhance the primary functions and add new capabilities in the mission plan.
In this article we discuss some of the core functions and benefits of deployable mechanisms, then share details on a variety of systems available on the commercial market.
Deployables are a broad category of technologies that either physically move themselves, or enable other components and subsystems to move while in orbit.
One of the limits of satellite performance is the amount of hardware that can be packed into the physical volume of the system.
Although launch costs continue to decrease, getting a system to orbit is still expensive and complicated. So satellite designers try to ensure that their systems are compact and have a standardized 3D shape – usually a cube or rectangle – to more easily fit into the launch vehicle (LV) and deployer.
Then, to overcome the physical limit of the system’s outer envelope, deployable subsystems are incorporated which can open, move, and/or extend once the satellite has left the LV. Deployable mechanisms can also play a role in the act of dispensing the satellite from the LV.
Some of the most well known examples of subsystems that can be deployed in space are:
Space-rated deployable mechanisms are reliable actuators that enable the use of all of these subsystems, and more.
They are also widely used to secure sensitive components during launch and deployment, to avoid damage caused by the high vibrations.
Known as hold down and release mechanisms (HDRM); such components are very important for precise cameras for example, and have been used on missions at all scales, from picosats to large-scale exploration spacecraft.
High-quality deployable mechanisms typically have a number of advantages over traditional integrated components in subsystems which are custom-built for a specific function. Mechanisms for deployable space systems are:
Of course, every space component will have trade-offs. Deployables might require changes to engineering plans, an increase in power requirements, or greater thermal protection, but such impacts are likely to be small given the size and nature of such systems.
Next let’s take a look at a range of deplyable mechanisms on the global market.
In the list below you can see a range of individual deployable mechanisms for various applications and subsystems. Click on any of the boxes to open a page with more detail on the mechanism or supplier that you are interested in.
From these pages you can submit requests for quotes, documents, or further information by the supplier, and we’ll handle the request on your behalf (find out more about how this works here).
If you want to shortcut this process, or need some assistance refining your requirements, you can instead rapidly submit an open tender and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
Thanks for reading! If you need any further help identifying the right deployable mechanism for your specific needs, please share your specifications with us and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find options.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article?
Click here to find out the benefits of claiming your free profile on satsearch.
Once your pages are live, just send us an email and we can discuss showcasing your products to the global space engineering community on this page.
]]>Epsilon3 developed Build to help teams track and manage engineering, assembly, testing, parts, and inventory.
The article was developed in collaboration with Epsilon3, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The emergence of NewSpace applications has increased the commercial demand in the global market and has also increased the need to manage the plethora of operations simultaneously in an effective manner.
Therefore, project management remains one of the key aspects to streamline the space missions as well as help manage the mission costs effectively. In the past, there have been cases where project management issues have led to a significant rise in the costs of the missions, especially when a totally new technology is deployed onboard a mission. James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is one such prominent example where the new components were utilized and there were also budget runs leading to mission delays.
Epsilon3’s Build toolset is one of the components of its full project-cycle management solutions, where companies can manage, track, record, and even optimize their space missions. In the further part of the article, we will be taking a closer look at this component.
Managing inventories, tools, and components may be a difficult undertaking, particularly for organizations that deal with complex and dynamic operations. Several difficulties are frequently faced in this area, some of which are as follows:
The software utilities have paved the way for several software in the industry, starting from basic data entry, tracking, and monitoring using Microsoft Excel to specialized solutions like Eclipse. What remains as a potential gap is the need for automation as well as to reduce custom integrations in the software.
For example, managing the manufacturing and supply of components for large constellations like OneWeb won’t be effective on Excel, unless it is highly customized as per the needs of the technical teams. Epsilon3’s Build toolset stands in a unique position to eliminate the need for manually managing these processes and instead provide automated alters in case there is a potential delay. Moreover, it does not require custom integration as all the procedures and work instructions are already integrated into the system.
Considering the increasing complexity of space missions and the high demand for new applications, mass manufacturing processes are going to require an absolute level of accuracy. The Build toolset has the capability to also provide detailed analytics, dashboards, and reports of work in progress, assembly duration, and traceability. This helps the customers reduce errors and improve their mission processes effectively.
To receive more insight we can assume the following example – XYZ company, a space manufacturing giant, was facing several inventory and tooling management difficulties. Downtime due to missing parts and tools was a frequent issue, and they lacked an efficient method for forecasting their inventory requirements. As a consequence, both costs and productivity were enhanced. XYZ company saw numerous significant benefits after deploying Epsilon3’s toolset:
A detailed outlook on the Build toolset can be viewed in the following video to have a live experience of how the processes are managed on the system:
The entry, tracking, and monitoring elements are crucial in project-cycle management, regardless of which sector or industry the company is operating. Simultaneously, spotting and reducing errors is also equally important. The space industry’s massive demand is making the manufacturing processes complex and improvisation is necessary to keep streamlining processes, this can be done only through spotting errors which then can be reduced and new approaches can be implemented.
Epsilon3 addresses these challenges by providing a comprehensive Build toolset that combines cutting-edge technology with user-friendly features.
To find out more about Epsilon3, please view their supplier hub here on the satsearch platform.
]]>Budgets are closely watched, new suppliers are emerging across the world, and innovations are challenging manufacturers to bring higher performance to market.
But at the same time, the rewards on offer are increasing. The demand for satellite data and connectivity is growing around the world, while major projects are sparking new interest in exploration missions across the solar system.
To chase after these substantial rewards, and stay ahead of your growing competition, you need a dedicated online channel to communicate your capabilities directly to space engineers – to the real builders and innovators developing new missions and services.
We can help you do just that.
You are invited to claim your free company profile on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com today.
You will join thousands of other suppliers (probably including many of your competitors) from across the industry and gain excellent exposure to the global market.
Your free profile on the satsearch platform will give our growing community of serious space engineers a clear view of your products, solutions, and services, or anything else you want to offer on a commercial basis.
We have more than 25,000 space engineers using the platform every month, from 120+ countries around the world.
These include systems engineers, mission designers, and executives from most national space agencies, defense primes, research institutions, and businesses of all sizes, such as:
Your free portfolio will also automatically display on the publicly-available NASA Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) search tools on nasa.gov, giving enhanced exposure to the US public and private market.
It would be great to have you sign up and the process is very simple. Have a look at this page to see how it works – there are step by step instructions to follow and links to the forms you’ll need.
We’d love to welcome you on the platform – satsearch is the ideal channel to promote your company online in the space industry.
If you have any questions at any time please let us know!
]]>In addition, the process of optimizing space hardware, satellite technologies, mission operations, and ground segment performance is increasingly reliant on software stacks from multiple vendors around the world.
Onboard programs are also opening up new opportunities for systems to utilize edge computing, on-board data processing (OBDP), and artificial intelligence (AI) in order to:
In this article we take a look at the different categories of commercially-available space software packages and share information on a wide variety of products on the market today.
The satellite segment of the space industry sees the highest volume of standardized and commercial offerings, compared to launch and exploration missions where most development is custom by necessity.
Therefore, for satellite missions there are a number of software tools and packages available for all stages of the process.
On the engineering side, several programs have been brought in from other technical industries and application areas. Digital engineering processes have been growing for many years, and it is a natural extension in the product roadmaps of many software providers to add capabilities for space systems engineering.
There are solutions based around end-to-end Models Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and engineering digital twins, right through to specialist tools for specific analysis processes.
For operations, satellite missions have typically required bespoke software tools that can account for all the complexities of space-based hardware performance. These have been independently developed by a variety of providers, but we’ve also seen many satellite integrators and operators commercialize packages that were initially created in-house to manage proprietary hardware, missions, or even constellations.
You can also find various systems and development kits to create bespoke, mission-specific software, but many ambitious satellite operators are more focussed on multi-mission packages that can work across different satellites and application areas.
Determining which software tool is best suited to your mission isn’t easy. There are a myriad of things to consider with regard to price, interoperability, team knowledge, supplier support and so on.
There are also a wide range of different systems on the market, with new versions being added regularly, so it is getting harder to identify the best option for your needs.
To help you out, we asked several suppliers to share their most useful advice on selecting a software system for a space mission, their responses are below:
We often see that time or budget constraints put pressure on engineers to focus on specific aspects of flight software such as the promise of short development time, lower licensing costs or hardware compatibility options. By all means, these things are important and our own modular software is a perfect and simple solution for anyone seeking to reduce development time and costs.
But what is often overlooked when choosing flight software is the broader context and the complex space system as a whole. It is crucial to think through how it is going to be tested and then operated on a daily basis, how the data or service is going to be delivered or how it is going to grow, evolve and scale into a constellation. The onboard software directly impacts these processes and poor choices at early stages can create significant risks that will only be revealed later on. This leads to significantly increased mission ownership costs and even re-development, which is not what any engineer wants.
One solution is a model-based approach. It ensures the highest degree of flexibility, integration and seamless data flow between all mission processes and stages, bringing the entire space-ground system together. The cost-saving aspect of this is significant, but, sadly, is often overlooked in favour of solving more immediate and isolated challenges at early stages of mission development.
Andrew Nairn, Commercial Director at Bright Ascension
When evaluating software for a satellite mission, prioritize flexibility, scalability, and seamless integration. Opt for user-friendly solutions from reputable vendors with strong support, security measures, and a track record of updates. Consider long-term costs and gather user feedback for informed decision-making.
Paul Dewost, Software Product Manager for spacetower™ at Exotrail
When assessing software for satellite missions, start by looking at the company’s mission, product reviews, and customer case studies. Then, you’ll want to search for products that are easy to use and proven to solve the problems or inefficiencies your team is dealing with. Lastly, you’ll want to ensure the product does the most important things for you. Decide the top 3-5 things you need with your team and evaluate based on those criteria.
Once you talk to the team building the product, you can ask about other ideas, but always go back to your criteria, or you’ll look at more software products than necessary. This last part is also essential because you’ll want to look for integrations that move your missions forward and remove manual work. Regardless of the use case, you’ll get the most value from software that seamlessly connects and shares data with the rest of your technology ecosystem.
Finally, determine if the software has the required levels of accessibility and security. If you’re implementing a new cloud-based tool for space missions, I recommend choosing an option that’s hosted on a cloud that’s compliant with export controls and offers offline capabilities to maximize security and reliability.
Max Mednik, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Epsilon3
In the past, satellite software engineers haven’t always had too many options, but have had to work around hardware bound constraints. We at Unibap want to flip the tables by offering an excess of computing power in space. With our solution, you can access the full toolbox of open platform computing leaving your imagination as the only constraint left to tackle.
Anders Persson, Product Manager at Unibap
The most important feature of software in satellite missions is its testability. Software should allow you to test it without hardware and on hardware. Firstly, satellite hardware is often expensive, and it’s hard to provide every software developer with their own copy of satellite hardware on which he could develop software. Thus, it should be possible to emulate software on the target processor core and develop and test software without hardware.
This can greatly increase software development speed and reduce costs. Secondly, in the end, you want to run it and test it on hardware, so software should allow you to run the same tests as in the first step with as few as possible changes to software and simulators. Lastly, software should be easily integrated with a continuous integration system, to run tests on every change to the code and catch as many bugs and errors as soon as possible to fix it while hardware is still on earth, not in orbit.
Przemyslaw Recha, Embedded Software Engineer at KP Labs
I’d consider how much value does the software / service add to the tasks that I work on, as well as to my company’s overall mission. For example, how much time am I able to save by using the particular software relative to alternative processes, and what I could accomplish with the extra time. Schedule and time is probably the most valuable driver for many space programs. So I’d ask if the value-added is worthwhile in terms of getting something done efficiently yet still meeting or exceeding quality standards.
Dakai Chen Founder of Zero-G Radiation Assurance
Spacecraft are run using specialised operational software, tailored to specific missions. Operational software are like health systems, ensuring that critical parameters on the spacecraft are running in an acceptable range. The software should monitor the health of on-board systems; anything unusual is flagged and sent to mission operators who can look into potential causes and solutions.
So it is extremely important that one evaluates various software options thoroughly, while keeping in mind the company’s goals and activities, e.g. multiple missions at once, robust missions with high data requirements, certain financial parameters, and so on.
When evaluating software options – apart from the investment of resources – it is best to keep in mind the following criteria: versatility, scalability, customisations, effectiveness of pipeline, testability, and access to fresh data.
There is a growing number of open source software options and these solutions are certainly drawing a lot of interest due to reliability, cost effectiveness, and community access. However, when considering these options as a solution, be realistic in your expectations.
From a technical perspective, engineers should consider options that have third-party Ground Station networks that better support the data transfer infrastructure. Such an option would decrease overall cost of the software, may increase global connectivity and coverage, while also improving the spacecraft revisit time.
Fewer or just one Ground Station will turn the Ground segment of a mission into a bottleneck — the customer will have to wait for their spacecraft to overfly a limited number of stations; in the meantime, no TTC operations would be possible.
Adithya Juvvadi Software Product Manager at Dhruva Space
Selecting the right software for the job is not easy. On the other hand, when one gives it a thought, it is never just the software you are selecting; it is the company that designs it, develops it, and is there for you to have your back if needed.
After incidents like SolarWinds, Equifax, CCleaner, Octa, and many others, third-party software supply chain risks became a significant concern. While selecting a software vendor, it is important to understand if cybersecurity is taken seriously and that cybersecurity best practices are deeply rooted in a company’s culture.
This pertains not only to company processes but especially to the minds of the people you are dealing with. Therefore, before selecting any software vendor, ensure that the company works with internationally recognized cybersecurity standards maintained by organizations like NIST, MITRE, or OWASP.
Make sure that cybersecurity best practices are an integral part of the software development process, and that at least an IT asset registry, SBOM (Software Bill of Materials), and vulnerability & patch management processes are in place. Then, consider such a vendor to supply you with software for space missions.
Dusan Mondek Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CORAC Engineering
If you’re considering adopting AI solutions for your mission, you’re likely aiming to save team time, preserve infrastructure resources, and improve profitability. To achieve these goals, you now have the option to select from various features and combine different solutions.
While making these decisions, always keep your objectives in mind, and remember, AI operates on data. Therefore, when determining which operations to automate, ask yourself – and your team – which tasks currently require the most intervention due to the volume of data or the number of hours your team spends on them?
Moreover, one of the most important factors is having a supportive and knowledgeable supplier. This supplier should not only facilitate the integration of AI into your mission but also provide ongoing support. They play a crucial role in simplifying complex technical processes and ensuring that the AI system aligns with the mission’s needs. Furthermore, a competent supplier can transfer essential knowledge and skills to the internal team, empowering them to manage and optimize the AI system effectively.
Ultimately, opt for a unified solution that is not only capable of scaling but also seamlessly incorporates third-party models and data, much like our gifted_GENE platform. Adopting such a solution simplifies management by consolidating all operational aspects of your pipeline under a single system and provider, enhancing efficiency across the board.
Alessandro Benetton Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of AIKO
Hopefully these pointers will help you to more efficiently select the best software system and service agreement to meet your needs. Now, read on to find out more about specific programs on the market.
There is no clear-cut categorization of space software packages. Many systems have multiple uses across different applications, or can be customized to operate in several different ways.
The section links below are only to help more easily navigate the list of systems on the market:
In each section you can find links to the satsearch page for every available software package, tool, or service. From these pages you can submit requests for quotes, documents, or further information by the supplier, and we’ll handle the request on your behalf (find out more about how this works here).
If you want to shortcut this process, or need some assistance refining your requirements, you can rapidly submit an open tender and our expert procurement team will get back to you ASAP.
Systems that enable radiation testing, thermal testing, component evaluation, and other forms of simulation of the space environment. These programs enable mission designers to iteratively test and improve hardware setups and performance, and streamline the all-important qualification steps of a space-based system.
Planning a space mission is an increasingly digital activity, potentially involving stakeholders in multiple different locations, and requires handling a greater volume of data than ever.
There are a variety of software tools and packages on the market, developed to enable faster, more powerful, collaborative mission design.
Alongside pure mission design tools there are a variety of software packages that combine mission development and digital engineering with operations. Software for satellite operations is bringing new capabilities and efficiencies to today’s missions, while giving teams greater flexibility at all stages.
Alongside combined development and operations systems, there are also a variety of telemetry downlink, telecommand uplink, and real-time satellite health monitoring software packages.
Effective mission control software and flight software systems help to ensure every space asset stays on track, remains operational, and delivers value. They often have to work across different hardware and software from multiple vendors, while maintaining a cohesive and responsive connection between Earth and space.
OBDP systems can bring enhanced versatility and efficiency to space missions. There are a growing number of tools and programs coming to market that can, for example, compress data, discard useless data (e.g. cloud-covered images), and apply advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) algorithms to onboard data to enhance its value.
OBDP solutions can also enhance satellite autonomy and enable cloud computing capabilities in space.
Accurately tracking orbiting satellites is a difficult challenge, whether for live systems or in mission simulations. This is becoming an increasingly important process as the volume of space traffic and debris grows, and there are a variety of software tools are available to help with this task.
Assessing and mitigating cyber risks is a growing concern in every domain, and space is no exception. Satellite cybersecurity software is available on the market to help protect space assets and missions from interference, attack, and disruption.
Thanks for reading! If you need any further help identifying the right satellite software for your specific needs, please share your specifications with us and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find options – a service which is 100% FREE and has zero obligation on your side.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>Texas Instruments is a global semiconductor manufacturing company with expertise in analog and embedded processing chips. The company was founded in 1930 and headquartered in Dallas, Texas. In this episode, we discuss the rising demand for high-performing satellite communications payloads, as well as the technical systems required to support these high-performance systems. Some of the other key points that we discuss in this episode are as follows:
Every month thousands of engineers from organizations and countries all around the world are using satsearch to find new suppliers, products, and solutions to help them build exciting new space missions and services.
Your business needs exposure to this community, and to be displayed alongside your competitors, partners, and peers.
Find out more about how satsearch works at this page, or read on to find out how to get your profile live on the platform today.
It is quick and easy to get information about your company and portfolio published on satsearch with our simple online forms. Click the links below to get to the right section:
You can also find more information about how to go beyond basic profiles and portfolios with the Satsearch Membership Program here.
And if you have any questions about how satsearch works, please take a look at this page, or get in touch with us by email today.
Getting listed on satsearch is quick and easy. And it’s free for a basic portfolio.
If you’d like to find out how to get a more richly featured online portfolio and access to a variety of business development opportunities, click here to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program.
To get a free profile live, simply share some basic information, via a short online form, about your business, and you’ll soon be exposed to thousands of engineers and mission designers from around the world.
Step 1 – click here to open the online form where you can add your company details as a new supplier.
If your company is already listed on satsearch and you would like to claim and update the page with new information – simply contact us here, with a link to the page, and tell us what you need.
Step 2 – add your company name, the year you were founded, the size of your business, and the current headcount. If in doubt, your company LinkedIn profile will usually have this information. Only the supplier name is made public – the other details simply help us verify your organization.
Step 3 – share a few details about the sort of products and services you offer and the clients you work with. This section isn’t made public either – but helps us better understand who you are and what you do. You can use bullet points if you wish, or copy and paste some text from your website.
Step 4 – add your company contact information; your physical address and website, as well as your business’ LinkedIn profile (this last item is optional).
Step 5 – now it is time to add the details about your company that will be published on your public profile at satsearch.com. We call these profiles supplier hubs and they are the central point for thousands of space engineers and mission designers around the world to get details about your business.
First up is your logo – just upload an image file with a square or rectangle shape, and a file size of less than 1 MB.
Next, provide a one line description about what you do in the space industry. There is a hard limit of 150 characters (including spaces) so be concise and accurate. Think about what space engineers and mission designers will find interesting and valuable about your business – there’s a couple of examples in the form to help.
Finally, add a few keywords in the relevant box. Keywords are words or phrases that will be associated with your supplier hub on satsearch.com. They don’t show up on your page, but when a user types them into the search box (which is on every page of the site) and chooses to search in terms of supplier, rather than in terms of product, your hub will show up in the results.
Add your keywords and phrases one by one – pressing enter/return after each of them. They will display on the form each time they are added and you can remove any of them by clicking on the X.
Step 6 – share your (or a colleague’s) personal contact information so we can stay in touch. We’ll use this to inform you when your page is ready and to discuss anything else that’s important to your business on satsearch.
Step 7 – add any optional comments with the handy box at the end of the form. You can leave this blank if you wish, or use it to let us know anything about your company, or the information that you’re submitting, which might be useful for us.
Step 8 – complete the captcha verification and click the blue button to submit your listing. And you’re done!
Please note that the satsearch team may make minor amendments to the text you provide, without changing any meanings or factual information, in order to correct any errors and ensure the overall quality of the supplier information on the site.
To give the global space engineering community the most accurate picture of what you can offer, satsearch enables you to create pages for each of your different products, services, and capabilities.
A good portfolio will be clearly structured, with a unique page for each different product model, service element, and/or company capability. If it has a SKU, can be purchased independently, or feature as a major line item on an invoice, it should have an individual web page on the satsearch marketplace.
You can add any of your individual capabilities to satsearch. We don’t just list commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components or standardized sub-system modules.
You can also add pages for professional services, software, bespoke engineering solutions, custom hardware development, analysis and qualification capabilities, facilities or equipment available for rent, reports, courses, and anything else you can offer the industry, on a commercial or non-commercial basis.
Short, basic pages can be set up for free on satsearch. If you’d like to find out how to get a more richly featured online portfolio and access to a variety of business development opportunities, click here to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program.
Here’s how to quickly get free basic pages live for your portfolio:
Step 1 – click here to open the online form where you can add new pages to your portfolio.
Step 2 – add the text about your product in the first section. Start by typing in the first few letters of the name of your organization and click the right label when it shows up. If you haven’t yet added your company to the satsearch platform, you can do so at this link and by following the instructions above.
Next, add the name of your product or service. Be accurate but descriptive – consider what would help engineers find and understand your capability. It helps to take a look at how competing products are named on the website.
Then add a brief description that explains exactly what the product or service is. Ensure that you provide clear, concise, logical, and objective descriptions for each page you add, to help the market understand the value of what you offer.
Avoid hype and unsubstantiated claims (such as “the best product in the world”) – this will turn off savvy systems engineers and mission designers. Instead, try to generate interest and excitement in your portfolio. And note there is a 150 character hard limit, including spaces.
Finally, add a few keywords in the relevant box. Keywords are words or phrases that will be associated with your product/service page on satsearch.com. They don’t show up on the page, but when a user types them into the search box (which is on every page of the site) and chooses to search in terms of product, rather than in terms of supplier, your page will show up in the results.
Step 3 – upload an image and a datasheet for the product. The image field is mandatory – upload a good representative picture of your product in any standard image format, with a file size of 1 MB or less. If possible, use genuine photos of the product rather than renders or graphics – this adds credibility to your page.
The datasheet is optional but is highly advised to better explain to engineers the full quality and context of your offer. If you wish to make your datasheet public then you can upload it in this section as a PDF with a file size of less than 5 MB. It will be available for website users to download freely on your page, enhancing your marketing and visibility, and building your brand in the global industry.
Step 4 – add any optional comments with the handy box at the end of the form. You can leave this blank if you wish, or use it to let us know anything about your product, or the information that you’re submitting, which might be useful for us to know.
Step 5 – share your (or a colleague’s) personal contact information so we can stay in touch. We’ll use this to inform you when your page is ready and to discuss anything else that’s important to your business on satsearch.
Step 6 – complete the captcha verification and click the blue button to submit your product or service listing. And you’re done!
Please note that the satsearch team may make minor amendments to the text you provide, without changing any meanings or factual information, in order to correct any errors and ensure the overall quality of the supplier information on the site.
If you already have pages for your products and services live on satsearch, and you’d like to update them or make changes of any kind, this is also a simple process handled with a single, short online form.
All of the changes you make are optional. If you leave any section empty, the current content in that section on the page will be unchanged.
Step 1 – click here to open the form that enables you to update portfolio pages.
Step 2 – the first step is to identify the page that you wish to update. First type in the start of your organization name and select the right option. If you need to first add your company, use this form and click here to go to the instructions above.
Next, do the same for the product or service page name. If the product/service doesn’t yet have a published page, use this form and click here to go to the guidance above.
Step 3 – to change the text on the page, simply add the new description to the next box. This is the short explanation of your product that is displayed on the live page.
The description should clearly and objectively describe the product or service and you should avoid hype and unsubstantiated claims, but try to generate interest and excitement in your offer. There is a 150 character hard limit, including spaces.
Next, add new keywords for the page (if needed) in the relevant box. Keywords are words or phrases that will be associated with your product/service page on satsearch.com. They don’t show up on the page, but when a user types them into the search box (which is on every page of the site) and chooses to search in terms of product, rather than in terms of supplier, your page will show up in the results.
Please note that the satsearch team may make minor amendments to the text you provide, without changing any meanings or factual information, in order to correct any errors and ensure the overall quality of the supplier information on the site.
Step 4 – in the next section you can replace the product image and/or the datasheet, if required.
Upload a good representative picture of your product or service in any standard image format, with a file size of 1 MB or less. If possible, use genuine photos of the product rather than renders or graphics – this adds credibility to your page.
The datasheet is optional but is highly advised to better explain to engineers the full quality and context of your offer. If you wish to make your datasheet public then you can upload it in this section as a PDF with a file size of less than 5 MB. It will be available for website users to download freely on your page, enhancing your marketing and visibility, and building your brand in the global industry.
Step 5 – add any optional comments with the handy box at the end of the form. You can leave this blank if you wish, or use it to let us know anything about your product, or the information that you’re submitting, which might be useful for us.
Step 6 – share your (or a colleague’s) personal contact information so we can stay in touch. We’ll use this to inform you when your page is ready and to discuss anything else that’s important to your business on satsearch.
Step 7 – complete the captcha verification and click the blue button to submit your product or service listing. And you’re done!
]]>The optical space systems have been crucial for the world to explore cosmic entities in a detailed manner. From scientific study to analysis of physical forms of the planets, galaxies, and other heavenly bodies, optical space systems have provided an edge to global space sciences research. On the other hand, these optical systems face some difficulties due to stray light, in such cases the system can capture the image of its target object, but it might significantly reduce the quality of the image captured, due to light pollution, which is referred to as stray light. This further damages the end result of the image, making it difficult for the users to effectively analyze the image for their respective purposes.
Image quality degradation is one of the most immediate effects of stray light in space-based optical systems. Any unwanted light that enters the optical system and disrupts the intended signal is considered stray light. This can happen through scattering, reflection, or diffraction, and it can have a big effect on how clear these instruments’ images are.
An optical system’s resolution and contrast suffer as a result of stray light mixing with the intended signal. This can bring about pictures that come up short of the freshness and detail required for logical investigation. Therefore, our ability to comprehend the characteristics and behavior of celestial objects like galaxies, nebulae, and planet features is hampered by the obscuration or indistinctness of their fine structures.
The majority of the stray light in a star tracker or telescope occurs at grazing angles of the incident; When the beam is nearly parallel to a particular surface. The grazing angles are Angle of Incidence (AOI) angles of about 80-90 degrees.
One of the recent key examples of stray light disrupting operations in space is, Beresheet, a small robotic lunar lander and lunar probe designed by SpaceIL and Israel Aerospace Industries. During the mission, dust accumulated on its star tracker, causing navigation failures due to stray light that scattered from the dust into the sensor. The space environment in general is filled with dust, especially the solid planetary bodies like the Moon and Mars. This generally causes dust accumulation on spacecraft and other critical systems/instruments deployed in such ecosystems.
The GAIA mission by the European Space Agency (ESA) was also facing the stray light issue during its commissioning. After several investigations and analysis by ESA, it was concluded that the “Stray light is caused in every space mission due to the Sun and bright objects, it affected the image of GAIA because the light was scattered by fibers coming out of a MLI blanket.” In this mission, the starylight affected the mission’s ability to absorb faint objects. These are some of the prime examples of the starylight and how it can affect the overall operations of the spacecraft.
Eliminating stray light from the optical systems is important and at the same time crucial to ensure the smooth operation of the overall system. Acktar’s Hexa Black™ product line is an important asset is eliminating stray light at the grazing angles.
In situations where grazing angles are a problem, the Acktar Light Absorbing Panel is used to reduce stray light reflectance. From 0° to 88° AOI, Hexa Black™’s distinctive structure and coating allow for extremely low reflection. These panels include high emissivity with low reflectance and low outgassing. It is also accessible in varied shapes and sizes to meet clients’ mission demands.
Similarly, Acktar‘s Hexa Black™ Light Absorbing sheet allows extremely low reflection from 40° to 88° AOI. Though its properties are similar to Light Absorbing Panels, it use in space applications might differ as per the mission demands.
According to the scientific studies and proven methodologies by Acktar, the Honeycomb structure is effective in trapping stray light.
To extend on this issue, three TracePro simulations in 2D were carried out at 512 nm and AOI 80 to verify the effectiveness of the new coating at grazing angles: Acktar coating, honeycomb-structured Acktar coating, and standard black. Following are the test results in the image below:
Utilizing a standard dark, the relative flux was 46%, with a most extreme brilliant power of 0.95. The maximum radiant intensity was 0.8 and the total integrated relative flux decreased to 21% when the Acktar black coating without the honeycomb structure was simulated. The maximum radiant intensity was 0.021 and the flux was reduced to 1.4% when the Acktar coating and honeycomb structure were combined.
Similarly, using the optical design software ZEMAX and Synopsys, a 3D simulation of the AOI 30 and 60 in VIS (white light) and IR (1.55 micron) was carried out. The results are as follows:
According to this 3D simulation results, the relative flux observed at AOI 30 was 0.56% in VIS and 0.79% in IR. While at AOI 60, it was 0.72% in VIS and 0.99% in IR.
Hexa Black™ stands out as a unique material to eliminate stray light at grazing angles. Given the fact that the space technology and the instruments used onboard spacecraft are sensitive to even the minute interference of cosmic rays and dust, Hexa Black™ proves to be the most effective material for space applications, as mentioned above in the test results.
Acktar‘s product lines of Black Coatings provide edge to modern space systems both in protecting as well as help ensure the smooth running of the system. Its products vary for different space applications and should be consulted with the company prior to their use to allow the effective use of its products.
]]>It features Space BD‘s custom-made space solutions and their footprint in the space industry. Furthermore, the article also covers an extended outlook on how these solutions can benefit the NewSpace market.
The article also highlights the following key achievements of Space BD:
The article was developed in collaboration with Space BD, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The commercial explosion in the space industry has successfully created a wave of innovation in the upstream market. Looking at the past decade, where countries like Australia, China, India, and Japan have recorded a rise in the number space companies, it is fair to say that the industry will continue to experience commercial growth in the coming years.
These new opportunities, branching through this commercial pathway, are leading to more competition while also paving way for global collaborations and partnerships. Currently, there are multiple ways in which a company can now reach space. However, looking into the complex layers of space business and taking care of each business aspect can prove to be a handful in the space industry. In that line, having custom-made solutions that cater to the specific requirements of the company as well as aid in providing end-to-end solutions around each of the aspects can propel and help streamline businesses in a sustainable manner. This in turn will help in reducing or eliminating errors in the overall management process and further accelerate the commercialization of the space industry.
To receive more insights on how custom-made space solutions will change the landscape of NewSpace businesses as well as how it will help streamline the businesses, we will take a deeper look at each of the aspects in the next sections of the article.
Considering the NewSpace sector, the upstream space supply chain needs to become more agile and resilient to help customers meet their demands. While the giant and established players can easily respond as well as scale their capabilities quickly to market demands, the small and medium-sized businesses require an appropriate support to be able to achieve such high market demands.
For any technology business to be successful, both its technical and business pillars need to be strong enough to grab mammoth-sized opportunities as well as tackle critical challenges, whenever necessary. In the space sector, the engineering aspects remain the core fuel for the success of the business, though space technology has become accessible to common citizens, it’s development and functioning remains complex. For example, a minor error in space product or service lifecycle management can possibly lead to a complete failure of the mission. Similarly, the business sphere is wide and open, but find the right partners and collaborators is the key for long-term success in business; especially if the company is aiming to scale.
In this segment, Space BD’s core services offer one-stop support for all similar demands right from technical coordination to launch execution and operations support. Considering the vast footprint of Space BD in Japan, the company’s solutions are competitive to help the other global space companies.
Most of the space companies based out of Japan can also utilize these solutions to strengthen their technical and business process. For example, the classic case of James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) can be considered as an answer as to why there is a strong need for a one-stop solution for both engineering and business. The JWST was delayed for more than a decade, which eventually led to the piling up more additional costs for the mission. In such cases, streamlining both engineering and business (from a procurement perspective) teams is important to avoid such massive budget spending and delays in space projects.
Since the inception of NewSpace, tapping unexplored markets for commercial opportunities has become an essential part of modern space businesses. Space BD‘s current business engagement extensively covers the solutions and services for both the traditional space as well as NewSpace market. Its unique service offering as well as the company’s urge to provide access to Japanese technology to the world, has positioned it as one of the most competitive players in the region. Following are some of the key services offered by Space BD:
Apart from launch and procurement support, Space BD’s International Space Station (ISS) Japanese Experimental Module (Kibo) external platform utilization service remains unique; as it also generates commercial opportunities in the space industry from the non-space players. Under this service, Space BD provides opportunities to perform experiments on the ISS using various facilities in- and outside the ISS, and support the planning and management of the whole launch campaign of the test object. To receive more insights, let’s take a look at the company’s recent mission to ISS:
In November 2022, Space BD successfully demonstrated wireless communication signal reception in space, which was part of its ISS Kibo external platform utilization service to Sony Group Corporation (Sony). The mission was designed to demonstrate the compatibility of the wireless communication equipment for ELTRES™, a low-power wide-area (LPWA) communication standard developed by Sony. In this mission, Space BD utilized its external platform utilization service called, IVA-replaceable Small Exposed Experiment Platform (i-SEEP).
For Sony’s wireless communication demonstration with i-SEEP, Space BD together with Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) organized the optimal demonstration environment that reduced the risk of power supply/communication problems in space. This allowed the developer to focus on manufacturing the experiment equipment.
Prior to this mission, communications to the i-SEEP were strictly limited, and only JAXA Flight Control Team at Tsukuba Space Center could reach the payload to get the data. JAXA maintained the new external operation systems in April 2022, and Sony connected to the ISS from the permitted location with Space BD as the point of contact.
Space BD’s mission has successfully reduced communication hurdles for ISS, and this will ultimately also benefit several companies aiming to receive more access to ISS services.
The privatization wave in the space industry has encouraged several companies to look towards space as a commercial hotspot of opportunities for both innovation and business. While dealing with such a complex technology will invite challenges, it might also lead to an absolute failure of the businesses. To take a broad perspective, several NewSpace companies are running on either government or private funding sources. In this scenario, factors such as mission failure in orbit, over-budget procurements, delay in the project timeline, etc. can potentially bankrupt even the most ambitious companies.
To ensure that the space mission is successful both in terms of project management and in orbit, the companies need to keep a strong focus on their end-to-end procurement to launch service as well as streamlining the project management process. In order to fill such a wide productivity gap in this segment, Space BD provides an integrated procurement and sales service ranging from the identification of suitable components and parts, and purchase negotiation, to logistics and delivery to support with customer’s development and manufacturing of space-related equipment. The company also supports a wide range of procurement, from single satellite parts to the installation of large-scale facilities such as environmental testing facilities.
Space BD has a proven experience of working in the international markets. In November 2021, Space BD purchased the satellite rideshare slot on the mission. Through sales activities and technical support, Space BD gathered satellites from 6 organizations in total, including a company the UK and a total of missions from six different countries. To date Space BD has provided satellite developers with launch method proposals and technical support as well as support for various screenings required prior to launch. To respond to the growing and diverse demand for the use of space, in 2021 Space BD began adding global launch methods to the existing Japanese launch methods. This enabled Space BD to provide more flexible launch timeframes, accommodate a wider variety of satellite sizes, and made it possible to achieve launch to desired orbits. This rideshare mission was successfully launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle during the Transporter-6 mission launch and it was also the first satellite launch using an overseas rocket.
Utilizing these services will not only ensure the success of the space missions but will also help NewSpace companies build a strong long-term business foundation. This also further increases productivity in financial management; especially when it comes to the procurement of space components. Without proper knowledge of economic dimensions, a company might end up spending more budgets for the components, which could have been procured at half the prices. For example, the manufacturing costs vary in Asia and Europe. And though the costs in Europe are higher as compared to Asia, there remains a possibility that collaboration or further market navigation with the help of companies like Space BD can generate more opportunities to procure components at an affordable price from a variety of suppliers.
From launching satellites and performing experiments in space to transporting things to space, there are many ways now to do business in the space industry. Each requires conceptualisation, technical coordination, launch execution and operations support. The companies need to look for collaboration opportunities like ride-sharing or performing experiments on the ISS, identifying suitable components, carrying negotiations, and so on. Simultaneously, from logistics to delivery, the planning and management of the whole launch campaign require a resilient management process to eliminate errors and ensure the full success of the space missions. And as the quantity and range of worldwide launch alternatives available continue to grow and more and more companies become a part of the industry, an enterprise providing an end-to-end business and technical support will be essential for the industry.
Space BD’s footprint goes beyond commercial businesses and the company aims to educate the industry about these gaps and help them bring more efficiency to their operations. In January 2023, Space BD collaborated with world-renowned artist Masa Hayami to launch her artwork into space and preserve it as a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) after its return to Earth. The artwork will be launched into space by the end of FY2023, exposed to the outer space environment for approximately six months, and returned to Earth, where it will be given proof of its space journey and preserved as an NFT.
Encouraging and educating the world about the space through latest technologies is also one of the prime goals of Space BD. And its recent venturing into space art segment will further help create future leadership for the space industry.
To find out more about Space BD, please view their supplier hub here on satsearch.
]]>The ‘build vs. buy’ question is faced by engineers at all levels of satellite and spacecraft development. And it isn’t always simple to answer – there are more options on the market than ever, along with greater pressure to deliver high performance.
In this podcast we discuss how to go about making that choice in a few key areas of space mission development. We cover:
You can find out more about GomSpace here on the company’s satsearch supplier portfolio – and if you have any questions for the company, please let us know.
]]>Our free commercial tendering system enables you to send requests for information or quotes (RFIs and RFPs) to multiple SSA suppliers across the space industry, using one simple form.
Just share a few details about the SSA solutions and technologies you’re looking for, and we’ll go to work for you to find the best options on the market that meet your specific needs.
Step 1
Click here to open our simple commercial tender form and share a few details about your mission and SSA requirements.
Step 2
We evaluate and contact suppliers from across the global industry then come back to you, in a matter of days, with options that meet your needs.
Step 3
You then evaluate the proposals and tell us which you’d like to take forwards, and we’ll make personal introductions to those suppliers.
Trusting satsearch to support your procurement and market assessments benefits your mission development in several ways:
Space Situational Awareness (SSA) is essentially the knowledge and understanding of the space environment, and its potential effects on space- and ground-based systems, with respect to your particular satellite, constellation, mission, and/or service. This includes the detection, tracking, and identification of objects in space, as well as predictions of their future positions and movements.
SSA plays a critical role in ensuring the safe, efficient, and profitable use of space as a hardware operating environment, and is essential for a wide range of activities, such as satellite operations, launches, station-building and docking, and space debris mitigation.
In recent years many initiatives have been started aiming to facilitate and promote the safer, more sustainable use of the space environment – to benefit all stakeholders and operators. There are many open challenges to solve in this area, including the balance of governmental and commercial activity in SSA operations, but it’s clear that commercial SSA solution providers have a critical role to play in achieving these goals.
While this is an emerging market segment, there are a number of companies currently active within it, but there is currently a wide diversity in the solutions on offer and little standardization. Some commercial operators are dedicated SSA specialists offering end-to-end services, while others provide software packages or hardware systems that facilitate one or more aspects of the SSA, Space Domain Awareness (SDA), and/or Space Traffic Management (STM) process.
An SSA solution can encompass everything from the bespoke development of new ground- and space-based tracking systems, with associated software, through to the purchase of limited monitoring data or services from an existing system.
Our open commercial tendering system will enable you to send out commercial requests for whatever service elements and operating model will best meet your mission needs. Just tap the button below to let us know your requirements, or read on for some advice on how to refine them.
SSA systems involve multiple stakeholders and technologies which all need to coordinate effectively, while working within the available engineering and MissionOps resources.
Each space mission also has slightly different requirements – and these requirements will vary at each development and operational stage.
In many cases, the best SSA solution for any given mission can depend on factors such as:
Individual SSA suppliers will have more specific questions on your needs, in order to help them design a solution to help keep your equipment safe and your missions on track.
To get started engaging with SSA providers today, please use the button below – we look forward to hearing from you!
]]>It also highlights Rubicon Space Systems‘ product lines of thrusters and propulsion systems.
This piece is developed in collaboration with Rubicon Space Systems, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The space industry continues to transition from traditional heavy systems to new, smaller spacecraft systems. This has brought about several changes in the technology, including propulsion. The rising wave of rideshare missions, a cost-effective approach to space missions, involves launching multiple payloads on a single launch vehicle. With so many payloads now co-manifested on a single launch vehicle, it is necessary to manage and balance the multiple competing interests, risks, and hazards that payloads may pose to the launch vehicle and each other – not to mention, the drop-off location is up to the launch provider as opposed to where the payload customer needs to be to accomplish their mission. Let’s consider propulsion. According to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and United States Air Force (USAF)/ United States Space Force (USSF), traditionally used chemical propellant called hydrazine poses significant risks and safety hazards to both the launch vehicle, payloads onboard and humans ground testing / integrating systems with hydrazine onboard. Green propellants have the potential to increase the rideshare opportunity for smallsats that require chemical propulsion and safety.
In this article, we will take a deeper look into this topic as well as a high-performance, low toxicity “green” monopropellant that addresses the hazards that rideshare missions must navigate called ASCENT. We will also take a look at one company, Rubicon Space Systems, who has achieved flight heritage and whose product line is a compelling consideration for your payload.
ASCENT (Advanced Spacecraft Energetic Non-Toxic) propellant, formerly known as AF-M315E, is an advanced monopropellant formulation developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Rocket Propulsion Division (RQR). ASCENT delivers a 50% increase in density-specific impulse over the present state-of-the-art hydrazine monopropellant. In addition to its performance advantages, ASCENT decreases handling hazards compared to hydrazine. ASCENT is an ionic liquid (IL) derived of hydroxylammonium nitrate (HAN), water, and other compounds to yield a low-toxicity and highly stable mixture of negligible vapor pressure.
Rideshare missions have been essential in democratizing access to space. Historically, only a few commercial companies with significant resources and government organizations controlled the majority of space missions. With launch costs below $3,000 per kilogram, a wider spectrum of individuals and interests can now afford to participate in scientific research, technological advancement, and extraterrestrial exploration. This has ultimately led to an increase in the number of rideshare missions. Smaller businesses, start-ups, and educational institutions now have the opportunity to launch their payloads into space.
Propulsion systems are considered the most hazardous single subsystem of any spacecraft. Traditional chemical propellants like hydrazine have been used for decades, but such propellants are characterized as a “Catastrophic Hazard” per AFSPCMAN 91-710. Even a minor leakage of hydrazine vapor could result in severe damage to the launch vehicle and every other mission that is part of that launch. That is why ASCENT, a low toxicity “green” and safe propellant is gaining prominence.
Some other benefits of ASCENT includes:
To date, two missions have flown the ASCENT propellant – NASA’s Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM, 2019) and Lunar Flashlight (LF, 2022). Both missions were part of rideshare missions. On both missions, NASA and the US Air Force characterized the propellant as a “Non-Catastrophic” Critical Hazard”, per AFSPCMAN 91-710. As a result of that characterization, those ASCENT propulsion systems employed fewer components than would have been required for hydrazine version.
This has the benefit of increasing system reliability and reducing costs. The potential hazard to the launch vehicle, personnel, and other rideshare payloads was assessed as low, even if there was a leakage of propellant. AF-M315E derives its low-toxicity-hazard characteristics and high mixture stability (even to very low temperatures) from the high solubility and negligible vapor pressure of all solution constituents, such that indefinite exposure to the open environment poses no safety issue. Lunar Flashlight’s propulsion system, whose thrusters were produced by Rubicon Space Systems, was fueled and shipped across the US to the launch site and loaded onto the launch vehicle.
In 2022, the propulsion division of Plasma Processes LLC was rebranded as Rubicon Space Systems and given the mandate to commercialize its line of thrusters and develop a line of propulsion systems for the small satellite industry. Rubicon Space Systems is a developer and provider of in-space propulsion systems and thrusters that use ASCENT. With more than 30 years of combined experience in green propulsion and thousands of hours of thruster testing experience, Rubicon leads the world in the development and commercialization of ASCENT-propulsion technology.
The success in the operation of any space mission is not only assured by the quality of components and systems used in the mission. You must also select the right component as per mission requirements, and also consider cost, rideshare opportunity, hazards, and logistics. Therefore, considering factors like the desired destination, payload capacity, mission duration, maneuverability needs, etc. are crucial before selecting the right propulsion system/thrusters for the mission. The entire space industry is also moving towards a good stewardship culture; now gradually adopting sustainable technologies as well as putting more spotlight on issues like space debris, the green propellants are the way ahead for the industry. Rubicon’s product lines of thrusters and propulsion systems are designed to serve the needs of small and large satellites alike. Rubicon Space Systems is a committed champion in creating a more verdant space economy. The company has multiple products available to suit differing mission requirements. Following is a partial list of products from Rubicon Space Systems:
This article does not attempt to adjudicate all pros and cons of various propulsion options available to rideshare missions. It does attempt to demonstrate that for missions requiring high thrust chemical propulsion, ASCENT propellant technology is a compelling options that addresses the hazards that rideshare missions must navigate.
Rubicon’s advancements of ASCENT-based thrusters and propulsion systems, as well as the increased encouragement from agencies like NASA and US Space Force has significantly influenced the space industry to transition towards low-toxicity, and higher performance chemical propulsion systems. As the number of businesses and interests in the space economy increases, the number of rideshare will continue to increase as well. As that relates to propulsion, there is a clear need for safer, non-toxic propellant options.
To find out more about Rubicon Space Systems and for more information on its product and services portfolio, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch.
]]>This article was originally published in satsearch’s Space Industry Insights LinkedIn newsletter at this link.
As 2023 really gets underway, stakeholders from across the global space industry are facing a variety of major challenges and opportunities.
We’ve seen launch failures by Virgin Orbit, ABL Systems, and Arianspace just in the last few weeks for example, while NASA also sounded the alarm recently on future mission funding.
At the same time, rapidly increasing commercial investment and attention on climate change, space debris, and even exploration targets, such as the Moon, are bringing new opportunities to different companies across the globe.
These are combined with major shifts in the global economy (e.g. the rampant rise in demand for mobile connectivity services) and industry behaviors, with the maturing of innovations such as Internet of Things (IoT) devices leading to further increases in satellite demand.
All of this, and more, is taking place in an industry still utilizing legacy operations and business models, affected by extensive regulatory compliance, and heavily influenced by both politics and the actions of a small number of public sector bodies.
In this rapidly evolving and complex business environment, efficient procurement is emerging as one of the core capabilities of forward-looking companies.
Here’s how satsearch is turning this capability into a superpower.
Building a reliable, cost-effective, and efficient supply chain for space missions and services is no easy task.
Whether you’re operating at the component, subsystem, or system level, it is getting harder to define, identify, assess, negotiate, and acquire the right product or service for your needs.
But as the industry gets more competitive, it is also becoming increasingly important that you do so quicker and more cost-effectively than ever.
Here are some of the key challenges and bottlenecks that companies are facing in space procurement today:
As you can see, the scale of these issues is significant – this is rocket science after all.
But the potential rewards on offer for companies that get this right are also very attractive.
Many professional analysts believe that the space industry is on course to become a trillion dollar industry in less than 20 years.
This growth will come from hundreds of millions of new users across the world consuming satellite broadband, GPS and other positioning services, Earth Observation (EO) and remote sensing data, emergency response information, and other forms of satellite-based resources.
We’re also seeing emerging applications in space domain awareness, in-space servicing and manufacturing, private space station development, microgravity research, lunar applications, and more.
By streamlining procurement processes and reducing inefficiencies, the costs of developing space systems to take advantage of these opportunities can be significantly reduced, making space exploration and utilization more affordable. This will enable:
Only by ironing out such issues can all areas of the industry really act like a true market and achieve greater penetration into other sectors and service areas.
Better procurement will also enable the commercial activity and interest needed to achieve the most ambitious space-related goals to be achieved.
Since our launch back in 2016 we have helped hundreds of teams identify and acquire the best products and services on the market for their specific needs.
In just the last 18 months we’ve handled more than $600 million worth of procurement involving buyers and suppliers in over 100 countries.
We’ve now put all of that knowledge and experience together in a single, simplified procurement system designed to help potential buyers find what they need as quickly and easily as possible – and for free!
You can take advantage of this simply by sharing your requirements with us on our open tender tool here. We’ll use this information to get you responses from qualified suppliers across the global marketplace, potentially finding products, services, companies, and operating models you didn’t even know existed, let alone were commercially available.
You’ll be under no obligation to procure from, or even respond to, any of the suppliers we contact on your behalf, and you can also refine your needs based on the responses you get from the market to better plan out your mission requirements.
Please feel free to share all relevant information with us – the more specific and detailed your technical requirements, the better the results we can usually achieve – but also do simply get in touch if you would like to discuss the potential options for your mission at a higher level.
We’ve built deep expertise and extensive networks of global suppliers over the years, and we’re happy to support any engineer, team, or company with their space industry procurement.
If you need anything related to the space industry, satsearch can help you find it – click here to take the next step.
]]>In today’s interconnected world, services such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) and satellite broadband are fundamental to global communication, transportation, and information access. Their influence extends beyond individual utility; they have built or reshaped entire industries, fostering unprecedented levels of connectivity and accessibility.
However, the reach of space services isn’t limited to these well-known applications. Satellite connections infiltrate numerous other sectors including meteorology, disaster management, resource exploration, and finance.
The simple list below illustrates the myriad ways in which satellite technology bolsters our societal infrastructure, catalyzes innovation, and drives economic growth.
This list is extensive but not exhaustive. Just by reading it you’ve probably noticed a few applications that aren’t individually listed.
As you can see – there is also a lot of overlap between different categories, and we expect that to increase in the future as more versatile systems are launched, with the capability to perform multiple different tasks and generate more than one form of data.
But hopefully this list really reinforces the importance of our growing industry and inspires you for your next mission!
And, as always, when it comes to finding the right hardware, software, and service providers for that mission – we’re always here to help.
]]>It also provides an outlook on the innovative solutions in the global space market, by Texas Instruments, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
Further, the article also provides a brief outlook on power management systems and the Texas Instruments’ strategy for the NewSpace market. The piece was developed in collaboration with the Texas Instruments team – Michael Seidl, Aerospace systems engineer, and Adrian Helwig, Aerospace field applications engineer.
Space programs heavily depend on reliable and efficient power systems. Everything from operating sophisticated instruments to basic life-support systems for astronauts relies on the availability of electric power. Always available, always within spec. In this article, we’ll delve deeper into these vital systems, starting from power generation and storage, to power distribution and finally, the point of consumption – the Point of Load (PoL).
The most common power source in satellites is solar panels, which typically generate an output voltage ranging from 100V to 200V. This is then stepped down to a battery charging voltage of 24V to 70V. Power distribution, regardless of the battery voltage, typically occurs at 28V using a buck/boost DC/DC converters. For each submodule or subsystem, the main voltage rails, ranging from 28V down to 12V, 5V, -12V, -5V, and so forth, are isolated. Finally, we reach the PoL stages, where voltage can be as low as 0.8V for FPGAs, though 3.3V is more common. Please note that these are typical values, and while there is no existing standard yet, we anticipate the introduction of such standards in the near future.
Generating and managing power in space is no small feat. The process is fraught with challenges. Power generation in space is costly, considering the size of the solar panels, the complexity of unfolding mechanisms, and weight-related issues. When on the ‘dark side’, energy must come from the battery, which again brings up the challenges of weight, size, and cost. The absence of air in space means no convection; all heat must be radiated away, leading to significant costs in cooling efforts.
Add to these challenges the harsh environment of space: high radiation levels that vary with different orbits; extreme temperature cycles, with Low Earth Orbit (LEO), experiencing multiple transitions from the sun to darkness each day; and high vibrations during launch. Despite these challenges, humanity’s drive to benefit from its installations in Earth’s orbits propels ongoing innovations in space electronics.
The emergence of the “NewSpace” industry, characterized by an increasing presence of private sector investment and innovation, has introduced a fresh dimension to the space sector. Traditionally, government-led space initiatives have focused on a range of objectives, from scientific discovery to establishing critical infrastructure for navigation, telecommunications, and military surveillance. Now, with the advent of NewSpace, these core objectives are being pursued alongside the development of profitable business models, introducing a new set of challenges and considerations.
Power management systems in NewSpace vehicles need to provide full functionality while maintaining cost efficiency, a critical aspect in a market-driven sector.
When designers have to select their components the first factor is the mission profile, which takes into account radiation hardness. Single Event Effects, dependent on the orbit, along with the Total Ionizing Dose—essentially, the aging effect, dependent on both the orbit and mission duration—play crucial roles here.
A second, equally critical aspect is the temperature profile. In LEO, this is more severe than in Geostationary Orbit (GEO) due to multiple temperature cycles per day, which makes material usage extremely important.
Designers have multiple options. On one end of the spectrum, we have the Qualified Manufacturers List Class V – Radiation Hardened Assurance (QMLV-RHA) according to the United States military specification MIL-PRF-38535. Due to the complexity of designing, manufacturing, and testing these devices, they command a premium price when required by a mission. These parts are offered in a highly robust ceramic package.
On the other end, up-screening of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products is typically not advisable. These often lack testing programs, especially for complex products. Power products in COTS grade rarely exhibit good radiation performance (high current-carrying transistors show gate rupture effects). Moreover, COTS use materials not intended for space and show failures due to tin whiskers or bonding wire breaks, for instance. The mold compounds can outgas and cause damage to other sub-systems of the satellite, particularly any optical implementation.
A middle-ground solution is the Space Enhanced Plastic (SEP) with a reduced radiation hardness of typically 30krad, 43MeV. This offers a good compromise between cost and risk of failure. The radiation reports are readily available, and the material set is appropriate for space.
Once the right quality class has been selected, designers need to look at the functionality itself. Perhaps one of the most essential aspects to highlight here is power density, a concept that is particularly significant in the NewSpace market for several reasons:
The power system does also play a pivotal role in protecting devices downstream, especially when components with lower radiation hardness are used downstream. In the absence of radiation-hardened and cost-effective alternatives, Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) high-performance processors or FPGAs, commonly used in other sectors, become sometimes the only viable options for NewSpace projects. The rapid detection of latch-up events (radiation-induced malfunctions in semiconductor devices) and power cycling of the affected device becomes a very critical function the power system must then provide. Furthermore, given its full dependency, the power tree must be extremely robust, especially considering that high current-carrying transistors can show gate rupture effects under heavy radiation.
In essence, the quest to optimize power in electronic space systems involves a delicate balancing act that requires us to continuously navigate a complex field of options, risks, and trade-offs. Therefore, the marvel and complexity of space exploration, are a testament to human ingenuity.
In the evolving technological landscape, a significant uptick in on-board processing capabilities, complemented by the adoption of complex software systems, is redefining power supply requirements.
Consider the communication payload of LEO constellations. More processing power is now dedicated to data routing, and the replacement of conventional mechanical antenna pointing systems with electrically steered antennas requires even more computational power, not to speak about high-speed data converters that run meanwhile at 10 GHz and above which allow to skip the need for an intermediate frequency even up to the X-Band but produces a just incredible amount of data which all need to be processed, of course.
Further augmenting these systems are artificial intelligence or machine learning capabilities, enhancing the ability to determine optimal routing and network load options. Or, on-board pre-processing for optical and radar imaging payloads is lowering data rates, despite a concurrent increase in resolution. Additionally, due to the prevalence of space debris, autonomous maneuvering is becoming a requisite for collision avoidance.
These advancements trigger a rise in computational power and complexity, highlighting the importance of software and the usage of processors or Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) that incorporate numerous CPU cores.
This transformation, however, introduces new challenges. The power tree, for instance, now requires increased power. The most recent and high-powered FPGAs demand high currents at incredibly low voltages, such as 0.8V core voltages with tens of Amperes. With a tight tolerance of +/-3%, we’re left with mere millivolts of wiggle room. This scenario accentuates the importance of efficiency and power density, particularly for these high current requirements, yet also requiring very high precision at the same time.
In conclusion, the ongoing progression of computational power in space has significant implications for power supply requirements. It necessitates superior current capabilities with exceptional radiation performance. The next-generation power supply must respond adeptly to load steps up to 100A, even at voltages as low as 0.8V, while maintaining high power density and accuracy. While these demands pose considerable challenges, they simultaneously unveil new avenues for innovation within the technology domain.
The challenges of the NewSpace environment are numerous and multifaceted. As one of the leaders in the tech industry, Texas Instruments has been actively and proactively adapting to these challenges.
A significant part of Texas Instruments’ strategy includes a broad product range catering to various current levels, with some components handling up to 18A per component and capable of being paralleled to achieve more than 100A. To ensure the finest level of precision, Texas Instruments has introduced unique precision capabilities.
The company has also incorporated numerous protection features, such as overcurrent (OC), overvoltage (OV), under-voltage lockout (UVLO), and over-temperature (OT), including auto retry capabilities. This comprehensive protective setup greatly enhances system reliability and resilience.
Recognizing the diverse needs across different space missions, Texas Instruments offers three space-grade quality classes. The QMLV-RHA class is designed for traditional space, GEO and deep-space missions, and human space missions, offering radiation hardness of 100krad, 75MeV. The SEP class is intended for NewSpace and LEO constellations, providing radiation tolerance of 30krad, 43MeV, at a cost-effective price point. Lastly, the brand-new QMLP class offers radiation hardness similar to QMLV-RHA but with a pin-compatible plastic package to SEP. Texas Instruments played an active role in developing the QMLP standard, ratified in November 2022, with the first QMLP release expected shortly and several more planned within the year.
These offerings are designed to provide mission flexibility, allowing one R&D investment to be easily adopted across different missions. It also simplifies the introduction of new products with similar performance, using the same or very similar package as industrial versions.
A key part of Texas Instruments’ solution, especially for the power tree, includes redundancy, where units are galvanically isolated from each other to prevent fault propagation. The Fault Detection, Isolation & Recovery (FDIR) capability is another crucial feature that provides integrated diagnostic, monitoring, and protection features, alert signal generation, an enable pin, and a current limit function. Load switches and eFuses are employed to offer solutions for full disconnection when needed or to limit inrush current or peak voltages to avoid unnecessary stress on any components downstream. Digital isolator products complement the FDIR solution catalog.
The NewSpace industry is experiencing a noticeable trend toward launching small- or micro-satellites. But, what does this mean for power management systems in space? Can this shift drive innovation and streamline power management processes?
Signs point towards an affirmative response. The industry is already talking about standardization efforts, with models like SpaceVPX or Advanced Data Handling Architecture (ADHA) gaining traction. These standards propose a modular and exchangeable design, thereby enhancing redundancy and enabling the sharing of computational power. The benefits are manifold: costs are reduced, volumes are increased, and R&D efforts can be reused, creating a more efficient and productive environment for semiconductor investments.
A clearly defined power supply definition can help streamline optimization in terms of cost and performance. Recognizing these evolving dynamics, Texas Instruments closely follows these activities, aiming to deliver optimized products that meet the high volume expectations of the expanding small- and micro-satellite market.
Specifics concerning power supply, such as voltage and current levels, are vital considerations. Additionally, protection and robustness, along with fault detection and reporting capabilities for recovery, are integral elements of these innovative power management systems. These features echo the reliability and safety measures found in other industries, such as automotive, implying that the space industry is aligning with terrestrial technology sectors to optimize systems and procedures.
In conclusion, the shift towards small- and micro-satellites does appear to be catalyzing innovation in power management systems in space. By embracing standardization, reusing R&D, and prioritizing key performance metrics, companies like Texas Instruments are well-positioned to meet these new challenges and contribute to the NewSpace era.
Serving the emerging NewSpace market requires constant innovation, adaptation, and a commitment to delivering cutting-edge products. Texas Instruments demonstrates this dedication with numerous new product releases every year, and the numbers continue to grow.
In 2022, a series of power-centric product releases hit the market, broadening the company’s offerings and providing advanced solutions for the fast-growing space industry. These include Load Switches such as TPS7H2221-SEP, which is radiation-tolerant with a 1.6-V to 5.5-V input and 1.25-A current capabilities.
Switching Regulators, such as TPS7H4003-SEP, provide radiation-tolerant 3-V to 7-V, 18-A, synchronous step-down conversion in a small space-enhanced plastic package. Texas Instruments also launched Linear Regulators, including TPS7H1210-SEP, offering radiation-tolerant, -3-V to -16.5-V input, 1-A adjustable output negative LDO linear regulator in a plastic QFN package.
Furthermore, the company has rolled out a new PWM Switching Controller family with eight devices for different topologies and mission profiles. The superset devices include TPS7H5005-SEP and TPS7H5001-SP, offering radiation-tolerant and radiation-hardened, 2-MHz, dual-output PWM controllers with synchronous rectification and dead time control.
Beyond individual components, Texas Instruments emphasizes comprehensive solutions via reference designs. A dedicated reference design team, known as Power Design Services (PDS), works on numerous existing and upcoming designs for various topologies and power levels. These designs can be readily accessed on the Texas Instruments website.
Additionally, the company is actively fostering third-party collaborations and partnerships. This includes cooperation with Star-Dundee on a SpaceFiber design with TI power, and Teledyne e2v’s DDR4 memory incorporating TI power and terminators. AlphaData’s space-grade development design based on Xilinx KU60 also utilizes TI components for core supply, auxiliary rails, and memory termination. This approach has been successfully replicated for their latest Versal platform.
In conclusion, Texas Instruments’ strategy for the emerging space market is multifaceted. TI will continue to extend its wide array of products at different quality classes to help designers meet their performance and cost goals. Innovation efforts focus on efficiency and power density, supply rail quality, and accuracy while assuring the highest level of robustness and reliability, including support of effective recovery strategies to meet FDIR requirements. TI strives to provide very strong technical support via its e2e forum or its collaterals such as reference designs including test reports, application notes, and more. Last but not least, TI puts a strong focus on availability in terms of easy ordering, and fast delivery thanks to a healthy inventory level, and a strong long-term supply commitment.
To find out more about Texas Instruments and for more information on its product and services portfolio, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch.
Epsilon3 is a US-based software solutions company providing services in the space as well as other commercial industries. Epsilon3 modernizes space missions by building the industry standard of operational software. It’s software platform manages complex operational procedures, saving operators time and reducing errors. The platform supports a majority of a project’s life cycle from integration and testing through live operations.
In this episode we discuss:
Engineers must perform various assembly, validation/qualification tests, and several checks for final integration (before launch) of a satellite in order to minimize the chances of failure.
As the number of satellite integrators and mission teams around the world has grown, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of products and services available on the market to assist in these processes.
Click on the links below to see individual offers on the market today to help your mission cross the qualification finish line:
Satellites are expensive, complex, and precisely engineered systems that require high levels of accuracy in their integration, calibration, and testing.
It is also more and more common for individual subsystems, payloads, connectors, and components to be purchased from different suppliers around the world. And manufacturers may use different standards, engineering conventions, and qualification approaches that all need to be
There are many areas of testing and qualification that make up an effective satellite AIT processes, such as:
Here are a few answers to some common questions on the topic of satellite AIT.
What does AIT stand for in space?
AIT stands for assembly, integration and test (or testing). It refers to a collection of processes that any satellite or spacecraft must undergo in order to be fully prepared for launch and operation in space.
What is assembly, integration and test?
The assembly, integration and test phases of a space system encompass the final construction, organization, connection, alignment, and calibration of all hardware, followed by a multi-stage analysis of how it performs in the conditions it will experience in launch, deployment, and orbit (or other route).
What is the meaning of AIT in testing?
As mentioned, the direct meaning of AIT in testing is assembly, integration and test (or testing). But more broadly, it means that testing the performance and quality of any system developed is the responsibility of the manufacturer/integrator.
On the other hand, qualification to certain standards, representing suitability for use in a particular mission or program, is also the shared responsibility of the body in charge of the mission or program.
In other words, for your system to be suitable for a NASA mission for example, it must satisfy your satellite AIT operational requirements as well as the standards that NASA has set for project, and for which they are responsible for testing and approving.
]]>An effective CubeSat antenna will be able to support the mission control and data delivery requirements of a system in as efficient a manner as possible, with secure and consistent communications access in the required frequency bands.
In recent years the space antenna sector (and broader satellite communications, or satcom, sector in general) has seen a lot of innovation.
Please click here to find details of specific CubeSat antennas on the global market today.
There are a number of factors that engineers need to evaluate when selecting from the CubeSat antennas on the market today – these include:
You can also see very similar products and services (producing near-identical results) vary in price between 1X to 10X depending on the supplier.
Transparency on the market lets you get a clear view of price-to-performance and can save significant time and money in space missions.
We can help you short-cut discovery processes dramatically and we have supported over 400 missions to date to do just that; helping thousands of engineers from more than 150 countries.
Satsearch is a specialist supply chain discovery platform for the space industry offering multiple benefits for space engineers – ALL 100% FREE.
Here’s how it works:
Our platform features details of thousands of suppliers, products, and services from across the global space supply chain.
All this information is categorized and made freely and openly available to space engineers and mission designers looking to find the best solutions to meet their needs.
You can browse the database by looking through the different categories of products and services here.
Alternatively, find options for your missions simply by searching our site, from any page.
Finally, to save even more time, you can simply share with us your high-level requirements and then we’ll scan the market for you, contact relevant suppliers, and send proposals directly to your inbox in a matter of days. Click here to get started.
Once we have found great options for your mission we’ll provide you with the relevant information directly.
Again – there is NO CHARGE for any of these services and they are completely NO OBLIGATION for space engineers at any level.
Once you’ve identified a relevant product or service that meets your needs, satsearch makes it quick and easy to submit requests to the supplier.
With just a few clicks you can ask for pricing, documents, lead times, technical specifications, or anything else you might need for your engineering and mission plans.
Only share what information you’re happy to give out, though the more details we have, the more relevant your results will be.
This service is also 100% FREE and available 24/7.
Protecting your identity and privacy in procurement processes is sometimes important in space missions.
We work on a ‘double consent’ model – we do not share any information with a supplier that an engineer would like to keep private, and vice versa.
You can let us know if you have specific privacy requirements at any time and we’ll be happy to factor those into the service that we offer.
One of the most difficult aspects of space engineering, like in any complex field, is dealing with the unknown unknowns.
During many stages of mission design there may be alternative technologies or processes you can employ that can save time, resources, and Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) budget.
Our expert team is available to give you free advice and guidance on the selection and procurement of critical mission solutions. Just click here and let us know what you need today.
With new suppliers and products hitting the market every week, and older ones changing or becoming obsolete, it is getting more difficult to quickly and easily find relevant alternatives for a certain sub-system or component.
This is a core service we offer to engineers (again, completely for free). Just click here to start searching the site, or send us your specific requirements with this simple form.
Satsearch is funded by suppliers in the marketplace. Our business model means that we are able to offer all of our services and support to engineers and buyers in the industry for free.
Not every supplier listed on satsearch is paying a fee to do so – only those who participate in the Satsearch Membership Program are funding the company, and these are all openly and transparently published on this page.
You can also determine which companies are members by a blue tick symbol on search results, links, and product pages on the site.
Satsearch members receive a range of extra benefits and support not available to non-members including dedicated business development and marketing support, supply-side advice and guidance, and access to new business opportunities from across the world.
We do not bias the market in any way – but as we have well-established, ongoing commercial relationships with member suppliers, we can often provide engineers with faster responses from them. In addition, we can only facilitate direct personal connections with member suppliers.
We are a trusted, neutral third party marketplace, dedicated to helping engineers and mission designers find the best options. Here are just a few of the hundreds of organizations whose engineers trust satsearch to support their procurement:
]]>As with all space-rated electronic components, connectors are required to withstand far harsher environmental conditions than terrestrial hardware.
They also play a vital role in multiple systems on-board, ensure power and data are securely and consistently transferred in an efficient manner.
Click on the links below to view details on individual, commercially-available space connectors from across the global marketplace:
Here are some of the factors that engineers need to take into account when selecting the best space grade connector for a new mission:
Mission timeline – some connectors are designed to only perform effectively for short periods – those on launch vehicles for example. However, many space missions can last years, with no chance of repair or replacements, so interconnecting systems for these applications must be highly robust and durable.
Environmental performance – as mentioned, the harsh conditions of launch, orbital insertion, and operation in space require robust hardware capable of performing effectively. The main risks of the space environment to electronic components are; radiation effects, electrostatic discharge (ESD), magnetic interferences, extreme temperatures (often ranging from -270°C to 250°C), and material outgassing. Ensure you select proven products from reputable suppliers capable of mitigating these issues.
Interconnect input-output – ensure that you’re selecting the right connection system for your hardware today, but also understand what you will need to do if one or more subsystems are changed in design iterations.
Supply chain stability – space grade connectors are often commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products, but that does not mean they are immune to supply disruptions. Have a frank conversation with potential suppliers about the stability of their product manufacturing and portfolio before committing to long-term/large-scale orders.
We offer expert procurement support and advice that is 100% free, and no-obligation, for engineers and mission designers across the world.
If you are searching for space-qualified connectors, and associated equipment, we can help you refine your needs and get the best options on the market, fast. It all starts with our quick and easy tender form:
The satsearch procurement team is experienced in getting quotes, further information, proposals, documents, or whatever else might be needed to facilitate a new transaction or trade study (for any kind of space-related hardware, software, or service) – typically getting supplier responses in a matter of days rather than weeks.
We can handle multi-vendor conversations and collate all the information in order to share the relevant details with your team. We then hand over the discussion to you to finalize a purchase.
To get started, simply click here and share your requirements with us today – we look forward to hearing from you!
]]>It also features how customers can leverage Cloudflight.io’s predictive maintenance expertise to increase productivity in their businesses. The article also briefly covers the key takeaways from predictive maintenance for the space industry
The article was developed in collaboration with Cloudflight.io, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The aerospace industry is one of the most critical industries in the world. With billions of dollars invested in research and development, it is always at the forefront of technological advancements. However, with the growing complexity of aircraft and the increasing demand for air travel, the need for efficient and effective maintenance has become more important than ever before.
Catastrophic failures in aerospace manufacturing can result in devastating consequences, both in terms of human lives and financial losses. In this context, predictive maintenance has emerged as a game-changer. By leveraging advanced data analytics, machine learning algorithms, and real-time monitoring, predictive maintenance enables manufacturers to proactively identify and address potential equipment failures before they occur. This proactive approach not only enhances safety but also minimizes downtime, reduces costs, and maximizes the lifespan of critical assets.
In the next sections of the article, we will explore the power of predictive maintenance in aerospace manufacturing, the role of Cloudflight in this segment, and the key takeaways for the space industry.
Predictive maintenance in the aerospace manufacturing process provides greater efficiency for the operation of a particular asset. The traditional maintenance techniques are often reactive, meaning that issues are only identified when they become apparent. This approach can lead to delays, increased costs, and, in the worst-case scenario, catastrophic failures. Predictive maintenance, on the other hand, is a proactive approach that uses data and analytics to predict when issues are likely to occur. By doing so, predictive maintenance enables manufacturers to take action before a problem becomes serious, reducing the risk of catastrophic failures.
Predictive maintenance relies on data collection and analysis to identify patterns and trends in machine behavior. The data is then used to make predictions about when a machine is likely to fail and what issues are likely to occur.
This technique is about more than just preventing catastrophic failures. It also helps to improve the overall performance and efficiency of machines. By identifying issues before they occur, manufacturers can take preventive measures, reducing downtime and increasing productivity. Predictive maintenance can also help to extend the lifespan of machines and equipment, saving manufacturers money in the long run.
One of the key benefits of predictive maintenance is that the maintenance activity can be optimally planned. For example, after the aircraft has landed, data is transferred and analyzed on the ground station. With predictive maintenance strategies, the optimal time required for replacing certain components can be calculated. This replacement usually does not take effect immediately, if not it is scheduled in 100-200 flight hours (which usually means in some weeks/months).
In this case of optimally planned maintenance activity of the aircraft, assume that component A requires replacement, but the prediction for component B says that the risk / remaining useful life (RUL) is quite similar to part A. Therefore, the replacement can be done for both components A and B, instead of having the helicopter out of service twice for maintenance activities.
Some of the other key benefits of predictive maintenance include:
From the space industry’s perspective, satellite, launch, and ground market verticals can take advantage of this technology. For example, the ground segment is an essential component of the complete satellite architecture. Its predictive maintenance will not only help save operational costs but also help improve its performance without the need for replacing the complete ground station. Similarly, in the satellite segment, the diagnosis of onboard software and hardware will be crucial as the space industry is transitioning rapidly toward software defined satellites. In terms of hardware, the in-orbit servicing market will further open opportunities for predictive maintenance in the space industry. For example, Indian Space Research Organisation recorded the failure of three atomic clock failures on its satellites of Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS). Such errors can be eliminated once the industry has predictive maintenance capabilities.
Developing and implementing predictive maintenance for the space (especially for the systems in-orbit) assets is still a futuristic thing. But as every innovation starts with an inspiration, predictive maintenance in aerospace manufacturing can serve as an inspiration for the space industry. Some of the important key takeaways for the space industry in this context are:
As technology continues to advance, manufacturers will have access to more sophisticated tools and techniques for predictive maintenance. For example, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ML has provided an edge to Cloudflight’s solutions, making it one of the prominent players in the industry.
AI can help to identify patterns and trends in data that would be difficult for humans to spot. While Internet of Things (IoT) can enable manufacturers to collect more data about machines and equipment, providing more insights into potential issues.
Overall, implementing a predictive maintenance program requires careful planning and execution, but the benefits are well worth the effort.
The “Predictive Maintenance” service is available through the satsearch platform, to further view the product details and to send any requests for more information, please click here.
]]>In this piece, produced in collaboration with propulsion solutions provider for ENPULSION, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program, we highlight some of the most important advantages of FEEP using solid metal indium as a propellant, which is one of the most advanced propulsion technologies on the market and has gained considerable flight heritage in recent years.
The propulsion systems form an important part of the space systems to create mobility for a variety of functions such as orbital maneuvering, docking with the space station, orbit transfer, etc. While several different propulsion systems such as chemical, electric, and solid systems are categorized generally for space systems, the electric propulsion system is one of the most commonly preferred systems for satellites or spacecraft.
Electric propulsion utilizes less propellant as compared to other conventional propulsion systems. This leads to an increase in the spacecraft velocity and provides more efficiency in the overall operation of the propulsion system. Since the inception of NewSpace technology, research and development have advanced in the electric propulsion segment; Leading to the rise of more variety of electric propulsion systems in the market. Enpulsion’s propulsion products, based on Field-Emission Electric Propulsion (FEEP) technology, are one such unique innovative entry into the market. In the next part of the article, we will provide an outlook on FEEP, its advantages, as well as take a deeper look into its applications.
The FEEP is an electric propulsion technology, that has been developed for more than 30 years and had its first successful In-Orbit-Demonstration in January 2018. Since then, it has gained a considerable amount of flight heritage and currently close to 200 thrusters based on this technology are in orbit, with an accumulated on-orbit operation of more than 150 years.
Inside a FEEP thruster, the solid metal propellant is liquified in orbit, and a strong electrostatic field extract ionizes and accelerates the propellant from the ion emitter. By changing the field’s parameters, thrust and specific impulse can be varied as required. The ion emission is supplemented by electron emission from neutralizers to maintain the charge stability of the spacecraft. The emitted propellant is replaced in a fully passive manner by capillary forces which maintain the propellant supply from the propellant reservoir up to the emitter tips, relying on the surface tension of the propellant itself. A FEEP thruster, therefore, does not require any external forces like pressurization or pumps. Furthermore, the FEEP system is fully solid and inert during ground handling, integration, and launch. Indium is a key solid metal propellant that is used in the FEEP. In the next section, we will take a deeper look into why Indium is important as a solid metal propellant for FEEP.
Some of the most highly-advanced FEEP emitters use indium, a non-toxic, non-reactive, and non-radioactive metal as a propellant, with negligible evaporation even in a vacuum at high temperatures. The FEEP thruster technology is an entirely passive system using no hazardous materials and an unpressurized solid propellant during all process stages.
Even when active, no part of the thruster is pressurized, and no leak is possible. This technology does not generate any debris even in case of disastrous events on the spacecraft level like micrometeorite impact or collision. Since the propellant does not store chemical energy or is pressurized, physical damage/unforeseen full loss of power will lead to solidification of the propellant, (as opposed to an explosion), it is therefore self-passivating. This means that no explosive reaction can harm the spacecraft system and no additional launch preparation and safety requirements are needed.
FEEP thrusters are delivered with propellant tank subsystem and propellant included, and in a ready-to-fly state and are designed for simple and fast integration. Many propulsion systems using other propellants have to be shipped empty and filled at the launch facility, introducing additional expenses and procedures, with propellants having to be purchased separately, often at considerable cost.
Indium is non-toxic and easy to handle. It is stored unpressurized and, unlike high-pressure tanks, it does not need special authorizations (launch waivers) to be launched as secondary payloads, and is RoHS and REACH compliant.
FEEP advantages in a nutshell (part 1)
With a FEEP propulsion system, thrust can be controlled through the electrode voltages, providing excellent controllability over the full thrust range down to a precision of a few tens of µN, as well as low thrust noise. Due to the efficient process in which up to 60% of the evaporated indium atoms can be ionized, FEEP emitters can provide a very high specific impulse and can accurately control the ISP anywhere from 1,000s to 6,000s.
Advanced FEEP thrusters can be used as compact pre-qualified building blocks in order to provide custom solutions at a commodity price and ultra-short lead times. Although the building blocks are completely self-contained propulsion systems, the whole cluster can be operated as a single plug-and-play unit.
Available FEEP propulsion systems show that this technology can be used on a wide range of spacecraft. Fully integrated FEEP propulsion systems can have outside dimensions starting below 1U with a (wet) mass of only 900g (eg. ENPULSION NANO). In contrast, larger thrusters operating at total system power of up to 800 watts can be used to move satellite mass of up to 500kg per thruster with multiple thrusters per satellite being able to maneuver even satellites with a mass of up to 2.000kg (eg. ENPULSION NEO). Some of the unique properties of FEEP that make it the most suitable for maneuvers and other space operations include:
FEEP advantages in a nutshell (part 2)
When compared to other propulsion technologies, there might be additional operations and preparations required, that have to be taken into account as “hidden costs” – which primarily include health and safety requirements in handling the propellants. Some of them come at considerable effort and cost which are not needed for a FEEP propulsion system.
FEEP advantages in a nutshell (part 3)
Some of the following operations could also lead to a considerable amount of effort and additional costs. Considering these factors carefully could be beneficial for the overall operations and safety:
When compared to other propulsion technologies, FEEP has unique advantages such as making integration as simple as bolting the thruster head and electronics on their respective panels and connecting the harness – with no additional launch or safety requirements, making the fully integrated FEEP propulsion system essentially a plug-and-play component.
The development of the ENPULSION NEO thruster is the latest addition to a wide range of available propulsion systems, that can cover small and mid-sized satellites but also large satellites of up to 2.000kg launch mass. With its high specific impulse (>2500s) and propellant density 4 times higher than xenon the ENPULSION NEO thruster system is both more compact and lighter than traditional electric propulsion systems.
Development and qualification of the ENPULSION NEO thruster are supported by the European Space Agency (ESA) through the ARTES program. Qualification of the thruster system is scheduled to start in early 2024.
To find out more about ENPULSION and for more information on their product portfolio, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch.
]]>In this article we introduce and discuss space solar cells before providing an overview of products available on the global market. If you’re familiar with the technology and just want to see the available products, click on the links below to navigate to the right section.
Space grade solar cells are essentially the onboard power plants of a satellite or spacecraft – there are no plug sockets or power cables in space, so the only source of power while in orbit is the Sun.
A typical satellite, for example, will have a battery unit and electrical power system (EPS) to manage and deploy energy to the rest of the system. But once the battery is out of charge, the mission is over, unless of course it can be topped up with solar power.
Solar cells are the basic units of photovoltaic power generation – turning the Sun’s rays into electrical energy. Multiple cells are usually arranged in solar panels, which themselves can be combined into arrays or used individually.
Solar panels may be affixed to a spacecraft or satellite’s outer surfaces in certain useful positions, or added in deployable arrays that are stowed during launch and certain operations, then unfurled when power collection is required.
The harsh environment of space poses significant challenges to any technology. In the next section we take a look at how solar cells are prepared and protected for space use.
Obviously, solar cells on Earth and in orbit work in the same way – and terrestrial cells will also typically be arranged into arrays and panels. The most common materials and construction are silicon (Si) cells covered in thin glass, and multi-junction cells made from gallium arsenide (GaAs) layers.
Where cells used in the two environments (Earth and space) differ is mainly in the durability and reliability of space-based systems and the versatility that they are often required to have.
Space grade solar cells, once in orbit, cannot (currently) be maintained or replaced. They are also subject to extreme temperature variations, high levels of radiation, and physical stresses during launch and deployment. This requires robust cells that can operate effectively for long missions.
Satellites are also moving quickly around the Earth, in and out of the eclipse, and may need to rotate to perform various mission operations, so the cells need to generate power at different angles to the Sun with minimal disruption.
Some of these issues are solved with effective solar panel and array construction, as well as deployable system setups, but the cell itself must also function efficiently in the harsh environment of space.
In this section you can find details of individual space grade solar cells and products from across the global market. You can click on any of the links below to find out more about the equipment and the manufacturers on each product page.
From the product pages you can submit free requests for further information, quotes, documents, or whatever else you might need for your procurement or trade study processes.
Alternatively, to quickly send out a free and no-obligation request for quote or proposal to all of these companies, click here and share your requirements with us.
Please note that O.C.E. Technology provides solar cells made by Chinese manufacturers.
We offer expert procurement support and advice that is 100% free, and no-obligation, for engineers and mission designers across the world.
If you are searching for solar cells (or anything else across the entire global supply chain) we can help you refine your needs and contact suppliers on your behalf.
It all starts with our fast and simple open tender submission form:
Our dedicated procurement team is experienced in getting quotes, further information, proposals, documents, or whatever else might be needed to facilitate a new transaction or trade study (for any kind of space-related hardware, software, or service) – typically getting supplier responses in a matter of days rather than weeks.
We can handle multi-vendor conversations and collate all the information in order to share the relevant details with your team. We then hand over the discussion to you to finalize a purchase.
To get started, simply click here and share your requirements with us today. We look forward to hearing from you!
If your company or team offers solar cells or similar products, and you are not currently included on this page or the satsearch platform, please click here and share your company information with us.
In addition, if you would like to add your individual products to this page and the platform, or inform us of any changes to your portfolio, you can use the simple form at this link.
In addition, if you would like to find out more about how satsearch can help your company attract and develop new business opportunities from qualified buyers all over the world, click here to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program.
Finally, for any questions or comments about anything on this page, please feel free to email info@satsearch.com at any time.
Space Forge is a UK-based company aiming to develop reusable on-orbit fabrication capabilities in order to carry out in-space manufacturing procedures, offer microgravity as a service, and return materials to Earth. Southern Launch owns and operates the only rocket launch ranges in Australia approved by the Australian Space Agency for space launches.
In the podcast we discuss:
You can find out more about Space Forge and Southern Launch here on the company websites.
]]>The miniaturization of many aspects of space technology has been a clear trend in recent years. However, the choice of overall satellite size is a decision that should be driven by individual mission requirements, rather than any outside industry pressures.
This article discusses some of the most important factors which can determine the ideal platform size for a small satellite mission or service’s constellation.
Before we dive into the details of how to select the right satellite platform for your application, let’s address some common misconceptions about the size of the primary payload being the determining factor of the satellite platform size.
There is often a misconception about payload size being the primary driver of a platform’s volume. For example, a new Earth Observation (EO) company developing their first system based on an imager of size 12U may expect to easily fit it into a 16U nanosatellite envelope.
However, for an effective EO satellite you need a lot more hardware than just the primary payload. There is power and thermal management equipment, solar cells/panels, batteries, attitude control, downlinking, on-board computers (OBCs) and processing systems, with associated memories, and more. This supporting hardware is just as critical for achieving mission objectives than the main camera.
In some ways, primary EO payloads in satellites are analogous to digital cameras or smartphones. To get a high-quality image on a regular camera a good photographer will make use of various pieces of supporting equipment. This might include a tripod, a range finder, a larger lens, an external flash, filters, mounting pieces, and even additional lighting. If the object of the image is moving, the camera will also need a stable sliding platform or rotating system to ensure sensitivity is maintained.
All of these auxiliary devices are analogous to the hardware supporting a primary EO payload onboard a satellite. And every new capability, mission requirement, or performance target can result in additional subsystems that need to be installed onboard – each taking up mass and volume budget.
In addition, if you want to take the highest quality images possible with a camera on Earth, you need to take a lot, select the best, and post-process them effectively. This might need computing and/or external storage devices, along with the required cabling and power resources to facilitate them.
The same is true on a satellite. Significant advancements have been made in the area of on-board data processing (OBDP) and artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years that have added new capabilities to mission operators.
But higher processing capabilities typically require more power, greater satcom capacity (due to the increased tasking and control demands, as OBDP enables operators to capture data on more targets with each pass), and possibly additional thermal management. All of these factors can result in an increase in the amount of hardware required.
It is of course possible to run a satellite payload with a very basic system setup, but the total performance that results is a fraction of what can be achieved if the rest of the platform is scaled up. In today’s competitive industry high-quality data is expected, so a minimal system is unlikely to be the best business decision.
In order to avoid biasing system selection by focussing solely on the primary payload, mission designers should instead carry out first order assessments based on the required levels of performance. As discussed in the previous section, this entails making judgments about the supporting systems for the main payload as well as the payload itself. The functionality of such supporting systems is typically classified as follows:
Power requirements – e.g. solar cells and panels, batteries, the Electrical Power System (EPS), thermal control, and connecting and management hardware.
Positioning, pointing accuracy, and agility – e.g. the Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS), reaction wheels, magnetorquers, propulsion (and associated propellant storage and management), and all of the interfaces and connected devices.
Processing and data storage – e.g. the On-Board Computer (OBC), payload processors and On-Board Data Processing (OBDP) systems, Command and Data Handling (C&DH) system, memory, data interfaces, and other control software and hardware.
Downlinking and communication – e.g. antennas, radios, communications systems, and associated power and control hardware.
Redundancy – e.g. redundant subsystems, and/or extra power budget margins, etc.
It is important to consider the idiosyncrasies and trade-offs of such hardware when planning a volume budget. For example, larger subsystems are likely to require more power but usually have better thermal management than smaller equipment.
In communication satellites higher power radios can be particularly bulky and the main antenna itself can play a significant factor in the choice of platform size. For lower radio frequencies, despite needing less power, the antenna needs to be larger for precise signals – particularly if a deployable system is used.
All such choices can be simplified when the required satellite performance is treated as the major determining factor in a system’s design. However, there are some factors that don’t have a material impact on the choice of platform size.
A larger platform does not necessarily mean a more complex system. If the primary and supporting payloads are scaled up in order to achieve higher performance, a larger platform may feature a similar number of connectors and interfaces as a small volume system.
In addition, larger platforms are much easier for engineers to work with. They can be manipulated, constructed, de-constructed, and tested faster and with fewer resources. It is also easier to deal with thermal hot spots in a large system because components can be packed in less closely, packed more strategically, or utilize active thermal management systems, which are harder to fit the smaller the satellite.
A bigger system provides more flexibility and more room for sophisticated design requirements. For example, for a high-resolution imaging payload there would be little space on a 16U platform for larger reaction wheels, which limits the satellite’s maneuvering abilities.
In comparison, a NanoAvionics MP42H, featuring larger reaction wheels, would have a higher slew rate and would be able to image more targets during the same orbit. The MP42H could also include larger solar panels with more solar cells, drastically improving the payload’s duty cycle.
Combining just these two improvements could deliver multiple times more imaging opportunities during every orbit, leading to an increase in significant revenue. The price increase from an M16P to a MP42H is not significant, so the potential RoI is much greater.
In addition, for engineers assessing 6U options note that an 8U is also an extremely viable alternative. The NanoAvionics 8U nanosatellite (M8P) bus can provide very similar average orbit power to a 16U nanosatellite, and improve mission capabilities and redundancy at only marginally increased production and launch costs compared to the M6P.
The only potential mitigating factor is the availability of deployers. 8U satellites are far less common than 6U systems, so there may only be a few options available for the satellite’s deployment after launch.
To scale up further, in comparison to an 8U system, the NanoAvionics 12U platforms have inter-satellite links for regular connectivity and Albedo-free Fine Sun Sensors. A star tracker and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) are also integrated, while these systems are optional for 8U buses.
The 16U platform has the same architecture as the 12U but offers greater orbit average power and a higher battery capacity, resulting in a significant performance difference for missions that require higher duty cycles.
Finally, NanoAvionics’ microsatellite buses are also higher in performance than all nanosatellite buses. Not only is there much more space for additional hardware but the payload controller and power systems are also more advanced than the nanosatellite platforms to cope with the expected performance requirements.
For commercial entities the mission plan is developed in order to meet the required performance levels specified in the business plan – as discussed earlier. The mission plan itself determines the system requirements and drives the platform size selection.
For example, if a large number of maneuvers (or a small number of extensive maneuvers) are required during the mission, the satellite has a higher delta-v requirement. This will require more powerful propulsion subsystems and therefore a bigger platform.
The choice of launching a single satellite or a constellation of satellites also makes a significant difference on the choice of platform size. A larger, more multi-functional satellite, with in-built redundancies, is recommended for single-satellite missions, as defined by the required service level and accessibility needed.
In a constellation it is possible to share tasks and resources, so multiple smaller platforms are more viable. Each satellite can support the other systems’ performance (e.g. re-imaging a location, backing up data, managing the processing, optimizing downlinks and ground station passes, offering some redundancy if one system fails, etc.) so smaller, less powerful, systems are an option.
In addition, with the current changes in guidelines and policies around space sustainability and debris, it is recommended that newly planned satellites evaluate propulsion systems or other technical solutions to enable end-of-life deorbiting maneuvers.
This might be another reason why a platform should be scaled up. A very simple propulsion unit might take up just 0.5U in volume, but won’t offer enough longevity for complex operations and emergency maneuvers to avoid collisions, followed by de-orbiting to scale up. The choice of de-orbiting strategy might require larger subsystems and the supporting components to power and use them.
The mission plan, and associated contingencies, will dictate many of the hardware and software choices of a satellite. But it is important that an accurate cost determination is made in order to ensure that the plan can be fully funded.
In recent years a number of the costs associated with building, launching, and operating a satellite have come down, opening up new opportunities for both research and commercial mission. Nevertheless, budget is still one of the most important factors to consider when selecting a satellite platform size for any mission. In general, larger platforms will be more costly, but it is important to consider all aspects that go into this determination, such as:
Engineering time and resources – the technical aspects of developing a system – discussed further in the next section.
Launch and deployment options – while costs don’t differ much, availability for launches of satellites of different sizes can be variable. And a delay in launch means a delay before revenue generation can begin.
Return on Investment (RoI) – larger satellites can provide higher volumes of more valuable data, meaning the potential RoI that can be achieved can justify the larger upfront investment.
Ongoing operations – once a system is in orbit there are various ongoing costs that need to be factored into the overall budget such as ground station subscriptions, licensing renewals, data handling, storage, and security costs, staffing (including employment and training of replacements if needed) and so on.
Single vs. multi-satellite missions – it can be possible to achieve economies of scale in some areas when launching a constellation. This can bring down the overall mission budget and enable investment in larger, better performing satellite platforms that will generate more commercially valuable data.
Risk appetite – it is important to remember that, in space, nothing is certain. Risks are always present and should be carefully weighed up in all financial decisions.
Budget constraints affect every project, particularly in space, but having a holistic approach to satellite and mission design, considering RoI alongside initial and ongoing outlay, can help make development decisions easier. And engineering is an important aspect of this.
In the first two sections of this article the hardware setup and primary payload were focused on, as well as the importance of considering performance. Achieving the target levels of performance also relies on the full mission plan, encompassing all elements of a system’s development, launch, deployment, and operation.
However, there are some aspects of this that have no real effect on the choice of platform size. These factors will be important when assessing costs and resources, but will need to be judged independent from platform size. Here are three key factors that don’t have a major impact on selecting a platform size:
Ground segment – in recent years innovation in the ground segment has led to a variety of new opportunities for mission designers. Managed networks offer flexible and affordable business models, new communications systems are providing higher bandwidths at lower costs, and software platforms are simplifying engagement with ground stations.
Logistics requirements – although a larger and heavier system would usually require a small increase in transportation costs, this is marginal compared to the overall price of a satellite. The space industry supply chain is developing rapidly and there are now many options for companies that need to move hardware between manufacturing locations, testing facilities, and launch sites, so logistics costs and resource requirements have little bearing on selecting platform size.
Aspects of licensing and compliance – satellite licenses are always an important aspect of any mission, particularly if the payloads are sensitive and/or military in nature. However, most compliance aspects relate to a satellite’s intended applications and use, rather than the system’s dimensions.
Selecting the right satellite platform for a new space mission or constellation is one of the most important choices that a team can make. The dimensions dictate the variety and quality of subsystems onboard, the applications that the satellite can perform, and, ultimately, the commercial value that the system can create.
The widely held notion of larger systems being unsuitable for economically-minded companies is no longer valid in today’s industry. Advances in equipment innovation and reliability, combined with decreases in launch costs make it more viable than ever to develop a larger, more adaptable system that can generate valuable data in high volumes.
Space is an increasingly competitive market and high quality data, with good availability and reliability, are now expected from commercial services. This requires larger, more power-hungry primary payloads and communications equipment, as well as the necessary supporting systems for them – all resulting in a larger satellite.
Versatility and redundancy are also increasingly expected, and in most cases the requisite levels can only be consistently achieved with larger platforms.
There is an ideal satellite platform size for any mission or service, which will deliver the best performance at the lowest cost for an individual application. Hopefully this article has armed engineers with the knowledge needed to make that determination much more easily in the future.
If you would like any further advice on which platform would best suit your needs, please contact Kongsberg NanoAvionics for a free mission questionnaire and to discuss your requirements.
]]>Minimizing risks to other space assets and operations is becoming an increasingly important factor for any new mission and a clear and timely de-orbiting plan is a crucial element of this.
There are also a growing number of active and passive de-orbiting systems and propulsion technologies available on the market to help with the process of moving a satellite into a graveyard orbit at the end of its operational life.
But in order to select the most suitable system to work with your hardware, software, and mission plan, you need to weigh up a number of factors beyond the available Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWAP-C) budget. Let’s take a closer look:
The higher the orbit, the harder it is to de-orbit, and the longer it will take. This is because hardware systems operating in the higher orbits are (usually) larger, obviously further from Earth’s graveyard orbit, and often have more complex mission plans with longer operating lifetimes. There is also less traffic and debris the further you get from the planet, which also has an effect on the rules in place.
Because of this, regulations and guidance can differ for orbits further from Earth and some technical solutions may not be suitable for hardware of such high masses.
There’s more technical information on the practicalities of de-orbiting processes in NASA’s State-of-the-Art of Small Spacecraft Technology, but the takeaway message is that the operating orbit (or orbits) of your spacecraft will be a major determining factor in the sort of de-orbiting guidelines you’ll need to follow, and the technologies available to do so.
Some countries have put in place regulations on de-orbiting timescales for space systems that fall under their jurisdiction (whether that’s for the entire mission or just for part of the operation).
For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates that systems designed to operate in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and which are either US-licensed satellites or are LEO satellites from other countries that want to access the US market, must de-orbit within 5 years of the mission completion date.
Many such national regulations or recommendations are based on existing guidance frameworks, such as;
It’s important to remember that regulation isn’t static. New rules come into force, and existing ones are altered, on a regular basis. So developing future mission plans might involve predicting how guidance could change and considering how this would affect your mission.
It might be safer, for example, to assume that de-orbiting requirements are only going to get stricter as debris and traffic volumes grow. However, it is also possible that industry dialogue, new innovations, and changing priorities at publicly-funded organizations result in less stringent options becoming available in certain circumstances.
For example, some satellite operators are arguing that waivers to the FCC’s 5-year rule should be available for qualifying missions. The FCC has also recently reorganized, opening a new Space Bureau and Office for International Affairs (OIA) to “modernize satellite regulations” at a national and global level – so further changes and nuances to the existing rules might be on the way in years to come.
It’s clearly vital to find out whether there are any national rules that relate to the territories in which you intend to operate, and determine how they affect your system, while understanding that they might evolve along the way. But that’s still not the whole picture.
A number of national and international space agencies have also produced de-orbiting guidelines. These are typically only applicable to missions and programs under the oversight of those agencies, so might not apply to a purely commercial service.
For example, NASA has a guideline in place specifying that any hardware in space must be limited to a maximum orbital lifetime of 25 years from the date of mission completion. You can read the full standard here [PDF].
This rule has already been enforced on a number of satellites. For example, a NASA CubeSat was removed from a U.S. Space Force mission launch in August 2022 – in this case, although the system had been built to meet the 25-year rule, a delay in the launch date meant that this deadline would have been missed!
On the other side of the pond, ESA have stated that they intend to put in place a new global guideline that would require satellites to begin de-orbiting immediately after the end of the mission.
The bottom line is; if your mission is part of a national or international agency’s program, certain de-orbiting requirements might apply, so be sure to take these into account as well as the relevant national legislation.
As you can see, a common aspect of many of the regulations and guidelines mentioned above is that they specify that the de-orbiting process must take place within a certain period that begins once the mission is completed. But definitions vary on when exactly that is.
A mission plan might specify a target operating lifetime, but there are many reasons why this might be different to the time the satellite is active in orbit. If a system needs to avoid collisions a number of times for example, it will use up propulsion propellant, shortening the lifetime.
On the other hand – a technology demonstration that goes better than expected could see a satellite remain operational for years longer than initially planned.
It is important to understand exactly what the de-orbiting guidance or regulation means when it says “the end of the mission” so you’re working to the right goal in the mission plan.
The decision of exactly when to de-orbit a satellite is clearly not straightforward and there are several variables to take into account.
In this article we’ve only discussed the regulatory aspect of this – there is also a brand perception element; demonstrating that your company is a responsible actor in the space environment.
It will be interesting to see how these discussions and regulations evolve alongside the development of new de-orbiting innovations in the marketplace.
If you would like some FREE expert guidance on developing a mission and procurement plan that takes de-orbiting into account – simply share your requirements with us here.
]]>It also features how the customers can eliminate errors in these processes to ensure the success of the space missions. The article also covers an outlook on the challenges involved in these processes and the integration of Epsilon3 solutions in the project lifecycle management
The article was developed in collaboration with Epsilon3, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
Space manufacturing and Assembly, Integration & Test (AI&T) processes require precision and attention to detail to ensure mission success. Even small errors in these processes can lead to mission failure, financial losses, and severe impacts on small companies trying to establish themselves in the industry. Thus, streamlining the end-to-end process is crucial to record successful missions and eliminate errors in manufacturing and AIT.
Epsilon3 provides software solutions to streamline operations for launch providers, space manufacturers, and satellite operators. Its software platform manages complex operational procedures, saving operators time and reducing errors. In this article, we will delve deeper into the challenges faced by the space industry and how Epsilon3 helps bring operational productivity and success to space companies.
Modern space missions come in varying sizes and are utilized by both public and private players. Prior to the privatization of the space industry, governments designed, manufactured, launched, and operated space missions mostly manually. However, the privatization and commercialization wave brought critical elements to the space industry, such as speed, efficiency, customization, and repeatability, which pushed the boundaries of space technologies to a new scale. Consequently, the industry has observed the rise of many companies launching satellite constellations in several verticals, such as communication, earth observation, and navigation.
Additionally, multiple government agencies have realized the value of partnering with the private commercial space sector, further skyrocketing the demand for space missions in the industry. As a result, space manufacturing and operations are now carried out on a much larger scale, with many companies scaling up their capabilities and teams within the AI&T segment of a program lifecycle. While some processes involved in space manufacturing and AI&T are still highly dependent on human resources, the probability of errors remains open.
Epsilon3’s software solution provides standardized integration and testing workflows. Some of the key features of Epsilon3 are mentioned below in the graphic:
Understanding the challenges faced in the manufacturing and AI&T process is essential to ensure successful space missions.
A majority of the time, each group within a given company has their own process regarding how to run AI&T. One group may have Python scripts which output data in a specific way, while another may have a grouping of confluence pages, and the last has an excel spreadsheet where they manage everything. Additionally, timelines are ever shifting and most of the time its hard to keep up with what’s been done, hasn’t been done and/or is waiting on other dependencies.
Teams must have a solid plan to address these challenges as a failure to do so could lead to project delays or failures. This could incur huge losses for the customer, eventually leading to the failure to meet project deadlines.
Before any company starts with AI&T, the key stakeholders should lay out each part of the process, the process owners and what information should be communicated, and with whom during every part of the process. Once each piece of the process has been laid out, then the leaders of the company can make informed decisions on people, process/tools, and timelines, essentially filling in the details of each step.
During the evaluation stage prior to AIT, engineering managers will see multiple steps of the process where they’ll want tools to help evaluate completion, timeliness, personnel, etc. One tool that could be desired is a tool to manage operations builds, timelines and test procedures. This is something that Epsilon3 specializes in. By utilizing Epsilon3’s software platforms, engineers can create builds, track builds through AIT, revise and track test procedures, and more. Not only will engineers save time and frustration looking for information in multiple places, but it will speed up your AIT processes. Unlike using simple documents or generic project management tools, Epsilon3 provides synchronization and standardization that streamlines and refines processes and procedures.
Epsilon3’s solutions are designed to support the entire project lifecycle, from integration and testing through live operations:
One of the most common and immediate benefits space companies experience once they begin using Epsilon3 is a significant improvement in efficiency. Some of these anecdotes and customer experience highlights include:
“Our team of several hundred engineers and technicians is 5-6x more productive with Epsilon3 software with 15% less staff.”
“Efficiency has gone up significantly. I’d say on a weekly basis there’s about 5-10 hours saved.”
“It’s hard to quantify the exact number of hours saved, but it’s been a lot more convenient and centralized to maintain the test history via Epsilon3 vs. Confluence.”
“We’ve saved several hours every test cycle.”
When efficiency improves, cost-savings certainly follow as does creativity and innovation. Therefore, Epsilon3 solutions are designed to help engineering and operational teams find more time and resources to continually improve project lifecycles, outcomes, value, and impact.
While failures in the launch segment have been the primary concern in the global space market, it is often overlooked that failures can occur after the system has reached the desired orbit. These failures could potentially be a result of errors that were not eliminated during the manufacturing and AIT process.
To ensure the success of a space mission, enhancing project lifecycle management is crucial. Even though new technologies have made space missions less complex, the demand for mass production and management has increased the possibility of errors and risks in the overall system as well as team communications. This is where Epsilon3’s solutions come in – they are designed to cater to the needs of both traditional space and the new space market, providing an efficient and effective approach to project lifecycle management.
To find out more about Epsilon3 and for more information on their product portfolio, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch.
]]>Basically, chemical thrusters use a chemical reaction to generate thrust, which propels the spacecraft forward. There are a variety of chemical propulsion systems available, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
One of the most commonly used propulsion technologies for small satellites is the monopropellant system. This system uses a single chemical, such as hydrazine, which is decomposed in a catalytic chamber to produce hot gases.
These gases are expelled through a nozzle to generate thrust. Monopropellant systems are simple and reliable, but they have relatively low specific impulse (Isp), which limits the amount of delta-v (change in velocity) that can be achieved with a given amount of propellant.
Another option is the bipropellant system, which uses two chemicals, typically a fuel and an oxidizer, to generate thrust. This system typically has higher Isp than monopropellant systems, which means it can achieve higher delta-v with the same amount of propellant. However, bipropellant systems are more complex and require careful handling of the propellants.
Engineers need to consider a variety of factors when selecting the best chemical propulsion system for their mission. These factors include:
In addition, engineers need to consider the environmental impact of the chosen propulsion system. Chemical propulsion systems can produce toxic gases and particles, which can pose a hazard to both the spacecraft and the environment. Engineers should carefully consider the environmental impact of their chosen propulsion system and take appropriate measures to mitigate any potential hazards.
Overall, chemical propulsion systems are a reliable and effective means of propulsion for small satellites. Engineers should carefully consider the pros and cons of each system and select the one that best meets the specific needs of their mission.
In this section details of chemical propulsion thrusters units are included, from suppliers around the world. You can click on any of the links below to find out more about the individual system or manufacturer.
You can also submit free requests for further information, quotes, documents, or whatever else is needed for your procurement or trade study processes.
Alternatively, to quickly send out a free and no-obligation request for quote or proposal to multiple vendors, simply click here and share your requirements with us.
Thanks for reading! If you need any further help identifying a chemical propulsion system for your specific needs, please share your specifications with us and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find options – a service which is 100% FREE and has zero obligation on your side.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>Electric propulsion-based thrusters have a variety of potential advantages over traditional chemical propulsion, including greater fuel efficiency, longer mission lifetimes, and greater maneuverability.
One of the most common types of EP used in satellites is ion thrusters. These thrusters work by ionizing a gas, typically xenon, and accelerating the resulting charged particles out of a nozzle to create thrust.
Ion thrusters’ ensure efficiency due to high exhaust velocity, which is typically significantly higher than that of traditional chemical thrusters. This enables spacecraft to achieve greater speeds and travel further distances, making it a very suitable option for long-duration missions.
Another form of electric propulsion is Hall thrusters. These work similarly to ion thrusters but use a magnetic field to accelerate the charged particles instead of an electric field. Hall thrusters are known for their high thrust efficiency and ability to operate at a higher power level than ion thrusters. They are often used in applications that require high-thrust, such as orbit raising and station-keeping.
Electric propulsion systems can usually operate for extended periods without the need for refueling, allowing for longer mission lifetimes. In addition, EP systems are highly controllable, allowing for precise adjustments to satellite trajectories and orientation. This precise control is particularly useful for maintaining a satellite’s position and avoiding collisions with other objects in space – an increasingly important application as the volume of space traffic grows.
Despite the many advantages of EP, there are some drawbacks to consider. Electric propulsion systems typically have lower maximum thrust levels than traditional chemical thrusters, which can make them less suitable for certain applications such as initial orbit insertion. Electric propulsion systems also require a significant amount of power, which can be challenging to provide on smaller spacecraft.
Overall, EP thrusters provide an efficient and precise form of propulsion that is becoming increasingly popular in the satellite industry. As technology advances, it is likely that we will see even more advanced electric propulsion systems developed, allowing for even greater efficiency and versatility in satellite operations.
In this section you can find details of electric propulsion systems and satellite thrusters from manufacturers around the world. You can click on any of the links below to find out more.
From the product pages you can submit free requests for further information, quotes, documents, or whatever else you might need for your procurement or trade study processes.
Alternatively, to quickly send out a free and no-obligation request for quote or proposal to all of these companies, click here and share your requirements with us.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying a CubeSat thruster for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>Lynk is a satellite connectivity service provider that currently has the world’s only patented and proven satellite-direct-to-standard-phone system.
Charles also has extensive experience in the commercial space sector, previously working at NanoRacks and serving as NASA’s Senior Advisor for Commercial Space from 2009-2012 where he advised NASA leadership on commercial public private partnerships.
In the podcast we discuss:
You can find out more about Lynk here on the company website and please click here if you have any questions for the company based on the podcast.
Please note that this transcript is auto-generated using speech-to-text systems and, while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. Please clarify any potential inconsistencies or irregularities before relying on the information in this transcript. If you would like anything in this transcript altered or confirmed, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
satsearch
Hello everybody and welcome to today’s episode of the space industry podcast I’m joined today by Charles Miller the co-founder and Ceo of Lynk. Lynk is a name that you’re probably familiar with in the industry judging from the the typical you know.
satsearch
Viewers and and listeners to this podcast but um Lynk is essentially a business looking to bring the the power of space to the ah the the satellite phone industry building cell phone towers in space is is one one way that I and understand the company describes it chances of. Been very experienced in the commercial space industry for for a number of years and he can mention more on that he’s previously worked at nanaax and has been a Nasa senior advisor for commercial space which obviously he has plenty to plenty of knowledge and expertise to share with us. So um. We’re going to talk today specifically about the satellite to phone application area and industry. So but firstly I just wanted to say hello Charles welcome to the podcast and see if there was anything you’d like to add to give some context to ah to our listeners on the discussion today.
Charles Miller
Hi Hywel thank you for having me I’m great to talk to your audience and I’ve been in the space industry the commercial space industry for over thirty years before commercial space was cool.
Charles Miller
And for a while I was like the redheaded stepchild in the space industry where you know I could point out all the different ways. Commercial space could solve some of the problems and nobody wanted to hear it. But.
Charles Miller
So I’ve thought deeply about a lot of the issues I think it’s really exciting and I want to encourage everybody in the industry to be more affected and and to help them succeed So I’m happy to share some thoughts and insights during this call.
satsearch
Excellent. Thank you? So just to be clear. The commercial space is cool now right.
Charles Miller
Yeah commercial space is very cool Now. It is the new new thing but a couple decades ago even a decade ago. Ah, it, You know there was ah it was It was the threat and and you know you were you were not welcome at the party.
satsearch
Right? Well I’m very glad to that things have changed and um I mean that that’s a great introduction to our discussion today. So um, like I mentioned we’re going to be talking about the satellite to phone sector of the industry now or or sat to phone for short and the set to phone sector is. Getting increasingly competitive I think it’ it’s well known that there’s a huge potential market out there for of the um and unconnected or poorly connected potential users and Lynk is obviously very active in this sector. So I Wonder if just to set the scene a little bit. You could Give. Listeners a bit of an overview of how the market is structured and um, you know, maybe share some statistics on how many people are not connected and the demographics of this this ah market that’s addressable.
Charles Miller
Well I’m happy to do so so let me start from first principles for your audience. Um, there is I’ve identified three target audiences for satellite services where there’s billions of customers one is a.
Charles Miller
GPS position navigation timing mostly by Gps but other satellite systems another is weather billions of people, use weather services and they and they get you know weather is helped by space and the third one is communications now of the 3 sectors each of them billions.
Charles Miller
There’s only one of them where people are used to paying for the service people get free weather services right? people get free. You know position location timing services through Gps or other you know position timing services so they don’t pay for it. It’s really hard.
Charles Miller
Get people to pay for something. They don’t want to pay for communications is a multitrillion dollar industry that people are willing to pay for and so solving a problem uses satellites is really very clearly analytically the the largest Target Market. To go after if you can find a problem that to solve they’re using Satellites. So That’s what we that’s the kind of thinking we started with and and that’s the type of thinking that anybody getting in the space business is like what market are you going after trying to figure out a problem. You’re solving so we in in.
Charles Miller
You know going to more specifically to what you asked. There’s over 5000000000 people on the planet who have a mobile phone a standard ordinary mobile phone in their pocket. It’s you know, supposedly five point four billion people right now. So it’s a large addressable market and I think it’s. Common sense. Most people don’t think about it. But you’re not always connected by your mobile phone. There’s black spots and the truth is is only about 10% of their surface which is huge has connectivity to a ground-based cell tower or to a wi-fi hotspot the two ways your phone connects.
Charles Miller
That means 90% of the planet is disconnected about 75% of their services is seas oceans but you know that it it turns out that only 25% of their earth landmast has connectivity now a lot of that is Siberia or Antarctica or. Greenland but there’s a lot of disconnectivity even in in different countries and and so that’s part of the problem and then the other part is even when you have connectivity you know, natural disasters or even human cause disasters take out your connectivity and you’d like backup so that’s the problem. Our. Our research shows that about 15% of those 5000000000 people with mobile phones are disconnected at any given point in time which the mobile wireless industry is very proud of the fact they have 85% connectivity.
Charles Miller
Right? And you know people come and go into rural remote communities and have small black spots and and some countries have better connectivity than others you know here in the United States the connectivity is over 90% in and other markets. It’s it’s less than the 85% connectivity but you know. It’s 15% you think well that’s not that bad but 15 % times 5000000000 is 750000000 people at any point in time are disconnected so that’s a big problem that is a wonderful big problem for somebody who thinks like an entrepreneur. And because you know anything multiplyed by 750000000 is a large number if there are people willing to pay. But it’s even larger than that. So we’ve done the research that that’s what any point in time people are disconnected that about. 40% of people who have a mobile phone report. They never have an ah extended period of disconnectivity any point and time in the year that means 60% do and that’s these are people probably There’s probably a lot of people who live in.
Charles Miller
Suburbs or cities but they go traveling on roads or go visit friends or family or they like hunting or fishing or hiking or failing and they’re disconnected and I think most people. You know they were a little bit ah about it and then they forget about it because that’s just the way it is. You know we’ll just have to be fine, but that sticks you know 6000000000 people 60% of five billion is I’m sorry 3000000000 people experience some extended period of disconnectivity during the year
Charles Miller
So this is the problem that we set about to solve the reason for this is ah you know people you know we want to explore everywhere. We don’t want to be constrained to where you have a phone and but the reason you can’t extend.
Charles Miller
Ah, Connectivity mobile wires everywhere is the cost of cell towers. It’s really not just the capex building them. But it’s surprisingly expensive to operate cell towers and there’s a bunch of operational costs in cell towers including power real estate. You got to put security around the towers kids.
Charles Miller
Crawl on them in first world. So you yeah to security but in emerging markets they tear down the towers and sell it for scrap and then you a lot of towns and cities they get they charge fees and you know taxes on the cell towers to pay for their government services. So operational costs.
Charles Miller
And then the back hall to the towers in these remote and rural regions. It can be very expensive. So It’s just you know it can be very expensive to operate them and satellite cell towers are all fixed costs. We don’t pay for Security. We don’t pay Taxes. We don’t pay for Power. We bring our own power. So It’s all fixed cost 0 marginal cost. So Our operational costs are about 4 orders of Magnitude lower than a traditional ground-based Tower. So. It’s a that creates a huge opportunity for you know? Ah. We can. We can fill in all the black spots at orders of Magnitude lower costs and still make money.
Hywel Curtis
Right? Excellent! Thank you. That’s ah, a great introduction to the topic and yeah I think the loss of connectivity is a problem. Everybody can relate to. We’ve all needed connection on our mobile phone at some point when it’s important and we haven’t had it and as you say. We treat it as a problem that comes and goes and it’s no big deal and the industry is proud of the 85% connectivity time but um, 15% of your waking hours. Disconnected can be ah you know could be a problem for you if certain things are happening so ah and yeah, ah. Really understand the ah the way you’ve laid out the cost benefit analysis there comparing the um, the ground-based cell towers. So thank you for that was 4 orders of magnitude lower operational cost is is astounding. You think of you think of these cell towers as fixed points that need nothing need nothing more than and a bit of power but obviously that’s not the case. So. Um, thank you for the introduction to that chart.
So next I guess to dive into the technology now many innovations have been proven in space in the last few years and particularly in the low- with orbit or low with orbits but sort of a consumer technology like satellite to phone requires both performance and. Ah, reliability importantly reliability and you know reliability as you’ve mentioned is one of the key defining factors of of ah a mobile service mobile connectivity service. So I wondered if you could take us through the the hardware and software that is required to deliver your your service or a service a satellite to phone.
Connectivity Um, particularly in places with little or no existing coverage. You know how does it? How does it actually work for the user?
Charles Miller
So first of all, let me congratulate you performance and reliability are both important important and the insight one of the first insights is once you get satellites in orbit and and get work out the technical kinks they can be very reliable. They are not. Don’t don’t get hit by hurricanes right? and they don’t have people you know, ripping them down to sell up for scrap and they don’t have people digging up cables so they can be very reliable after you get through the early technical development. You know risk and and buy down that risk. Um, and it comes down to Keek issue as performance. So. It’s the first thing is can you close the link 2 ways and conventional wisdom was wrong people. It’s it’s just physics you know of the link budget and and a straightforward if you have people who both understand the mobile phone and satellites and what what you can do.
Charles Miller
With the with the processing gain that’s in mobile phones and technology today. So that was straightforward. We figured that out first. The other insight here is you want to leverage commercial off the shelf technology the hardware put that in the satellites the inside how we do it? um.
Charles Miller
Is we take the existing base station software. That’s that’s three gp piece standard globally this is it’s like the tcp ip of of mobile phones. It’s 3 gp global standards put the software in the satellite 2 things break. Right? once you close the link 2 things break with that standard one is you that the satellite has to be in low leo to get any real significant performance right? You bring the satellite down in lowlio to get much. You get the stronger link margins two ways.
Charles Miller
Ah, and you get much more capacity per per unit of spectrum by bringing down a low leo and you get low latency. So all these benefits to lowlio that you want to optimize for but 2 things break 1 is doper shift now there is. Time delay. So we invented the technology in 2017 of doppler compensation and and tricking the phones into accepting to the delay right into accepting the extended range that is that causes the delay and the phones. Are not supposed to talk to a tower beyond thirty five kilometers and Gsm or 2 g or 120 kilometers and and Lte and they’re designed to break if they detect they’re beyond that distance. Well, there’s a very specific way. They detect that and if the the cell tower doesn’t cooperate.
Charles Miller
You can you know make the phone think well, you’re actually close but you’re just you know a little bit of congestion and the phones are supposed to tolerate congestion like so you misses what’s called a couple time slots in the frames that timeframes that are coming to the phone. And the phone says oh it’s just congestion. It’s not range. They think you can you know, get the phone to think it’s just congestion in the network and they’re supposed to tolerate that so we do dopper compensation at the satellite such that the phone doesn’t see more doppler than the phone can tolerate and the can in and the delay trick. And backward compatible with all phones and this works this this insight this is patented and in 55 countries now works on all two g three g four g and five g and we expected it to work in the future on 6 g and above. So this is ah a fundamental breakthrough that took us a couple years to figure this out and and what this means is your phone without any change. Not even software change will stay connected so your sms app on your phone with linked service will work so you don’t even need to download a new app.
Charles Miller
Now. Are there some interesting use cases where you could. You know we could create an app to take advantage of this yes where we have a service called Lynkcast where you get basically free weather data services no matter where you are that’s broadcast directly to phones. Yes, that’s an interesting use case you’d have to have an app for that or maybe an an app one of your ah favorite app is updated to add a Lynk API but your SMS app that’s already in your phone will work so that’s how it’ll work. You might when you roam into a remote area.
Charles Miller
And might you might get ah just like when you’re traveling internationally. It’ll be a roaming experience when I get ah when I travel to Europe from the United States and I get off the plane I’ll get this message pop up on my on my on my phone it says you’re now here it cost you ten bucks a day if you use it so I’ll get a welcome. Message will do the same thing and so it’ll work the way your phone works and it’ll be backward compatible with all these phones. Yes, and that was intentional. We we held to that that it has to be seamless. It has to be.
satsearch
Brilliant. So really seamless on the user’s behalf is the aim got it. Okay, that’s great. Yeah.
Charles Miller
No friction or is ah almost no friction and ah you know and that’s that’s that’s the way to bring this to everybody.
satsearch
Yeah, absolutely I mean we’re we we see this across all sorts of applications in the space industry that the end users want a result or performance and they’re kind of agnostic as to how how they get there. So.
Charles Miller
Actually nobody cares about satellite. It’s like if you’re a satellite entrepreneur you got to get over that if anybody cares you have a satellite right? They don’t care. They just want their phone to be connected everywhere. They don’t care. In fact, a lot of people. It’s apocryphal a lot of people.
Charles Miller
Well why would I need satellites I get I get Gps on my phone right? So they don’t understand what they just said so people don’t care.
satsearch
Yeah, yeah, and which is an an opportunity for for you. You know like I say to to make this transition seamless. So ah, you mentioned that the the use of the Leo was you know very important for a few reasons including maximizing. Capacity per unit spectrum and I’m as interested in how the spectrum is you know app portiontioned to organizations like you so the you know what’s the the road of regulators and balancing the use of the spectrum now this there seems to be lots of companies that can or or could.
Directly compete for access to the same spectrum in in an area already using mobile phones. How does this how does this work how do you meet this at at Lynk. Do you need a license for each country or what happens if users travel. You just mentioned. Ah you know yourself travel into Europe how does all this aspect of the service work.
Charles Miller
So great question. The answer is yes, anybody can do this and no, it’s not easy right? So um, so we thought I thought about this years ago when we figured out you could do satellite direct to phone back in 2015 and 2016 2017
Charles Miller
It was very clear. You could take many approaches you could get some satellite spectrum and persuade the phone Manufacturers put it in the phone you could you know you know, go go try to apply for spectrum which is be very difficult most of the spectrum is is already applied for um and the inside came was like.
Charles Miller
MNOs around the world already have spectrum. It’s already fun. We don’t have to put spectrum the phone if we use existing spectrum on the phone. This is almost exclusively licensed to mobile Network operators around the world and and so we decided our whole strategy and that we think this is the right strategy at least it is for us.
Charles Miller
Is to partner with mobile Network operators around the world they have. They have the spectrum rights. You’re absolutely right. Regulators are critical ah they and and M and Os are critical and and we got to have both for length strategy and and so but.
Charles Miller
It’s not easy. Let me tell you why it’s hard right? You have to solve really 5 it may appear to be easy on the surface and the strategy is it makes a lot of sense. But there’s 5 barriers you have to overcome to execute this strategy First of all you you need to have. Satellites that work on that spectrum. You have to optimize for that spectrum. You know? So so your satellite cell towers. Yeah, we’re using Uhf from like ah six seventeen and 9 sixty in our current operational satellite cell towers in space we have. The world’s 3 only commercially licensed operational satellite cell towers are our 3 satellites they operate from 176 to 69 so you have to have the hardware second you need to have the software that I just described the dopper compensation and the timing that we developed you need to develop that.
Charles Miller
Ah, that’s patented in 55 countries we we don’t think there’s any way around our patents. Um, third you need to have m and o partnerships they’re the ones with a license they’re the ones that are going to sublicene that spectrum to you and so you got to get ah ah do a business deal with m and os. Um, and and so that’s the third thing there’s 2 more you need to have an operator’s license right? So we’re the world’s only company that has a satellite tocell tower to standard phone opt.
Charles Miller
License in the world operators license from the Fcc we got it last September that is easier said than done many people predicted. We couldn’t get it and there was people opposed this to getting it and you know held up all these risks and the fcc in their wisdom decided to give us. License anyways because we had proven over several years that we could operate without causing harmful interference and and it wasn’t like we just hand wave. We. We showed the theory and then we had done several years of testing and proved. We could do it didn’t cause harmful interference. Testing in the United States and overseas and then the third the fifth and last thing is I think you pointed to you need to have market access. So it’s not just you know Fcc gives us the operator’s icing operate in orbit.
Charles Miller
But then on a country by country basis. We need to get like the transmit down into a country. We need to get their permission and and so the key insight here is yes those regulators are critical. Some of them are not going to want us to operate in that I just. Had a story in the wall street journal yesterday where the reporter wanted to ask me about China and so they you know the key issue is we don’t think the chinese regulator will allow us to operate in China right? and at least not now we we don’t have great relationships with China. Um, but and there’s other countries. North Korea isn’t going to let us operate in North Korea so you know but most regulators when we talk to them. They go. You know how soon can you have this in our country and the inside here is the regulator see this. Ubiquitous connectivity. Their people will save lives and change lives. They’ve been beating up mobile network operators for decades and begging them and pleading them and sometimes bribing them or you know it bribes a strong word subsidizing them paying them to extend connectivity. Right? So it’s a hard problem and the regulators are in many cases trying to you know, bring public benefits of connectivity to all their people and link it solve that problem so in some a lot of cases. The regulators be quickly become our biggest advocates.
Charles Miller
But you got to build trust with them. You you got to keep your word. You got to do what you said, you’re going to do and then deliver.
satsearch
Excellent. Yeah I think for for suppliers out there listening you know it’s 2 really important bits of advice that if you are offering ah a service that you know to to paraphrase. Well some of what you’ve said Charles. But if you are offering a service that is in line with the kind of national priorities. Ah of a country you will. You should find it easier to gain adoption in that country and similarly with regulators I’ve had a lot of discussions with people talking about different aspects of regulations satellite licenses launch licenses ground station licenses and and connectivity the common themes are open, honest and and early communication with the regulators and it.
Charles Miller
Absolutely in In fact, you just pointed at at something that’s very important for space. Entrepreneurs is a lot of brilliant, technically brilliant space entrepreneurs they have something they want to build they they make I see very often many. Flaws that that these brilliant people could learn 1 is just because you have a great technical solution doesn’t mean anybody wants it try to start with a problem first and then figure out how you solve the problem. Do it the other way around you’re you’re putting the cart before the horse find the problem first. The second thing and then.
Charles Miller
Is is ah politics always Wins. You cannot get away from politics in the space industry. It is all regulated. It’s under the outer space Treaty. There’s there’s policy and law and regulation and you need to have somebody on your team understands. This. You can waste a lot of time trying to design and develop a certain type of gadget that you will never pass muster with the Regulators. You know I Just you know, ah pick on pick on some I Just ah um, there was a you know balloon rockets right.
Charles Miller
A lot of people have tried balloon rockets. It’s a huge regulatory nightmare Regulators don’t want rockets floating around uncontrolled in their airspace that could just go off course and and then ah drop on some town right.
Charles Miller
They they dislike. That’s their nightmare you’re you’re just not yeah I Just think that’s a regulatory nightmare. So think about one of the things you need to think about when you’re getting into business is whether the regulatory how they’re going to react and whether they’ll support it.
satsearch
Yeah, Absolutely absolutely., Especially if it’s something new because you’ll have regulators without precedent to rely on without experience and so yeah, you need to early early communication. Be honest about it. So That’s great. Thank you I think that really leads into my next question. So. Lynk is you’ve mentioned a few of aspects of Lynk’s story from a business point of view. You know, discussing the focus on a large problem with a big addressable market a problem that can be solved a problem with where customers are used to paying for a service and you in some ways.
Lynk’s A really interesting case study in how to build and scale a commercially focused business and you’ve mentioned that you were always focused for a lot of your career you focused on the commercial aspect of Space. So I wondered if you could share any other lessons or insights on the process and maybe mention what you think you’ve got right in the business development. Maybe some things haven’t gone so well. Just to for our listeners out there.
Charles Miller
Well wonderful. So I’m happy to share some insights with the the audience I’ve been doing commercial space for over thirty years and I took the benefit of many failures and lessons learned over my career and you know I applied that to what created Lynk. Let me share some some thoughts. So first of all, you know, like my prior start was nanarack which spun out of a company called constellation services that had multiple failures um and nanaracks would leverage the emerging. You know nanosat industry which what’s used to be called cube sets but that was the original insight it like that at some point kind of thinking like Clayton Christensen the technology for Cubesats or nanossets isn’t be good enough that you could solve real problems so I started with that insight. This is an inflection point. It was created by Moore’s Law Moore’s law finally caught up to space and satellites and inflection points create great opportunity. So that was the first insight. So I I this and so what I’m about to describe is a process that anybody in this audience can repeat. Right? So I’m going to I’m going to share some some some insights and key principles that you could take advantage for yourself. So first is find find something that creates opportunity like ah, an inflection point Second find a big problem in the industry.
Charles Miller
So I was looking at like what is the you know what’s the killer app for small satellites I started looking at that created by this inflection point in Moore’s law and and the yeah on onset of low-cost launch but it was really more Moore’s law
Charles Miller
Was the inflection point then low cost launch even is another inflection point that everybody here should be thinking about you know, like with starship right? That’s another inflection point. One starship is proven. It’s not if it’s win. Um, so sat the next. Inside I had is satellite communications by far the biggest opportunity in in the satellite industry satellite communications is 10 times bigger than remote something as a satellite. So I so I just decided focus on on communications you know I’d spent a lot of time with a team for a couple. Couple years looking at various opportunities and it’s a multitrillion dollar industry communications. 1 subset of communications is mobile wireless. There’s there’s cable and fixed wireless and other things but mobile wireless is a trillion dollar industry just on it own. So we then focus on that and then the third thing insight that I did is most people and if you study Clayton Christensen’s theories of disruptive innovation. He’ll talk you know most people try to do lower cost versions of what things they already know right.
Charles Miller
Planet was lower cost remote sensing and you can put up enough that you can line scan the planet every day. Great! Great idea. But there’s so many so many startups you can do or lower cost versions right? of of what you already know I I actually liked and Peter. Thiel actually said it best in 0 to 1 is finding secrets so I was looking for what I call the now called the visiicalc of satellites and what I mean by that is back in the 1970 s the there was a huge inflection point called personal computers. Um. Apple twos were coming off the assembly line in 1977 by Tens of thousands a month right? But these killer apps didn’t come till later so visicalc is one of those. It was invented two years later 1979 the first spreadsheet and and nobody. Done a spreadsheet before there’s a whole new use case for the the personal computer user that what just hadn’t been around and so I was like let’s find the the thing that’s a whole new use case that solves a problem for people by this inflection point for small satellites. Took us several years and we we came up on sat the phone but it was really a discovery process so you can say we invented a lot of this but in a lot of ways we discovered it. We discovered that conventional wisdom was wrong.
Charles Miller
That you could connect a satellite directly to a standard phone both ways right? and and so that is what you want to look for you. Want to find something where conventional wisdom is wrong and this is the hard part. Someone’s going to tell you that can’t be done. You really need to go to first principles about is that true. You need to challenge everything until you fundamentally understand it from first principles. So and so in 19 I’m sorry in 2014 late to 2014 I had 1 of. My team come to me and say hey can you connect a satellite direct to phone. This would be really cool. You know you could do lots of things to be very valuable in one of my my lead technical team. He’s now co-founder with me ty spidel. He said there’s no way you can connect a satellite to a phone. And so this is this is the key insight. You need to challenge that if it’s not obvious from first principle. So I said why? not and ty kind of grumbled at me and he said I’ll go do the link budget I’ll show you now one of the other in. Great. You know things that enabled this thi is a great solid satellite engineer but he knew nothing about mobile phones. But in today’s world that you can find this all on the internet so he would get on the internet find all the link margin.
Charles Miller
You know Inputs for mobile mobile phones that he needed to do the link budget and he put together and he came back next week you know, um you know this is the insight is like there’s huge amounts of information world about everything connecting the dots is the hard part tie connect to the dots and he came back and he said well I was wrong.
Charles Miller
We can connect a satellite two ways to a mobile phone now. Anybody else here can do the same thing right? This process it took us a couple years to find this. Ah we are just I you know we were just the ones to find it first right? and that you can connect the satellite directly to a phone now. We kept at this process.
Charles Miller
The the next focus on this discovery process is like okay you can connect a satellite to a phone both ways you know, but then it’s like well you have to add software in the phone you need to add your radio chip in the phone and I just held fast to like no those are too hard. We’re like. We are going to hold true to find no change to the phone can that be done I didn’t know it could be done. It took us 2 years how to figure out how to do it and what we had we finally figured out you could do spectrum sharing with the existing radio chips and phone how that would be done that was against conventional wisdom too. People said oh you can’t do that. You know all the spectrum regulatory experts. Say oh you’re not allowed to do that. Okay, well, you’re not allowed but that’s not written in the laws of the universe I can persuade regulators to you know if if long as we can’t do harmful interference to go to first principles of of space policy and law and regulatory. At first principle this says show you don’t cause harmful interference which a lot of you know experts forget about they don’t know policy and law. Well enough. So this is why you so you need to have somebody in your team and understands it deeply because you might miss out an opportunity if you don’t understand policy and law and then the third thing. Is tie then invented how you the doppler shifts and time delay solutions I described a little while earlier and that was the third breakthrough that was against conventional wisdom and so you could do this without any phones. So this process can be duplicated.
Charles Miller
By anybody you know on this on this show. That’s listening to this this. It can be replicated. You know by another entrepreneur and and it will be by some.
satsearch
Ah, fantastic. Thank you some some really interesting says there I Love the fact that one of your core capabilities early on was developed as a result of Thai trying to prove that it couldn’t be done. That’s fantastic. So yeah, it just shows the the balance needed in companies as well. People who.
Charles Miller
You need to go to first principles right? So I I learned cons everybody. It’s like the person who really proved this to everybody and going to first principles. Best better than anybody’s elon right? So I there’s a thing that Steve Jobs loved is.
satsearch
Can disprove hypotheses and people who yeah.
Charles Miller
You know, talked about you know paraphrasing Van Gogh that great artists feel right? so so I think great entrepreneurs. You know, look everywhere for trying to get smarter all the world. You know you know you have to assume you’re you’re messing up and you don’t know what you don’t know and you have to constantly constantly be learning. You need to be a learning machine and and once you think it, you know it all you’re dead right? You need to you. You have to you have to take on that you you know there’s you know the tip of the iceberg and you need to constantly be learning about and finding what you don’t know.
satsearch
Yeah, excellent. Thank you,? Great advice. Ah and um, sort of following on from this now at ah sat Search. We’re always very interested in thoughts and insights on on the state of the global supply chain. You know itself today. Ah, just for disclosure to Listeners. We have helped some. Ah. Ah, various engineers at Lynk find new products and and suppliers on the on the Sats Marketplace and with the the speed and the scale that Lynk is trying to achieve as far as I understand I would expect that your supplying chain management is something you have to plan and and manage pretty carefully. Wonder if you could share any experiences in this area.
Charles Miller
Well, absolutely so we have we’ve thought deeply about our supply chain strategy and and we have a unique well I wouldn’t say Unique. It’s a different perspective. Um, but supply chain is critical. It’s a huge risk. It’s this.. It’s a huge support. Source of cost but also schedule risk right and technical risk and everybody on in this on listening this is is. You know parts come and go they go you know and they create ah create schedule risk it creates technical risks I’m sure they have problems with customers or their suppliers who are are causing their risks. So we’re we’re we’re constantly you know. You know, working on this and and sensitive to this. You know we just you know we’ve had battery chargers chips. You know, come and go we have to totally redesign the battery Charger. So This is our thinking. So First of all from our our.
Charles Miller
Our thoughts here and this comes goes back to first principles is from a supply chain perspective to build this system. You know our first insight is everybody wants broadband you know everywhere voice and data everything you’re on your phone you want to do it everywhere so our whole strategy is to.
Charles Miller
Build out to that. That’s a long-term vision. We’re going to get there step by step. We’re going to crawl walk run there but we need to start with the end in mind right? like that. That’s where we’re getting to so you know and and if you do if you do the work we need to build 5000 satellites or more. Right? So we’ve applied for five Thousand satellites with with through the Itu and that’s our instate that we’re designing to that means mass producing satellites. We’re planning to build you know and launch 200 satellites a month once we ramp up production. Of our existing design. So. It’s like how do you get there? Well the first insight if you know the satellite industry most most of the suppliers in the industry you know are not set up for mass production of satellites. This is a supply chain issue and and so the next thought was.
Charles Miller
And there’s multiple ways of doing this one was what 1 web did with Airbus and outsourced the satellite production. Another is what planet and Spacex did they vertically integrated and we looked at both and so we haven’t 100% made it. But. We. We think there’s a lot of advantages of verical integration of of at least you know integrating the satellites and maybe even producing some of the subsystems ourselves. Um and and and the inside here is I would have to pay somebody I’d have to raise a ton of.
Charles Miller
Of Investor Capital and then go pay somebody to build a capability and learn how to math produce a subsystem if I’m going to do that You know maybe I should have a bias to you know, teaching myself how to do it right? rather than paying someone else. How to do the R and D and scaling up and it and that creates a lot of risk to us. So We have a a bias to vertically integrating this. We have a bias using Cots parts that are mass-producd and and finding low-cost ways to do things and so if a battery charger chip is out. It’s because there’s another battery recarger chip on the market and you can redesign the the battery charger to use the new chip and so you you create Mitigate supply chain risk there if you leverage commercial parts you verly integrate you can you know?? Um, the bill of materials.
Charles Miller
You know, looking going across the industry. We didn’t just jump to vertically integrated we we talked to a lot of people and have given people the opportunity to win our business with satellites themselves. We we got. We had lots of quotes on this that you know based on the research. You know for our existing satellite. You know it’s pretty clear that the vendors out there were charged us about $10000000 to build our small satellites which is a brand new design. It’s a 1 by one meter by about fifteen Centimeter phase array antenna satellite system and probably $10000000 but our bill in materials for that is about slightly under $200000 and and so we’ve we’ve have deep insights in what what is the most expensive parts of the satellite because we started building them ourselves because we decided we need to be on a path either. To be a very good customer of satellites or to build and you know, integrate our own and so we’ve lowered a lot of cough it gives us a lot of flexibility but we still buy a lot of parts and and some subsystems from other from ah suppliers around the world and.
Charles Miller
And we’re going to need a a very you know supportive supply chain to get to get to mass production of two hundred a month right so you know there’s ah you know 4 reaction wheels on every satellite. So one of the insights here. We brought reaction wheels in-house and the quotes on reaction wheels for our needs were about 25 to $30000 a wheel and we’ve figured out how we can build the wheels for about $1000 a wheel right? and and we’ve proven that out and we brought batteries in-house. 4 batteries about $15000 a battery. We got the cost of batteries under $100000 now we buy. We just buy many more so things at the component level than at the integrated subsystem level. Um, and so we look across that now. There’s some.
Charles Miller
You know there’s a variety of subsystems where we we are out purchasing. We’re currently buying thrusters from Don Aerospace that was announced Don announced that we did an rfp of 29 different thruster companies in the world. Some of the year audience probably responded I think we had 18 or 19 companies respond to our our Rp and and Don was the best so we selected Don Aospace so we will do a make versus buy. Analysis across all the subsystems and the answers could change over time right? So who knows what somebody might stand up something that really meets our needs and and does a great job and and we become a customer.
satsearch
Exon All those.? Ah yeah, thank you for being so open about about the supply chain and what you’ve ah gone through earlier like I think that’s great and yeah, the the make versus by decision is ah is a key one for anybody at the satellite level. So um, yeah, really interesting to to hear that from you. Thank you? Um I’ve. I Think we can just about wrap up charles in a sec I think um, you’ve shared some really useful information for our readers here I just wondered. Finally if you could just share a bit about your about the future here the near the near Future. You know what? what your expectations are for the to bring it back to the topic to the for the sattaphone sector and. What changes do you see the industry going through and what are you most excited about at Lynk for the future.
Charles Miller
Well the sat the phone sector is now very excited a few years ago everybody thought we were crazy right? Oh you can’t do that and and you know that was great because until we you know provided empirical proof around the world that you could do it.
Charles Miller
You know and that happened about a little over a year ago and now everybody’s dumping in and same me too. So we’re the category creator. We invented this category where the world’s only proven satellite directora standard phone operator. You know we have the patents. We have the old world’s only commercial license. We have the world’s only 3 commercial satellite direct to cell towers in space that connect to standard phones. So but there’s bunch of people jumping in and we knew this is going to happen. So this is a really hiding sector.
Charles Miller
Um, because it solves such a big problem and I I think everybody listening to this this is an opportunity to be on somebody’s team if not more more than 1 theme. Um, this is going to grow to be the largest category in satellite.
Charles Miller
Me say that again. This is going to grow to be the largest category in satellite and it goes back to what I said earlier it solves a problem for billions of people and it’s there’s 3 categories of services that solve a problem for satellite services for for billions people.
Charles Miller
The other two are weather and and and Gps and nobody pays for those. This is the one multibillion dollar customer service that uses satellite services that people will pay for right.
Charles Miller
And so it is going to grow to be the biggest category in satellite and so um, the insight here is is Lynk is going to start providing commercial services later this year. We believe we have a 2 to 3 year head start before anybody else starts providing commercial services. We think it’s 2 to 3 years before anybody who we we take seriously um, actually tests um, satellite directtophone and then it’ll be another year after that where they are operational right? And so.
Charles Miller
You know this is a exciting category There’s not going to be There’s going to be multiple winners Lynk is not going to be the only winner we yes we have a couple year head start and that’s great for us. But you know the mobile wireless industry doesn’t like monopolies. Um, m and o’s will make sure there are competitors right? Apple invented the smartphone right? What did the m and o do they made sure. There’s a competitor they brought Android on so quick right to make sure that Apple had no monopoly over the m and o’s.
Charles Miller
You know that if you look across industry. It’s like base stations right? You got huawei ericsson and Nokia. no no monopoly if you look at cell towers in your country. They have multiple competitors in ah in the United States it’s crown castle an american tower who. Who beat each other up for getting m and o business so they will make sure there’s there’s at least 2 maybe there’s 3 winners and so that’s how I see this industry playing out there. It’s going to be 2 to 3 winners and another structure thing going back to your question is There’s there’s some companies that are getting into low data rate messaging in the near term but those won’t be successful with the long-term when you bring on the much higher data rate services that allow you to do broadband and voice everywhere directly to your phone. Those low data rate services will melt away. Um, so they’re they’re they’re cool and innovative but going back to 1 of the advantages of looking at this going back 13 years is is yes you can do a cool hack with existing existing hardware. It’s already in space. But it’s very limited. This goes back to the insight that you’ve probably heard many times form follows function. Well in those cases they they had function. You know had form form. You know function, you know, ah followed form.
Charles Miller
Form was existing satellites in space and this said what can we do with that. You can do some things but it’s very limited and so and those are hacks. But and they’ll they’ll be cool for a few years. But once the follow on systems come on and this goes back to what I said very early.
Charles Miller
Dropping the satellites in low Leo where you get much more speed and much more capacity for every unit of spectrum ah is is how you get broadband rectophone everywhere on the planet if you’re using Geo or high Leo. You know those. You know those systems don’t work very much longer, right? They’re they’re a short-term you know band-aid and and they’ll be good money for those companies but they don’t they get disrupted by the company that can get to the big broadband low Leo. And first.
satsearch
Brilliant. Well thank you Charles that’s a great place to wrap up and ah yeah, would like to say thank you very much for sharing all those great insights with us being so open about Lynk’s business and the sp supply chain and the history and the development and I think it’s ah it’s fascinating. You’ve got obviously a very yeah. Clear story to tell as a business and yeah from sats search aside you would like to wish you best luck moving forward and thank you again.
Charles Miller
Thank you Al and I look forward to hearing from your audience and and hopefully this this is takes a village to connect the world and I look forward to to. Being part of this service with with everybody you know in the industry you know, helping us bring this, you know to every you know to several billion people.
satsearch
Excellent. Thank you and yeah to all our listeners out there. Thank you very much for spending time with us today on the space industry podcast we’ll share more information and some links and resources about Lynk in the in the show notes and if you have any questions for the company. There’ll be a way you know way to wait to direct them to them as well. Hope you enjoyed the conversation I certainly did I feel like there’s a whole load more different topics. We could talk about um, but yeah, just would say. Thank you again? Charles and thanks to everybody for listening.
Charles Miller
Thank you!
In this article we take a closer look at how edge computing in space systems works and share details of suppliers, hardware, and software products on the global marketplace for space.
If you’re familiar with the technology you can use the links below to skip straight to the sections you are most interested in.
Edge computing is the practice of integrating data analysis and processing resources in distributed, physical locations where they can be most beneficial. In space, this has some obvious practical benefits.
You can think of satellite edge computing as a collection of processes, capabilities, and protocols that provide computing resources and data processing capabilities adjacent to data collection payloads – i.e. onboard the satellite.
This approach aims to address the latency, bandwidth, and connectivity challenges that the space environment presents. Broadly, there are two main aspects of space edge computing:
Onboard data processing (OBDP)
Satellites can be equipped with specialized hardware and software that allows them to process data directly on the satellite. This reduces the need to transmit raw data back to Earth.
This can be particularly useful for applications such as Earth Observation, space weather monitoring, and satellite-based internet services.
OBDP approaches can significantly improve the versatility and efficiency of satellites, and even open up new concepts such as hub and spoke constellation models (in which multiple satellites collect data and transmit to a hub satellite, with greater resources and a better orbital position, for processing and downlinking).
Ground-based edge computing
In this approach, satellite data is transmitted to strategically located edge computing facilities closer to end-users or data sources. Such facilities can process and analyze the data before sending it to the central cloud infrastructure or other location, reducing latency and bandwidth requirements.
By combining these two approaches, satellite edge computing can enable more efficient data processing, reduced latency, and improved overall performance for various space applications.
Satellite edge computing products and services are coming to market from suppliers all around the world – here are a range of companies offering hardware or software. You can see more information about the individual products and services below.
In this section you can find details of specialized hardware to enable edge computing in space. You can click on any of the links below to find out more about the equipment and the manufacturers on each product page.
From the product pages you can submit free requests for further information, quotes, documents, or whatever else you might need for your procurement or trade study processes.
Alternatively, to quickly send out a free and no-obligation request for quote or proposal to all of these companies, click here and share your requirements with us.
Please note that a wide variety of satellite computing hardware that could potentially perform edge processes, so this list primarily includes systems from suppliers who are specifically focussing on edge applications. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.
In the list below you can software tools, packages, and services for edge computing applications and equipment. You can click on any of the links below to find out more about the system and the supplier.
From the product pages that open you can then submit free requests for quotes, documents, further details, or whatever else you might need for procurement or trade study processes.
Alternatively, to quickly send out a 100% free and no-obligation request for quote or proposal to all of these companies, click here and share your requirements with us.
We offer expert procurement support and advice that is 100% free, and no-obligation, for engineers and mission designers across the world.
If you are searching for edge computing capabilities, or are interested in whether the technology can benefit your mission, we can help you refine your needs and contact suppliers across the global market on your behalf.
Our dedicated procurement team is experienced in getting quotes, further information, proposals, documents, or whatever else might be needed to facilitate a new transaction or trade study (for any kind of space-related hardware, software, or service) – typically getting supplier responses in a matter of days rather than weeks.
We can handle multi-vendor conversations and collate all the information in order to share the relevant details with your team. We then hand over the discussion to you to finalize a purchase.
To get started, simply click here and share your requirements with us today. We look forward to hearing from you!
]]>This article discusses how space mission costs can be optimized using black coatings. It also provides an extended outlook on Acktar‘s light absorbing coatings, their applications in space missions, and how the company’s black coatings have played key roles in recent missions.
The article was developed in collaboration with ACM Coatings GmbH (subsidiary of Acktar Ltd.), a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
Space is a highly radiation-driven ecosystem where the systems and instruments can be disrupted due to unwanted electromagnetic radiation, further leading to the malfunction of the instrument and its overall final output. This is primarily important for scientific space missions consisting of a series of optical instruments or payloads.
In every optical instrument, there is some stray light, which is unwanted electromagnetic radiation that reaches the sensor and decreases the signal-to-noise ratio. This “noise” causes distortions in the optical image or photometric errors. An example of this noise can be found in the following image, where the flare and the rays withhold the landscape.
A prominent solution for stray light is a black coating. These coatings absorb the stray light and prevent it from reaching the lens. While many solutions can appear “black” on the visible spectrum, they can underperform when it comes to the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) or Infrared (IR) spectrum. Acktar’s black coating exhibit low reflectance from EUV to Far Infrared (FIR).
Acktar’s deep black coatings and coated films are widely used in optics and photonics applications. It not only helps them to suppress and absorb scattered light but also to absorb laser power. In addition, these properties have a high potential for space missions.
Stray light suppression plays a major role in optical and photonic payloads like cameras, spectrum meters, or telescopes, but also in solar sensors or star trackers. The ability to absorb laser power, especially referring to a high laser-induced damage threshold of the coating can be relevant for free space, and laser communication in complex systems, which may also need stray light suppression
The generation of high emissivity of surfaces can be used very well with passive thermal management, but also for infrared calibration targets. This is also proven by numerous of Acktar´s work on global space missions.
The NewSpace companies operate with a prime focus on low-cost and high-quality products/services. Therefore, NewSpace projects require cost optimization, which according to Acktar, can be realized mainly through higher volumes of the components.
Considering the increasing demand for components and mass production facilities, the coating services also need to meet this higher volume of demands. Acktar’s self-developed proprietary coating technologies are so variable and flexible that is possible to coat even larger quantities of components. And as the quantity is increased, the cost for the coating decreases.
The next aspect is the component size. The size of the components to be coated is usually much smaller for a NewSpace project than for components used in large space missions such as cameras and the component size also has a significant impact on the construction. While we all sometimes experience stray light distortions in our cameras, stray light suppression becomes critical in sensitive optical systems, such as star trackers, telescopes, EO cameras of satellites, or lasers.
In space observatories that look for distant and faint objects in space, or the Earth Observation (EO) cameras of satellites that aim to create a 3 to 5 m imagery, in this, the resolution is the key element for the final output. Straylight in these optical systems degrades resolution, as reported in the Gaia telescope in 2013. Therefore, black coatings, by reducing the stray light, increase the performance as well as enhance the final output from the system.
In some components, the use of black coatings and other stray light suppression methods is crucial not only for the performance but for the actual functionality of the components. Star trackers, for instance, are optical devices that measure the positions of stars by photosensors or cameras in order to determine the satellite/spacecraft’s orientation. Straylight in star trackers can cause wrong orientation detection and therefore result in wrong navigation of the spacecraft, as happened in the Beresheet Lunar Lander project in 2019.
Acktar has been a part of several prestigious space missions, proving that the global space entities have not only realized the importance of its product/services but also showcased that the company’s solutions are competitive in the global market.
Acktar delivers space-qualified coating solutions for stray light suppression, passive thermal management, and ATOX protection. With more than 50 space projects and 30,000 coated parts already in space, Acktar’s space heritage reaches almost anywhere in the Solar System. Whether it is LEO, GEO, Moon, Mars or L2 Acktar coatings are THERE.
Acktar coatings are primarily preferred by the global space market as they exhibit:
Acktar’s coatings also show negligible degradation over time. For example, the JWST parts have been coated in 2007 and due to repeated mission delays, it was launched at the end of 2021. Before the launch, Acktar tested the coated samples to ensure the performance after 14 years of storage and recorded no degradation. This also proves in the process that Acktar’s coating solutions have a long shelf life.
As the NewSpace market continues to expand, Acktar’s coatings will be crucial to ensure the smooth functioning of the components, systems, or instruments in space missions.
One of the key aspects that remains essential for modern space systems is the cost optimization of customized products or systems. This also depends on the customers, as their space systems may vary as per the mission requirements. In the customization segment, whether we are talking about the NewSpace or traditional space projects, the best performance with the lightest and most compact system is possible by utilizing black coatings. The Black coatings enhance performance without changing the mechanical design and maintaining the weight of the system.
The black coating services may also vary depending on the customization aspect. For example, sometimes foil or rolls can be used in place of just coatings. Acktar particularly offers foils and rolls of coatings as off-the-shelf products, offering the “traditional space” quality coatings at NewSpace prices and short timescales.
This further helps the customer optimize the mission cost with the quality of product/service utilized for “traditional space.”
Space systems have evolved over the years and the NewSpace era has pushed the companies to develop innovative solutions, with quality same as “traditional space”, but at a much more affordable price. This has also paved the way for more opportunities and the custom design of space missions. Acktar’s product lines and services have a proven capability to meet the increasing demand of the global space market.
To find out more about Acktar and for more information on its product and services portfolio, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch.
]]>The video below is footage of a live demo of cloudy_CHARLES. AIKO product manager Paolo Madonia explains how this system can help to more efficiently (and cost-effectively) collect and downlink a greater volume of useful Earth Observation data through the intelligent detection of clouds.
At the pages below you can find more details of AIKO’s portfolio of space solutions and software tools:
Hi, everybody! Welcome to the webinar today.
We’re just getting started here. I’m just gonna give people about two minutes to just join in.
You know what it’s like? You get those kinds of notifications popping up and remember what you were doing, where you are and getting the headphones set up. So just giving people a little bit of time just to get in.
Very pleased to see so many people joining us today from, well as far as I believe, lots of different countries around the world and that’s why we try and hold these events in a time zone where people from both the US, where obviously a large part of the market is and Europe can easily attend but obviously we can’t, you know, meet everybody’s needs.
So if you’re staying up late or getting up early to hear from us today, we really appreciate that. Thank you and for anybody unable to make it for time zone reasons, we will of course be providing access to the information material after the event.
Hope 2023 has started well for everybody. 2022 I think, another tough year on the heels of the COVID pandemic. Here in the UK it’s been raining for about 48 years. I don’t know whether that’s the case for wherever you guys are. But hopefully January has been a bit kinder too weather wise than it has here.
So I think we’ve got, yeah, I think the number of people who’ve come in and the numbers have stabilized this, So I think we can get started properly.
So, hi, my name is Hywel Curtis and I’m the head of marketing at SatSearch, the global marketplace for space. As part of our content program for both the buyers and suppliers in the industry. We run various types of output, the podcast or blog posts and these live events and webinars and demos are a part of this. So we’re really grateful for you to be able to spend time with us here today. And we would, you know, like to say a big thank you to our guest Paolo Madonia from Aiko. Aiko is an Italy based company working on various aspects of autonomous space missions. And in this event today, Paolo is going to be presenting to you the company’s solution for improving Earth observation data, specifically focusing on clouds.And he’ll, you know, share all the information about the access about what the system does and how it works and the benefits that it can bring to Earth Observation missions, which as, as I’m sure you know, for the people in the audience, this is a critical challenge in a very important part of the industry today.
So just a couple of housekeeping things, we’ll have the chat function open if you would like to use the chat and to speak to each other. We will also obviously enable you to put your questions to Paolo. We will run these at the end, I will cheer that.
But please, if you can use the Q and A function on Zoom, which is on the toolbar, which could be at the top or the bottom of the side of your screen wherever you have it. But if you can just get onto that, use the Q and A, put those questions there and then we’ll run through them at the end.
If there’s anything else that doesn’t get covered in that time, we obviously do as many questions as we can and as is possible in the time limit, but respecting everybody’s schedules. So if there’s anything that is unanswered, please do feel free to follow up with us or with Paolo after the session. So it’s not me that you’re here to listen to. So without further ado, I’d like to hand over to Paolo and say welcome to the session.
Thank you very much Hywel for the introduction and welcome everybody this afternoon or morning or evening depending on where you are. I’m gonna share my screen.
So meanwhile, I’m sorry to hear that the weather has been so bad in the UK Hywel.
But what we’re gonna talk about today is probably related to this. So thank you again for the introduction.
I am Paula Madonia and I’m the product manager at Aiko.
And today we are going to talk about one of our product which is cloudy_CHARLES and how this software product, its numbered application can improve Earth Observation missions by filtering out data that turns out to be unprofitable.
First, I’d like to say a few words about Aiko. Hywel already said a few things.
We are software house based in Italy, specifically in Turin and we focus on delivering artificial intelligence solutions for the aerospace industry.
So far, we have already flew some of our products and we have been involved in projects and activities in various domains, most notably earth observation, telecommunications and Deep Space. We have three products currently on the market of which cloudy_CHARLES is one of this group and here we summarized briefly, some of the major partnership that we have established throughout the last five years. Aiko has been founded in 2017 And our team currently accounts for about 28 people.
Actually, we just hit 30 of which 25% held, hold, sorry, a PhD degree. So I said that we, we deliver artificial intelligence solutions, we build products, software products and we do so not in let’s say unconnected way. Yeah, we don’t build tools that are separated from each other. We do so with an idea of an integrated ecosystem. So this software can, these pieces of software can work alone but they work better if they collaborate with each other, they are deployed together. Specifically, we have 3 lines, let’s say of activity. The first one concerns smarter satellite operations, so most notably onboard software that could be onboard artificial intelligence or onboard data processing, we have tools for the enhancement of human operators activities on the ground.
And finally, we are developing solutions to make the operations of constellations and most notably mega constellations more scalable. Today, we are going to focus on the first of these three, let’s say lines of activities that is smarter satellite operations and more specifically we are going to talk about onboard data processing.
So what cloudy_CHARLES is, is a tool that is able to process and analyze data life on board of the spacecraft. So going back again, at this point, you probably have guessed that we are going to talk about earth observation and actually before diving into the specifics of of CHARLES, I’d like to touch a few points on on the earth observation sector and specifically on the optical missions that are used in earth observations.
Thanks to optical satellites that are orbiting earth, we are nowadays able to get pictures like this one I would say pretty easily. They’re quite common; it’s quite easy also to download them. We got this one from ESA, this is a picture taken from Sentinel two and this, this shows actually an area close to our headquarters in Turin. You can spot Milan here in the bottom down of the image, you can see the Lake Majora here in the North. So a few years ago, pictures of this kind were almost incredible to see around. And now we are used to this kind of data. So they’re really common. They are used in so many fields from agriculture to infrastructure to logistics, meridian applications, aviation. So, of course defense, there’s a large number of applications to optical imagery. And yeah, we get some beautiful views of our planet like here we see Rome, for example, here’s the city, here, then you can spot the airport. I know I’m probably biased and show you just pictures of Italy. But yeah, I just wanted to show you know, what beautiful data we can get nowadays with these assets in orbit, and the level of detail that we get from optical satellites with different sensors, especially with multispectral or hyper spectral sensors that are capable of probing different wavelengths. It’s incredible.
However, by showing you this picture, I’m not telling the full story here. What we might get, in fact is something like this.
So the previous two pictures were pretty clean. But as Hywel was saying earlier on in the U K it has been raining forever now and they’ve been covered by clouds most likely. And so that’s what we could get if we were to randomly take a picture from, from the sky down at our planet. So the earth is actually covered by clouds. And in this case, we were seeing a volcano in Southeast Asia. If we were interested in looking at the volcano, we would be fine. I would say from this picture. But if we were interested in looking south of this mountain, we would not be able to because with this acquisition, our site is hampered by many clouds in between. So yeah, our planet is covered in clouds and it is so, its surface is covered by about 65% on average. So this is a picture from the naval observatory from the US and this poses a problem for optical observation. It is so because, because of clouds, we have to delete, discard 30-40% of the data that we send down to earth and to better understand why this aspect is really a problem. I’d like to take one or two minutes to analyze the flow that usually is used and from acquisition to you know, use of the data imagery product. So let’s consider our generic earth observation optical mission.
We start, as I said with the acquisition currently, we are located on the spacecraft, it’s at the space segment level. And after this, the images are acquired or taken once the satellite is inside of a ground station, this data is sent down to earth. Now we send these data packets to earth and as you can imagine in this data packet, we can have some frames that are clean with a clear sky, some others that may be featuring clouds, partially or completely with frames totally obscured by clouds. So in order to, you know, sell this data or distribute this data. In case, for example of the D sentinel missions that are open to free access, we need to analyze this data and make sure that we are not going to distribute, sorry, useless information. So once we get the images down to earth, we analyze them, we keep just the good ones and then we are able to distribute them.
Now that you probably already spotted the issue is that what we are doing is filtering down to earth. Now, these would be let’s say fine if the down link wouldn’t have a cost, but that’s not the case. Down link is actually quite expensive. And so having to download and spend money to get this data down to earth and then discard it right away is serious waste issue.
Again, I remind you that we discard 30-40% of the data that we sent down to earth.
So in terms of money, by looking at the data generated by the optical satellites and by looking at how many optical satellites are going to be orbiting the earth over the next few years, we can get a glimpse of how much money is lost in this wasteful down link activity. So in 2021, in the last few years, the estimates span from €30 million up to €70 million and you can see that with the rising number of optical constellations in orbit, this number is set to rise quite highly over the next few years. So I believe that at this stage, at least I hope that the problem that we have to face is clear to everybody and we are all on the same page.
So I believe it’s enough talking about the problem and it’s time to talk about the solution so at Aiko we developed cloudy_CHARLES specifically to tackle this issue of the remote sensing market. cloudy_CHARLE is a numbered software as I mentioned already. And the technology behind it is deep learning. It has been conceived specifically for owners of earth observation satellites. What cloudy_CHARLES is trained to do because deep learning is a technology that allows us to train machines to do specific tasks. What cloudy_CHARLES is trained to do is to identify clouds in optical imagery data. So it takes as an input the frame that has been acquired by the spacecraft, by the optical system, process it and then it outputs a cloud mask.
Here you see cloudy_CHARLES in action on a frame. And here at the bottom, you can see the cloud mask. Thanks to this cloud mask, we are able to reconstruct and calculate how, what’s the cloud cover cloud coverage percentage in that frame. And depending on that number that we get, the spacecraft is then able to keep it or or delete it. So this actually is a decision that it’s up to the end customer to choose what’s the threshold value that he’s fine with.
So by using cloudy_CHARLES, we are able to tap down link costs because we are not sending down any more useless data and profitable data and on the other hand, we are also able to provide actionable insights for onboard artificial intelligence agents, for example. So this is probably an extra feature and I’m not gonna dwell too much on this one during this talk. But if you recall that what I said at the beginning at Aiko, we believe in providing solutions that are integrated, we could use the information extracted by cloudy_CHARLES about the cloud coverage on one area, for example, to replant the mission on the go and avoid taking other acquisitions on the area as far as it’s cloudy.
One last point on this brief overview of CHARLES, I said it’s been conceived for owners or operators of satellites of earth observation satellites. But on the other hand, it can also be deployed at the payload level so it can be a differentiator for payload providers so that the optical system, the sensor is able already to decide whether to keep an image or to discard it right away after the acquisition.
So I want to go back for, for a sec, to what we saw earlier so that was the flow that I presented earlier on. We have the acquisition, we store all of this data and we send it down to earth regardless of the quality of the data because we don’t know that already. And then after we analyzed the data, we are able to keep only the good frames and distribute them. With cloudy_CHARLES on board, what we can do is to analyze data right after the acquisition. So that when we get to the down link phase, what we get down to earth, it’s only the good data. This as of course, the first advantage that I mentioned that allows two cuts down link costs. But a second advantage that I didn’t mention so far is that it also shortens the time to get access to the data, not just because we are cutting this analysis face on ground but also because since we are downloading to earth, less data, we are getting access to that more quickly, less passes over the ground stations are needed to to get the hands on the data. So these are the two key improvements provided by cloudy_CHARLES.
And this is how the let’s say the scenario of an earth observation mission changes when this is used.
So concerning, the features of this product. The first one is the accuracy with cloudy_CHARLES we are getting values of the F one score above 90%. I’m gonna touch on that in a few moments when we get to the live team of CHARLES. It is 100% software, as I said, and this has the first effect of being deployable on a variety of platforms. Now, we designed it to be compatible with several commercial off the shelf platforms and I’m gonna share with you the hardware compatibility specifications in a few slides in a few minutes.
Then we by using a, you know, a deep learning based approach, we are able to deploy cloudy_CHARLES on different systems; it is payload agnostic. We can retrain the model to meet the specification of a given camera of a given optical chain. So we provide flexibility and also towards the sensor and the instrumentation that is used to acquire the data.
Lastly, it is pretty lightweight. It’s the order of a few megabytes. We’re gonna see that in a sec and it’s upgradable. So not just we can upgrade it and improve the model once it’s in orbit, but we can also deploy it for the first time on satellites that are already in orbit.
So there’s no need, you know, if you already have a satellite in orbit and you’re thinking it’s a pity that you’re discovering this right now. No worries, we can also deploy it if your satellite is already there.
Just a few words on the flight heritage. So the development of cloudy_CHARLES started basically three years ago and back then it was called clarity. So that was the prototype version of cloudy_CHARLES. And when it was still called clarity, we had our first flight with logic and back then, we were among the first to run deep learning models, data processing models in orbit and building on the positive results of that first flight, we continued the development throughout the years until 2022, until last year and this culminated with the first release of cloudy_CHARLES a few weeks ago.
Now we are currently at the stage where we are launching officially cloudy_CHARLES on the market with the first flight scheduled to occur in the first quarter. So in a few weeks, you’re gonna be hearing more about this and with an early access program that is going to start next month, with this program, we are going to provide discounted access to the product and also we are going to provide extra support in training the modell, in deploying the model on your platform. So if you’re interested in knowing more about cloudy_CHARLES and how this tool can improve your mission or save you costs, the early access program is probably the best time, you know, to approach this new technology.
So at this stage, I probably showed you too many slides. So I’m gonna pause for a sec the presentation and I’m gonna switch over a very brief demo of cloudy_CHARLES. So what you’re going to see here, in this window.
I’m sorry. Okay. I have been told that there’s an issue with the screen sharing. So I’m gonna quickly stop screen sharing and showing that again. Okay, waiting for confirmation. Okay. We have it.
So I was saying in this window, you’re gonna see how, what’s behind, let’s say, in a way of, cloudy_CHARLES and we’re gonna test it with different boards that we have here at Aiko available.
So enough talking, let’s say I’m just gonna take an image and explain you live with examples. So what you see here on the left is the image we are going to run cloudy_CHARLES on and on the right, we have the ground truth mask that so called ground truth. This is the same known position, known for sure position of the clouds in the frame and we usually don’t have that when we are processing data life in its space on the platform. But we use the ground truth for training the model and also for validating the models after we train that.
So in this case, this is a part of a data set that we use for training and validating CHARLES, we have the ground truth available and the ground truth allows us to probe the performance, calculate the performance of our tool. So I’m going to start running CHARLES with the first of our boards. So here we have the Google Coral and I’m gonna surf from the bottom here. So what you see here in this interface from the bottom, we get the FPS, that’s the frame per second that CHARLES is able to process. So the inference time was about 40 milliseconds. That means that at this speed, it would be able to analyze about 20 to 25 images per second. The cloud coverage that is computed here is about 17%, which usually is deemed to be quite good as far as you know, our customers have told us a good threshold is usually between 60-50%. But that again depends strongly on the customer or on the applications; somebody could be fine with 70% or somebody else could be fine with with lower values. As you can see here, the F1 score is about just a bit lower than, than 90%. But this can depend on the platform that is used because the model deployed on different platforms is optimized in different ways.
So here we get a slightly lower F one score, we get slightly, well not slightly, we get a lower speed of influence with the, with the Intel myriad, which is not a surprise because it’s less performance than the Google Coral. We can go over to the Jetson Nano. We get an FPS value which is halfway through the two previous boards and we get an F one score of about 86% which is a bit worse again than the Coral.
We can run this test again. For example, with a different image, this one has some more clouds in it. So here, for example, we get almost 92% of F one score. Again, the coral processes the image in uh in about 40 millisecond So that the myriad here performs a bit better. So we also always have to take average values as I mentioned earlier. The average performances that we are getting with CHARLES so far on different datasets has been above 90% of F one score.
So now that I showed you some of the performance of CHARLES, I’d like to show it like if it was in action. So I’m gonna select this full deficit And I’m gonna select the cloud coverage threshold. So for the sake of this run, I’m gonna put it at 50. And by besetting this parameter, we are going to get an information of how much data would be discarded on board. And so how much, let’s say how much money in percentage we could save in down link expenses.
So, and I’m gonna start this, this experiment, what you see here is, I don’t know, we have a problem here probably. Yeah. So that’s the beauty of the live session.We’ve tried that until five minutes ago. Yeah. Okay. Our IT team has been telling me just to restart it. So I’m gonna select this again. Here we go. I’m gonna put again 50. I’m waiting for the go from, from my team. So when, okay, I believe I have to refresh again. Yes, because I refreshed before the boards were available. So okay, strip mode.
So as I was saying before we had this brief issue, what you’re going to see here is a series of, you know, of acquisition as if the satellite was, you know, hovering over an area and continuously acquiring images. Now you’re, you’re going to see from time to time some of these squares to, you know, turning orange and that’s going to tell you when the cloud coverage threshold is exceeded. So this is happening here and now it’s happening also for the Jetson nano. So the three, I haven’t said that the three panels referred to the three boards that we are currently using. So the coral and the nano already finished, they were the fastest one and the myriad is currently still running. So while the myriad finishes its acquisition, let’s have a look at the numbers down down here.
So the data that were discarded according to the estimations made by the Coral were about 32% of data whereas with the, with the inference performed by the Nano, it was about 34%. So slightly higher value. And now the Myriad has finished and also in this case, we get 34%.
If we were to use different coverage threshold, then we can do that of course. We would get slightly different values slightly depending on how strong difference is. So I’m just going to go with 60% here, around 60%. So running again the model and as you can see the, in this case, the coral is running pretty sadly out about 23 FPS. The NANO is a bit slower but you are going to see the two of them finishing basically at the same time, that’s not an error that’s fine because on one hand, the coral is faster in performing the inference; so in understanding how many clouds there are in the frame, but the CPU that is paired to the hardware acceleration harbor accelerator that performs the inference is less powerful in the case of the Coral. Also, we have a slight bottleneck in the processing of this information.
So as you can see here, I used a higher threshold. So in this case, it was 61% and of course, we are getting a lower estimate for the data that would have been discarded on board. So yeah, this was just a very quick demo to show you that the principles behind cloudy_CHARLES and how this actually converts to, you know, a saving in the amount of data that is down linked. And so in the costs that are related to this activity, These are not the only three platforms we can run cloudy_CHARLES on.
So at this stage, I’m going to stop again, sharing my screen and switch over again to the presentation so that we can talk a bit more about the, can you see the screen?
Yeah.
Okay, excellent.
So I was going to say we were going to talk a bit about the specifications that are needed in order to have cloudy_CHARLES running. As I said, it’s cuts compatible. So we have tested it so far with arms architecture, both 32 and 64 bits and also with X 86 architecture. In terms of storage that is needed to host the model and by using the floating.32 model, we get a size of about 30 MB. That’s a conservative estimate. It’s slightly less than that. CHARLES runs on Linux based operating system and when it comes to memory, that’s the value that mostly depends, that’s let’s say most volatile because it depends on the libraries that are available. cloudy_CHARLES would need from 20 up to 320 megabytes of RAM available. Concerning the AI inference, so the actual operation of detecting the clouds, cloudy_CHARLES needs a dedicated accelerator needed dedicated accelerator hosting, you know, sorry, not, not hosting and would need tensor flow as, as a training framework.
Also the deep learning operators that are needed are the most common ones. So this is not let’s say a specific requirement, but the list is quite long. So we can provide that in a separate and of course, if you’re interested in using CHARLES, we are going to go through this list of operators that are needed.
So when it comes to compatibility, we have tested it on the following hardware accelerators and on the following CPUs but this list is currently evolving. So if the platform that you intend to use is not here, do not worry because either we have tested it already and it’s currently undergoing the final benchmarking or if we haven’t tested that already on your board, we can consider also exploring the compatibility of CHARLES on your artwork, of choice.
So concerning the activities that are needed from when you choose or you start to be interested in cloudy_CHARLES until you, you actually use it in orbit. The first thing to do is to get some data from your system, from your platform to train cloudy_CHARLES. As I said, the product per se is platform agnostic so that we can fine tune it to your platform. But to do so, we would need to get some training data from you. This way, our engineers would take care of this fine tuning. And also on the other hand, our software engineers by knowing the computational platform. So the hardware platform that we are going to run the software on, they will be able also to tailor the model and the product for the specific computational architecture, so these are the preliminary activities.
When it comes to the deployment, we are going to run some tests either on ground or during flight, we are gonna right after the deployment; Of course, we are going to have our first commissioning time. And I like again that the software can be deployed either before the launch or after the launch has taken place.
Last phase; so after the software has been commissioned, the nominal use phase starts, but of course, we offer software support to the users and also periodic checks on performance. So the fine tuning can proceed on so that, you know, the best performance are guaranteed and to do so, we provide the retraining of the model as needed.
So at this stage, I lost track of the time or so. Hywel sorry if I was too worthy on a few points, but we went to the end of this life demo today.
So these are the five take away points that I’d like to highlight and I’d like you to bring back with you after today’s event.
The 30 to 40% of data in optical missions is actually discarded after downlink and this problem, you know, is going to cause quite large waste of money over the next few years and it already has. For this,wwe at Aiko developed cloudy_CHARLES which will allow to filter out the data that turns out to be useless and to do so directly on board, which is quite different to what is done today, as we saw.
I’d like to remark again, that CHARLES is completely a software product so it’s not tied to any hardware platform and it is by design compatible with commercial off the shelf platforms and just too close I remind you that we are going to start an early access program in February. So if you’re interested again, I invite you to reach out to us because that’s the best time to approach this new technology. And if you have any questions that may pop up after this event, feel free to reach out to us at Aiko through this email or through Narayan and Hywel. You can get to me and the CHARLES team quite easily.
So thank you very much for being here today and for this opportunity to Hywel, Narayan and the SatSearch team.
Fantastic. Thank you very much Paolo, that was great. Really interesting to see the system in operation there. And I think everybody will have gained a lot from that.
So yeah, I wanted to thank you very much.
We do just have a couple of minutes.
Obviously, anybody who needs to go, please do. We respect your schedules, of course.
But yeah, if anybody can stick around and I just do have a few questions to put to Paolo if that’s okay.
So firstly, one from someone in the audience asked if the product works on L0 raw data or does it need, for example, reflect its data in order to operate?
So the product we tested it on a variety of data types and you know, data products. So it is, meant to work on L zero and L one data usually. But again, the ultimate check needs to be done with the specific customer and platform. So to see how the model performs before the fine tuning and after the fine tuning. So in this sense, I invite the anonymous, certainly, who asked this to contact me or the team and we can, you know, investigate their needs.
Okay, great.
It relates a little bit to a question that we had actually. So we’re tracking approximately 150 something different OPC systems in the industry today. Given that there are such a widespread, you know, variety of options for people. How do you work to ensure that the cloudy_CHARLES can work with those different pieces of hardware?
So the goal for us is not to work with everything I have to say because that’s, let’s say if you know, okay, if you don’t focus on something, you’re not going to do, you know that thing.
Well, so far we targeted the, let’s say, the most used platform or at least the most promising platforms and we intend also to, you know, hear the needs of the customers.
So at this stage, we are still, you know, keeping a nice and I open to, you know, to new opportunities, but we’re not, you know, running on every platform on the market because that’s not the point. We intend to be compatible to provide flexibility but we are going to evaluate this flexibility also on a let’s say, on a customer need basis, of course, the most sorry for interrupting you but just to make this point more clear in case of the most, let’s say used platform that we chose to to run CHARLES you know, first and test it on. But then if there’s maybe some niche device that we didn’t consider and that’s not in our list, for example, probably we were not going to reach out to that device autonomously. But if Somebody comes to us and asks if CHARLES can work on that, we can make it work, we can tailor it for that device, that’s of course, not 100% sure until we test it but that’s the plan.
And then we’ve had a question from Marsha Walker about the early access program just asking for more information. We did discuss before the event that we can send out some more information to everybody who attended on that. But is there anything else you wanted to share about the program Paolo at this point?
So we are going to release something. So you, you will be getting some news in that sense concerning the requirements is to have some kind of data product that you want to validate, sorry, not validate, you want to run CHARLES on. So that’s the only requirement.
So if you have interest in doing some testing and let’s say five years from now, you know, to see how CHARLES works with your system, that’s probably not the best occasion because the early access program is, is meant to, you know, start over the next few weeks and it should be lasting a few months. But if you have something to run charge on in a shorter time scale, that’s probably the best time to again pioneer this technology, I’d say, yeah, I don’t know if this is answered the question from our R and D. But again, as I said, we are going to be making an announcement over the next few weeks. So if you will be looking on our channels or on our website, you will be hearing something about this.
Excellent.
And yeah, as mentioned, we will then send a follow up message for all the attendees or the registrants of this event, which will include some more information or at least how you can contact Paulo.
That’s great.
I think just, you know, we are pretty much at times so just a final, a good final question perhaps to finish on is another one from Marsha.
Why the name cloudy Charles obviously cloudy? But why Charles?
Yeah. So that, that was, I can imagine that the UK audience may see some connection with the recent development in the monarchy, but there’s it’s totally unrelated. Actually, cloudy_CHARLES had this name before King Charles took the throne. So it’s called cloudy_CHARLES because we like to think our products as a person, as people.
I co works with artificial intelligence and we’d like to see these tools as intelligent as people can be. So all of our products have a name of, you know, a human name.
So we have cloudy_CHARLES, we have Speedy Skyler and we have Orbital Oliver that are already, you know, on the market. We have a few upcoming products that will be released, but I’m not going to spoil their names today.
So that’s the funny, let’s say background about this choice.
Excellent.
Well, I think that’s a great place to finish up. As mentioned. We will be in touch further with everybody and yeah, you know, for example, Marcy, in the Q and A.
You’ve shared some your quantities as etcetera. Well, we will follow up with you definitely. And yeah, thank you very much to Paolo for sharing all those insights and giving us the live demo of cloudy_CHARLES in action there.
And I wanted to say thank you as well to everybody who was able to attend today. I think we’re very grateful that people are, you know, were willing to attend this sort of event early in January and hopefully you got something out of it. I know we certainly did, learned a lot about what can be done in terms of onboard data processing for earth observation missions today in this really important area in the industry.
So thank you again Paolo
Thank you very much for organizing this and thanks to everybody who came.
Fantastic. Thank you, everybody. Have a great rest of the day.
Bye.
]]>It also discusses ReOrbit’s Software Defined Satellite product lines, their features, and how such technologies could become key enablers for the developing global space market. It was developed in collaboration with ReOrbit, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
The satellite industry has undergone massive transformations in the past decade. Among the many technological developments that have occurred as a result of new innovations and evolution in the NewSpace sector, the software segment remains one of the key drivers of transformation. This process has further enhanced technological advancements in the satellite manufacturing industry, leading to the inception of the Software Defined Satellite concept.
Such systems are emerging in several different areas and with a variety of setups. In general, Software Defined Satellites are not coming to market as fully fledged, self-contained alternative platforms as a result of the greater adoption of software development in the industry. Instead there is a gradual transition towards software-defined technologies to meet both customer demand and to the need to integrate greater flexibility into satellite operations.
While several factors have led to these changes, in many ways the more common use of Software Defined Radio (SDR) technologies in satellites can be considered to be the beginning of the era of Software Defined Satellites. SDRs are satellite communications radio systems featuring software functions and protocols in an embedded hardware platform – typically consisting of a System-on-Chip (SoC) and a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) module.
The approach to integrating SDRs is now being mirrored with entire satellite systems. A number of modern industrial sectors are benefiting significantly from the exploitation of satellite-based resources. And as the use of satellite applications diversifies, the need for such resources (such as bandwidth or data transmission requirements) will vary with the changing demands of the industry. Software Defined Satellites help customers to better meet these demands and change operational capacities per mission requirements.
Changing the configuration of a satellite in-orbit was once the distant dream of many operators, but the development of Software Defined Satellites has enabled companies to remotely reconfigure payloads using ground commands. This is bringing new capabilities, commercial applications, and risk mitigation strategies to today’s missions, in line with the evolving requirements in the downstream sector.
For example, satellite data customers can sometimes alter their demands and requirements, particularly if their businesses are undergoing a large-scale expansion or other changes. With traditional satellites, reconfiguring the payloads as per the customer demands was a barrier, but this has been overcome by the Software Defined Satellites.
Let’s take a look at three of the key characteristics of Software Defined Satellites and how they enable, or contribute to, enhanced versatility in modern missions:
The Software Defined Radio (SDR)
The SDR has the capability to communicate within the internal systems of the satellite and optimize operational efficiency with the use of minimal hardware. This adds significant value to a Software Defined Satellite as the complete system can be designed to optimize internal communication as well as provide significant processing power through the use of an SDR.
Plug-and-Play configuration
A satellite is a complex nexus of many interconnected subsystems, but what if it could operate as a single plug-and-play solution? Though the industry is yet to see the full potential of such setups ReOrbit has already brought several plug-and-play Software Defined Satellite solutions to the market.
ReOrbit currently provides three different platform solutions with software-defined architecture:
Plug-and-play solutions simplify setup and testing, and can also make procurement and regulatory compliance more efficient. They also give more autonomy to satellite operators.
For example, all of the platforms provided by ReOrbit feature autonomous orbit keeping, Failure Detection and Recovery (FDIR), and optical communication capabilities. These features ultimately give more benefits to operators in terms of both reliability and flexibility in various earth orbits, as well as in deep space missions.
Optimization of virtual capabilities
Software Defined Networks are gradually gaining momentum in the satellite industry. From the software domain, the ability to deploy advanced Software Defined Satellites is a promising development that network designers and operators are keeping a close eye on in the industry. The alignment of the upstream and downstream markets, in terms of software defined capabilities, standards, and conventions, can help accelerate this growth.
For example, one of the key features of Software Defined Satellite technology is remote operating capacity, which opens up new capabilities and efficiency levels for ground network operators. It will also further contribute to the virtualization of ground stations and the control of satellite configurations in the earth’s orbit.
Ultimately this can lead to more timely, useful, and valuable data acquired with fewer resources. But to better understand these opportunities, let’s take a closer look at the areas where Software Defined Satellites can have the greatest impact.
Eutelsat, SES, and Spire are some of the key players currently utilizing, or reportedly planning to take advantage of, Software Defined Satellite technologies. The interest of such established players in the market indicates the extent to which some areas of the industry are trending to software defined solutions.
Software Defined Satellites are currently viewed as the one of key enablers for operators to reconfigure their systems remotely, but in this process they can also create a massive transformation in the ground segment. This will also engage players, from the upstream to the downstream, and further strengthen the supply chain across the industry.
Satellite communications, Earth Observation (EO), Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTV), data relay systems, and satellite navigation are some of the key market verticals and application areas in which Software Defined Satellite platforms can be of crucial importance.
Currently, the supply side of the Software Defined Satellite areas is an evolving market segment in a competitive industry. ReOrbit is one of the leading providers in this market, and is establishing itself as a versatile player by offering a range of platforms serving diverse sets of applications.
As the dependence on traditional satellites is reducing, Software Defined Satellites are likely to continue to attract greater attention in the industry.
The software segment has uplifted the development graph of the satellite industry with a range of major transformations in the upstream market. This trend is set to follow a progressive track as both established players and NewSpace companies are keeping a close eye on Software Defined Satellites technologies.
Thales is among other established companies that aims to manufacture Software Defined Satellites for SES. In addition, Airbus successfully delivered a Software Defined Satellite called Eutelsat Quantum to the French satellite operator, Eutelsat.
These are some of the handful of companies, along with NewSpace players such as ReOrbit, establishing themselves as key players in the small satellite market. The supply chain in this segment is still evolving and is likely to attract more investment in order to develop robust solutions for the upcoming high demand in the industry.
To find out more about ReOrbit and for more information on their product portfolio, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch.
]]>In virtually every mission or service’s development, early engagement with possible product and service providers (not to mention funders and regulators) is recommended. Therefore, sometimes it can help to take a step back and consider all of the different key players that may be involved.
This article provides a quick overview of the different categories of suppliers and organizations acting in the space industry. For each category a few example suppliers have been identified – but please note that many of these companies span more than one category in their work.
We’ll be adding more detail to this mapping over time so please check back when you can!
Electronic component providers: companies that manufacture electronic components specifically designed for space applications, such as radiation-hardened components or high-reliability parts. Examples: Texas Instruments, BAE Systems, and Microchip Technology.
Material and fuel manufacturers: manufacturers of propellant, optical/thermal coatings, radiation shields, and other space-grade materials that are used in subsystems and components in orbit. Examples: ACM Coatings GmbH, Messer LLC, and Becq.
Subsystem manufacturers: companies that specialize in the design, development, and production of subsystems for satellite and spacecraft integration. Examples: CubeSpace, Tensor Tech, and Veoware.
Payload manufacturers: companies that design, develop, and produce specialized equipment or instruments to be carried on satellites. Examples: Ball Aerospace, L3Harris Technologies, and Teledyne Technologies.
Satellite manufacturers: companies that design, develop, and manufacture satellites for various purposes. Examples: Kongsberg NanoAvionics, Northrop Grumman, and Thales Alenia Space.
Testing facilities and equipment providers: organizations and businesses that offer testing equipment (for sale or rental) and/or access to their own facilities to run analysis and qualification procedures such as Thermal Vacuum Chamber (TVAC) tests. Examples: NPC Spacemind, Exobotics, and Nanovac AB.
Ground equipment manufacturers: companies that develop and produce ground-based equipment for satellite communication and tracking. Examples: EnduroSat, Berlin Space Technologies, and Alén Space.
Ground station owners: organizations that own and operate ground stations responsible for tracking, communicating with, and controlling satellites, as well as receiving and processing satellite data. Examples: Leaf Space, Dhruva Space, and KSAT.
Logistics companies: businesses that offer specialist shipping products (e.g. bespoke satellite or subsystem containers) and services for space equipment in order to transport hardware from manufacturers to integration, testing, and launch sites. Examples: Azimut Space, Pelican Products, and EPS Logistics,
Software developers: companies that create software solutions for satellite control, data processing, and mission planning, as well as other space-related applications. Epsilon3, Vyoma, and KP Labs.
Launch service providers: companies responsible for delivering satellites and payloads into orbit using launch vehicles. Examples: SpaceX, Space BD, and Arianespace.
Consultants and service providers: businesses offering expert advice, support, manpower, and other resources for all aspects of space missions or commercial service development, from design and engineering to integration and operation. Examples: Cloudflight, STM, and EOSOL Group.
Regulators: government and international entities responsible for overseeing, licensing, and regulating activities in the space sector to ensure safety, security, and compliance with international laws and treaties. Examples: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the USA, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK, and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) at the international level.
Satellite operators: companies that manage and control satellite operations, including communications, monitoring, and data transmission services. Examples: Planet, Eutelsat, and Iridium.
Space agencies: government organizations responsible for the planning, coordination, and execution of national space programs. Examples: NASA, ESA, and JAXA.
Research institutions: academic and research organizations that conduct space-related research, develop technologies, and contribute to advancements in the space sector. Examples: MIT, Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), and the Institute of Space Science.
End users: organizations or individuals that utilize space-based services, such as satellite communications, Earth Observation, and navigation. Examples: telecommunications companies (e.g., AT&T, Verizon), government agencies (e.g., NOAA, USGS), and private companies relying on satellite data (e.g., agriculture, logistics).
This is just a high-level picture of the ecosystem today. In reality, there’s more nuance, sub-categorization, and cross-categorization of individual companies and organizations than this (which we’ll explore in future articles). But if you need a handy reference to think about the entire supply chain – this should do the job!
If you would like some help contacting or procuring from any of these organizations (or anyone else across the global space industry) then we can help. Click here to find out more about our free tender service for space engineers.
In many ways, the space industry supply chain is inherently different from those in other industries.
Firstly, the space industry requires extremely high levels of precision and reliability in its components and systems. For example, a small flaw or error in a satellite component could result in significant financial and operational losses, as well as endangering human lives.
You can’t fix a piece of hardware once its in orbit (in the vast majority of cases) so quality control and testing processes are often much more rigorous and time-consuming than in other industries.
Secondly, the space industry involves a large number of stakeholders, including government agencies, private companies, and international partners. This creates complex legal and regulatory frameworks that must be navigated, adding an additional layer of complexity to the supply chain.
The nature of some applications also adds sensitivity and complexity – particularly in military or surveillance domains.
Thirdly, the space industry is highly dependent on international cooperation, as many countries have their own space programs and contribute to global space exploration efforts. This means that the supply chain must account for varying cultural norms, business practices, and legal requirements across different countries and regions.
Space services can be created with collaborators from several different countries, launch from another, undergo operational management by teams based in other countries, and then connect to the ground and provide a service for end-users in yet more territories. All of these locations may have unique legislation that needs to be navigated.
Finally, the space industry involves cutting-edge technologies and materials that may not yet be widely available or tested in other industries. This means that the supply chain must be flexible and adaptable to accommodate rapid changes in technology and innovation, while also balancing long mission development and testing timelines and finite launch windows.
Overall, the space industry supply chain is unique in its complexity, precision, and international nature, and requires specialized expertise and coordination to ensure successful operations. However, there are many similarities with different specific aspects of other sectors that are useful to think about to understand how the supply ecosystem works.
Here are four examples of other industries that have some characteristics or operations similar to the space supply chain:
The aerospace industry – the aerospace industry obviously shares many similarities with space. Both industries involve designing and manufacturing high-tech systems and components that must meet strict safety and quality standards. They both also require a high level of expertise in engineering, materials science, and other technical disciplines. As the space industry evolves to (hopefully) incorporate more human spaceflight, the aerospace industry will be a great source of insights and ideas to keep people safe.
The medical devices and pharmaceutical industry – like the space industry, the medical devices sector involves developing and manufacturing products that must meet rigorous safety and regulatory requirements. Both industries also require precision manufacturing processes and specialized testing to ensure product efficacy and safety.
In addition, the high cost of developing new innovation is a characteristic shared by both supply chains – consider a large-scale medical trial and an in-orbit demonstration mission for example!
The defense industry – while it obviously directly overlaps in many applications, the defense industry also shares some similarities with the space industry in terrestrial, maritime, and airspace domains.
Both areas also require cutting-edge technologies and innovation to stay ahead of potential threats and involve complex supply chains that are affected by a wide variety of government regulations and international partnerships.
The renewable energy industry: the renewable energy industry also shares some similarities with the space industry, as both require a focus on innovation and technology to solve complex problems. Both industries also require a long-term perspective, as the benefits of investment may not be immediately realized, and both have significant potential to contribute to global sustainability efforts.
As you can see, the complex and interconnected nature of the global space supply chain, combined with the rapid pace of change in the industry, is making it difficult for engineers to find the right products and services for their needs.
That’s where we come in. The satsearch marketplace features structured, organized, and detailed information on thousands of suppliers, products, and services from around the world.
We work with suppliers all around the world to make this information open and accessible for use in trade studies and mission development processes. We host datasheets, CAD models, Interface Control Documents (ICDs), and other resources, which are all freely available to download (without an email address or login). Please click here to browse the site and find the right solutions for your mission or service.
We also offer free procurement support for missions at all stages of development. We can give you advice on any aspect of your trade study, or assist in managing the entire process, by leveraging our global networks of contacts at companies and organizations around the world.
We can handle multiple supplier conversations for you, while keeping your information anonymous if you prefer, and reduce the time it takes to get answers from suppliers from weeks down to days.
To try out this free service, simply share your basic requirements with us at this page, and we’ll get back to you ASAP.
]]>Texas Instruments is a global semiconductor manufacturing company with expertise in analog and embedded processing chips. The company was founded in 1930 and headquartered in Dallas, Texas. In this episode, we discuss:
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody and welcome to today’s episode of the Space Industry Podcast. I’m joined today by Adrian and Michael, who’ve actually been on the podcast before from Texas Instruments.
Texas Instruments, a company that’s, as I mentioned, I think when they were on the podcast previously, this is probably a company that you’ve heard of and Texas Instruments or TI is making some really interesting inroads into the space industry and working on missions in a lot of different aspects through providing advice supports and, but primarily on, in the electronic space.
So today we’re gonna talk a little bit about some of the trends that TI has seen and that Michael and Adrian in the power of space electronics and obviously power vital aspect of any system, any circuit without the power, it’s not gonna, nothing’s gonna work. So it’ll be really interesting but obviously the space environment places some unique restrictions and challenges on how the electronics can be powered efficiently without manual intervention, obviously because of being in orbit.
And yeah, it’ll be really interesting to see what. What TI is observing in this area, what lessons can be given to engineers and how this can improve space missions moving forwards. So firstly, let me welcome you both to the podcast, Adrian and Michael, great to have you here.
Adrian: Yeah, hello. Great to be here again.
Michael: Thanks for having us.
Hywel: Fantastic. So let’s get into this topic today. Now, considering the enormous and growing use of electronics in space, I wondered if one of you guys could give a brief introduction to electronics, power architectures in space. What our engineers need to be thinking about in this area when designing missions.
Michael: Yes. Let’s take a quick look at the full power ecosystem and a satellite from the power generation to the storage, to the power distribution to the actual point of load. So when you look at the power generation, that’s typically done with the solar panel. We’re looking at voltages over hundreds to 200 volts being generated there, and that needs to be then converted down to the actual battery voltage or battery charge voltage depending on the state of the battery we’re looking then at maybe 24 volt to 70 volt. Then when you look at the actual distribution of the power what we see is typically is used a 28 volt plus there, and that 28 volt shall be really stable and shall be independent of the battery voltage.
So you need to then, Boosted up or use a buck to bring it down so you’re having a buck boost apology for that 28 volt generation. These, this voltage rail is being submitted to all the different modules and submodules in the satellite. And at those submodules, you then typically generate the voltages you need there, like twelvefold, fivefold in some cases also negative twelvefold, negative, fivefold negative one.
All these voltage rails are then generated typically in a isolated way, having an isolated power supply there. For the purpose that if something goes wrong in this module, you don’t want to have any fault propagate back to the satellite and eventually bring the entire satellite down. So if there’s a fault, you want to isolate it there and keep it also there.
And then the last step is then really generating the voltage rails needed for the individual devices and subsystems are, like for an fpga, you have the 1.8 volts there, this 1.2 volt sometimes, or even down to 0.8 volts. So these are then what we call them, the point of load. So all these are, I’d say, typical values and also how I described this is very typical. There’s no standard as of today, but this is coming, right? We will more and more standardize on these.
Adrian: Let me also, that’s a good introduction, Michael. Let me also add some challenges we see in this area also, because if you think about power generation complete system is very expensive, right?
So you have huge solar panels, you have all the unfolding mechanism, so a lot of weight and size involved. And in addition, what Michael also mentioned if your system is working on the dark side of the earth, you need to think about batteries, right? Which again adds weight and cost to your system.
And also one thing you need to keep in mind is there is no airflow there, right? So you cannot use a fan to cool down your system in space, right? So all the heat must be radiated away. Which again? Adds significant costs and design effort to, to your cooling system. And last but not least, you are also working in a harsh environment.
So you have high radiation levels which are dependent on the orbit. You are working. You have extreme temperature cycles, right? If you think about load a low flying satellite those satellites are passing several times per day. And orbit and passing from the cool side of the air to the hot side of earth. So a lot of temperature cycles involved and also mechanical stress. It’s something you need to consider, right? You have all the vibration during the launch of the satellites. So in general, a lot of challenges for designers when thinking about a space power system.
Hywel: Right. Brilliant. Thank you both for the overview. I think that’s a really good introduction. Yeah, very interesting to, to discuss the different voltage involved and the lack of standardization because you think we are talking about systems that are operating in space. The risk to, okay. The risk of space debris is always there, but the risk to adjacent. People is zero. And the risk to adjacent systems and everything nearby is absolutely minimal. And so we could potentially have enormous, huge voltages and currents, but obviously not because we need to test these things on the ground before launching. We need to launch them safely and effectively. And all of the equipment is built and developed on the ground. So it’s very interesting.
And also thanks Adrian for explaining some of those challenges. We think of space as being freezing cold, obviously. Still there is no airflow. So yeah, heat must be dissipated through radiation. There’s no possibility for convection. So despite the fact that 10 centimeters this way is freezing cold, you still need to remove that heat effectively. And I think both of those things, Are examples of some of the challenges that players in the new space market need to face?
Companies that maybe don’t have this long heritage of legacy space missions and experience. So power management is and also in the new space market, sorry, we’re typically seeing products and services that are being produced in a lower cost, possibly a smaller form factor, although maybe that’s changing some areas, but, And and on a more rapid timescale as well.
So I wondered whether you could touch on some of the reasons why power management is probably more important in the new space market or at least is very crucial in the new space market.
Michael: So when we talk new space I think first we need to probably say what do we really understand on a new space?
The way we look at it, it’s mainly about private investments. And that means you have a business model that really has to provide a positive return. And so our customers have to balance the risk versus the cost. And many times it’s more a compromise than a balancing. And then people do also look into our devices, like we call them commercial off the shelf.
So they’re not really made for space at all. But still in the absence of a radiation hardened solution or a cost effective alternative, there’s simply no way than using one of those devices so many times. That’s true for the high performance processes or FPGAs. So the power tree here plays a very pivotal role as the one thing, it’s cost by itself. So the Power Tree itself is a major cost border, it’s complex. It’s there for every of the modules and subsystems and. Not less complex than for any large satellites or any traditional mission. You have to provide the full functionality. There is no, no way to compromise there. Then the. Protection of the devices downstream, right? So as you said, it’s like maybe we need to compromise a little bit on the radiation hardness of the devices downstream on the bus. They might be more exposed to a situation, and this is where the power is your last safety net, your last resort to catch that quickly and you identify this increase of current quickly and turn off this power as fast as you can to rescue those devices, if you will. And then to make things even harder is your power devices are the ones that really carry the current. So when transistors that carry a heavy amount of curry are even more exposed and more at risk to have a gate rupture under any heavy radiation.
So this is where we really see that these devices typically really have to be built up, ground up, designed, ground up to withstand. So you see that the high dependency on the power tree. And the poetry itself being even more at risk and the cost associated with it are really, makes it a very pivotal role.
Adrian: And also to, to mention It’s also very important to, to think about the power density, right? And there are several factors involved in that. Obviously the efficiency of your system, right? Because if your system is efficient, you save twice, right? So if you think about this you need to produce less energy and at the same time you have less energy to cool, right?
So you can save costs there. So the meaning of power density is really taking advantage of your efficient system and then sizing down the complete solution. So if you think about this, if you’re switching at higher frequency, you can, for example, use smaller passive components in your system. So the complete solution size is shrinking, right?
And we are focusing at TI, on bringing those things to the next level, really. So not only focusing on increasing the efficiency, but really thinking about the complete system and how to increase the power density of the total system.
Hywel: Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. I think that’s a really important message.
Thank you. That the higher the efficiency, the, that you can make double savings because yeah, less energy is required to be produced and less, and then you have to cool it. So that’s great. Thank you. So when we’re talking about space systems like this, you and Michael, you mentioned that the complexity for a smaller system is in some ways no less than that for a larger vehicle cause you still need all the different requirements.
But there are lots of different ways I’m assuming, to optimize the electronics architecture, the electronic power system. I wonder if you could touch on some of the most important factors that engineers need to consider when doing this optimization when trying to achieve these performance levels.
Adrian: Yeah that’s really good question. And there are several factors here, and yeah, one of them obviously is your mission profile, right? So radiation hardness level you need to work with. And there are two factors important single event effects. Those are dependent on orbit.
But also the total ionizing dose, which is also somehow dependent on your orbit. But because those effects are more cumulative effects, it’s more important to look at the duration of your mission here. Another factor is, for example, the temperature profile, right? I was already describing it a little bit.
If you compare LEO satellite to geo satellite, obviously the LEO satellite is much worse because you are passing several times a day from hot zone to the cool zone. And also the material set used in those components is more important, right? Because you need to consider those temperature cycles there.
So the designers optimizing power electronics have several options to choose. And the obvious one, and the most famous one, let’s say, is the QMLV product. So the highest robustness available on the market with highest radiation performance, but at the same time, very expensive and big in size because those components traditionally use ceramic packages, which are bigger than plastic packages.
And if you look at the other extreme designers can also use commercial components in your systems, right? Because that’s also possible. But in general, this is not a good idea. And Michael was already mentioning a little bit. You do not have all the test programs in place for those commercial components, so you cannot make sure they are really withstanding all those radiation requirements.
Also, Those components, and we see it especially for space power, are not performing very well. And this is because the main part of your power product is the transistor. And this is very sensitive to radiation. And that was also the reason for TI why we decided to have a dedicated product line for space power because we really need to put design techniques in place to make sure those components are really performing well under radiation.
And also what I was mentioning, the material set used in commercial components is not really made for space. So that’s also very important to consider. So there is also a solution in between. We have in our portfolio products, space enhanced products. So those are plastic components. With radiation performance.
So we typically characterize them up to 30 kilowatt and 43 ev. This is something which designer can decide to use. And it’s a very good compromise. If you look at the cost versus risk of. And you have all the radiation data available on ti.com and you can be sure that the materials set used in those components is really made for space.
Hywel: Brilliant. That, yeah, that makes a lot of sense to target that, compromise as you mentioned, that between the cost and the risk of failure, I think particularly for as we’re seeing new space companies and missions maturing into commercial services. The reliability and consistency and lack of risk are so important for these companies as they’re professionalizing.
And so ensuring that there’s a product set, a com, a component set that can meet those needs is very important. And the difficulty with testing anything for space and in space, obviously does and should limit some of these components. And when you’re talking about, we talk about it at obviously a payload level or an entire satellite level, but at the component level there’s a myriad of variations on each of those components, each of the configurations that all really need to be tested. So approaching it from the materials level as well is Yeah, it’s very important I think. And actually following on from that, when we talk about these companies professionalizing their services and their systems, there’s a bit of a movement in the way that some companies are communicating, where we are discussing less about the hardware on board and more about the results that can be achieved particularly from in the, LEO and MEO satellites, it’s more about the service that you can provide. And a key part it’s the similar sort of analogy to nobody cares that much anymore about the hardware in their computer. They wanna run the software on it when they’re communicating to their end users.
Because of that, we’ve seen a big increase in onboard processing systems and more complex software programs that are being run on satellites. But in order to build them in the first place, they need the right power architecture and control architecture. So what do, what are these uses of more powerful software?
What do they mean for how for power supply? What are they. Is this different from pure F P G A applications? Are you seeing more requirements and challenges by your customers in this area?
Michael: Yeah. Fully agree with you first of all, that the onboard processing capabilities will greatly increase in the future and have increased already.
There’s no doubt on that one. But maybe before we really look in the actual tree let’s look into what is driving this really. And maybe if you look at the example of a communications payloads, like we have them in these LEO constellations one thing you’re really looking up there is just there is no more need for intelligence and processing capabilities in there as these satellites are meanwhile not pure transponders anymore.
They are really like bay stations in the sky. They’re doing routing off the traffic through various channels on it. Then you have the antenna technology has greatly moved further. In the past, you had these classic mechanical antenna pointing systems where today you are using phase array antennas and you use the technology of beam forming and have done electrically steered antennas. That requires a lot of processing in the background to make that really happen. And you have here another driver On top of it, right? Staying in the RF front. And there is meanwhile the data converters have increased and speed significantly, right? We’re really sampling at multiples of gigahertz and that generates an enormous amount of data.
All that data, of course, has to be processed. It’s a good thing because now we can skip the intermediate frequencies and we make the system even more. More compact. We call this RF sampling, but now we need to deal with this enormous amount of data and that needs of course, decimation and filtering capacities and more and more processing needs on that end.
Then the keywords and buzzword of artificial intelligence, right? So when we look at our communication system, we are look taking advantage of our machine learning and artificial intelligence that we understand what are the best routing opportunities, what’s typically the best decision making here to optimize the network loads overall and yeah.
The topic of artificial intelligence is not only going here into the communication payload, but also look at applications like radar imaging are or optical imaging payloads. Also here, the resolution’s getting better and more and more data is being generated. But you need to be now smart in compressing this data and selecting the data, pre-processing the data before sending it to Earth as the bandwidth to earth.
That’s really what’s. Really expensive. And another angle that drives processing to For example is the topic of space debris. So these, our space vehicles need to be intelligent now in detecting any space debris out there, and then make the right maneuver autonomously and avoid any collusions that way.
So all this drives the computational power. In terms of hardware, that means for us, our F PGAs getting bigger and we see already that the FPGAs integrate meanwhile multiple course, right? That is where we see, of course, the software aspect getting more important. In the end of the day, as a designer, yes, you wish you’d just do the software, but from a hardware perspective we have to make it work first, and that is where these extreme large FPGAs, of course, come with their own challenges.
Adrian: And, actually what Michael just mentioned, everything means for power, even more power in the future, right? Because especially if you think about those new great space, grade FPGAs those require very high current. And at the same time at very low voltages, right? So the core voltage, typical 0.8 volt and 10 of amps, even up to a hundred of amps, right?
And at the same time, the tolerance for this core voltage is around plus minus 3% which leaves certainly a millivolts in intolerance. So efficiency and power density. It’s very important for those high current requirements and to serve those markets. Actually with power solutions, you need to think about products with very high current capabilities and high radiation robustness, obviously, but also at the same time you need to have a solution with very good step response performance because we see current load steps at those FPGAs up to 30 amps. So your system need to act very fast. And the voltage, as mentioned, is very low, 0.8 volt. And also the power density of the whole system. So you need to really look at those markets to have a ready solution to fulfill those require.
Hywel: That’s really interesting. Thank you. Thank, thanks both of you. That I think there’s a lot we can take away from there. As you touched on all the new technologies that can potentially be used in this generation of satellites, Yeah it’s amazing what can be done, but what requires to be powered effectively and in a controlled manner.
You think just taking the space situational awareness, the space debris. Angle. If you’re mandating, which is coming or is it already in some place? Different ways. If we’re mandating that satellites must be able to maneuver out of the way of an encroaching system, you need the power to be able to sense the system to act, to maneuver, fire the propulsion or whatever it is, to stop the maneuver, to get back to the orbit you require to deorbit to the end of life.
All, none of this stuff is revenue-generating activity for the service for the company. They wanna get back to, they wanna stay in their orbit and produce the data that their customers are looking for. Okay. If you crash, you lose revenue. But all of this stuff needs power. And as you mentioned, low step response for those loads. These are systems that can be switched on and off, deploy the antenna, deploy the solar panel, deploy the cameras even. So it’s the power I can see that the power. Constructing the power architecture is becoming an increasingly difficult challenge and is requiring companies like TI to solve these problems for your customers.
I’m assuming, and develop the components and the materials, which you mentioned as well, very important in order to solve these issues. Yeah, I guess on that, I wondered if you could discuss a little bit more about the efforts that Texas Instruments is taking to meet these challenges that the new space industry is presenting to you.
Michael: Yeah, there’s multiple anals. We’re supporting our customers here. So we do this with a product offer where we really support our scalable system with our having all voltage and current levels required, the current levels up to the 18 amps of a single component, you can parallel it and then come up to the more than a hundred amps in some cases might be required.
We talked about before, we have these extreme precision requirements and capabilities provided as the 0.8 volt, only 3% tolerant allowed at high A levels. But also when we look into RF systems, we need to have them at extreme low noise levels. So we really make sure that. Power tree itself is as quiet as possible.
Then we have several protection features we put in there, like for over current, over voltage, under voltage lockout, over temperature protection. And we make them also somewhat self contained if needed with their auto retry capabilities. That if something happens or something’s not right, still you have a good way to recover from there.
And then we’ve seen different missions have different radiation hardness and quality requirements, or even sometimes very strict cost requirements. And therefore we have our several classes here in our quality portfolio, the QMLVRHA. So really the traditional devices in the ceramic package targeting maybe more the tier stationary orbits or deep space missions or human space missions. Radiation hardness, a hundred K Reds 75 mv. Then we talked about the space enhanced products or space enhanced plastic products in the plastic package, radiation tolerance, we call it. Then to 30 K reds 43 mev. So where we really strike the balance between cost and quality for new space. And then there’s something new called QMLP.
QMLP is a. Radiation hard standard like or the qml V R H A, but as the name says, the PSR plastic, it allows for plastic packages. And that is very interesting because now I can really have a pin compatible QMLV, full radiation hardened device being/pin compatible to the space enhanced Product and plastic device that comes at much lower cost.
So that is something that our customers will appreciate very much as it enables a single investment into your platform and then adopted quickly and easily to multiple missions as they come their way. The QMLP is actually something that TI was very active in helping standardizing it. It was ratified only last year in November.
And we will bring out the first QMLP devices very shortly and even more coming still this year. So there’s I think it’s something that will make us all in the industry very happy that we have the standard now available. Yeah. So it’s also plastic packages overall, right? They make it much easier for us to fan out new products as the packages are so similar to the industrial versions.
So it’s very easy then for us to look at a device, see if we can make it radiation hard, but it’s, especially for high-frequency devices we have the very same dimensions and mechanics and are Much quicker typically in getting the products out at the right performance level.
Adrian: Yeah, I think Michael also the offering, offering really the enhanced functions in our products is also very essential here, especially for the power system.
So if you think about something like redundancy, right? In your satellite system, you have redundant systems, right? And those needs to be isolated from each other to avoid fault propagation. And for those functions we are offering digital insulators. So that’s one, one example here and in general, what you are already mentioning, the ability to detect a fault to isolate and also recovery afterwards is very important.
All the integrated functions we have in our power products like diagnostics, monitoring, protection functions, even simple enable pins are very important, but also the current limit pin. So as an example, you can take what I was already mentioning, our load switches, right? We call them also e-fuses.
So you can use those devices to switch on and off portion of your system or fully disconnect your system if needed. So those are also important factors. When when talking about NewSpace, right?
Michael: Yeah. I think overall how do we support our customers in this new space challenges, I think there’s several investments we, we keep making here on a continuous basis is one thing of course, very important efficiency and power density than the optimization of the performance or like in terms of the quality of the voltage rail, like our ripple transient, very much needed for the huge FPGAs, but also like our best noise.
For our F performance optimization. All this integration of features to really make sure this whole topic of FDIR call detection, isolation recovery is properly supported and best possible supported. And what we’re also active is in the support of standardization efforts and last, not least, availability.
So we. Are have huge investments in our manufacturing capacities. We make sure that all our high rail devices are available on our online store. Now even with all the inventory being visible to our customers, so they know if they click on buy, they will have the device very shortly on that table.
And then there is also a strong longevity commitment. We give we call this in our policy. No, no obsolescence out of convenience. And I, we know this is the extreme value for our customers that they know they can rely on these parts for long time.
Hywel: Yeah, I think that’s great. I think that’s very important in the space industry where we see mission timelines being so long for development and then launch and then things, missions get scrubbed, things get delayed by months and months at a time. It’s really important, I think, for those companies to know that if refactoring or rebuilding systems are required, that the components they relied on gonna be available. And also it’s great that you are taking a lead in standardization efforts because I think those are so critical particularly in the new space industry. But as the develop in the development of space as a whole, we see these standardization standards being developed on all different sorts of levels and scales. And I think the industry itself is still highly fragmented and very driven by national priorities in some ways, in some aspects of it.
Or now we’re seeing emerging kind of primary players with commercial priorities that are able to affect big waves of the industry. And standardization between players, it’s very important now. And I think following on from that, when we think about the new space industry, where these standards and where these performance levels are emerging, these sorts of companies, new space companies are often, or have often been inclined towards launching smaller satellites or microsatellites at least.
Do you think this factor can streamline innovation in power management systems in space?
Michael: Yeah, I think absolutely. I think it’s important that we’re streamlining those things and the industry is already speaking about standardization. Maybe here as an example, the command and data handling here we see helping to make space V P X.
A sort of standard or developing something, installation or Ether is working as a group called Advanced Data Handling Architecture. And also here we’re talking about getting things more modular, more exchangeable. Make sure there is redundancy possible with these architectures, that it’s easy to switch from one to another.
And also the idea of sharing the computational power as we see in the computational processing capabilities going up and up, but you may not need all at the same time. So it makes a lot of sense if you can distribute and share those computational power from a hardware perspective.
In the end, it’s always the same objective, right? You want to get the cost out, you want to increase the volumes which in fact, drive for the economy of scales. And also what you want to do is make you want to share, there’s a good resource of any R&D efforts. So overall, this will reduce the investment from the R&D.
And when we talk standardization, that is of course what we like to hear from our semiconductor vendor perspective, right? This is what we really like, that makes it really easy for us to make the necessary investments, right? When we have a clearly defined power supply definition that enables us to really optimize for cost and performance in the right direction.
So we are following all these activities very closely and can’t wait until we really have these very clear parameter definitions in terms of the voltage level and current level and ripple and transient behavior. What are the right protection and features people really want to see there. And then in the end also assure that for this fault detection and reporting capabilities, we support the right recovery strategy in those systems.
And yeah, in the end, this is here in space. No different than it is already. The fact in other industries automotive for example, right? Where we have a very strong standardization and everybody benefits from it.
Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. I think. Everybody understands that aspect of it as well, and this, it’s led to greater collaboration and innovation rather than, making print up any barriers in the way.
I think this is very important, so it’s great. Like I say that you are involved in this area and it’d be really interesting to, to obviously share more about TIs work and the work in general of companies involved in the standardization efforts across the industry. Something we will we’ll, we’re gonna look to do on this podcast.
Definitely. Thank you. And I guess, yeah, just finally just to bring this conversation, back to, to the core topic. Yeah. How I, I wondered if I could ask how TI is serving or planning to serve the, these emerging markets and opportunities in terms of the power control, power management, power architectures, and sort of plans what you are happy to share about the plans for rolling out new products for the space industry in the future?
Adrian: Oh, yes. Yeah, there are really several new products coming and the number is actually growing each year. So if I only think about 2022, only to give you some examples.
I was already talking about the load switches, right? So we released in 2022 our space enhanced plastic version of the load switch, which is the TPS seven H 2221. If you look at the switching regulators, we released also in plastic package, our 18 amps point of load switching regulator, T P S seven, H 4,003.
If you then if you then look on the LDLs we actually released our first negative idea in plastic package which is the TPSs seven H 12. And finally, if we look at the P W M controller family, we actually released a complete new family of eight products for different topologies and in different mission profiles, only to give you two superset devices on the plastic package side on the space product. We have the superset device, T PS seven H 5,005, and on the Q M L V side, which is the fully radiation hard net ceramic package device, we have the T P S seven, H 5,001. So those are P w M controllers with two megahertz switching frequency. So yeah those are only few examples, but there is more coming.
Hywel: Yeah, it’s quite a solid product launch cadence just for power in space,
Michael: Yeah. We don’t stop there, right? This is of course, at the product level, but each of these products come with their own vm. Okay. And on top of it we also develop a lot of reference designs and actual use cases. We have our own reference design team called Power Designs Services, or short PDFs, so they have developed several designs already, and they’re. Available on com slash reference minus designs. And of course, there’s more and more coming out of that group that will help our customers to quickly get started on things. And we’re also working closely with several third parties and partners, like with STAR-Dundee we’re working with them to provide the power for their latest space fiber design.
For Teledyne, E two V, their latest DDR four memory where we provide the power and determination. And our, a very strong partner of ours is also Alpha Data. We have developed with them in the past a development tool for the FPGA, from si, the ku 60t provided here all the core supply and auxiliary supplies and sequencing on it.
And moving forward also with Alpha Data, we will bring out the design or the tool for the FPGA called Versa. The latest and greatest and highest processing FPGA for space Xylinx is bringing or has brought out there. So there again, we will provide the entire poetry for it and that of course, customers will then also be able to take advantage of when designing their own boards.
So overall, or just to sum this all up so TI supports this market with a wide portfolio and all kind of products. So all kind of quality classes focus on high robustness, reliability all the support for the fault detection, isolation and recovery. High powered entity and still a high quality of the realm is very important.
A strong design support. And then last, not least,TI is very much aware of the importance of availability. So we want to make it from our side, make it very easy for our customers to order the devices. From our side and deliver as fast as possible.
Hywel: Brilliant. Thank you very much back. I think that’s a great place to, to sum up and to wrap up this.
I think, yeah my thanks to you both think this has been a really interesting conversation. We’ve, I think I’ve learned a lot and hopefully I, our listeners have learned a lot about the importance of the power system in space in space hardware and what. What, what is impacting changes in this area and innovation?
What the the challenges that the unique environment of space presents when you are considering how to power all of the systems, the trends in the technologies being used on what data process in and deployables and the requirements for, debris, collision of violence, and all sorts of reasons why systems are becoming more power hungry.
And then obviously the challenge is that this, in turn, Provides the increases in heat in different areas, the requirements to handle different steps in load. And it’s great to also hear about the different levels at which TI is looking to serve this market and solve these problems in terms of optimizing existing components, developing new products for the market, working on the designs and the examples you’re providing. And at a high level. Working on the standardization and the adoption of these systems, and obviously yes. Availability as you’ve summed up, as you finished on there, Michael. Availability and the component level has been a challenge for companies in all different industries over the last few years.
This isn’t particularly in, the semiconductors. This isn’t this in the price with anybody. So it’s very important that these suppliers can be reliably insured for space companies moving forwards, particularly those developing real commercial services. So lots for engineers to take home and to to work on this.
So yeah, just would like to say thank you very much
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Leaf Space is a ground segment developer, operator, and service provider based in Italy. In this podcast, we discuss:
Leaf Key: Leaf Key is a fully managed, dedicated ground segment-as-a-service (GSaaS) solution designed for operators of medium-large constellations. Leaf Key can replace the large non-recurring engineering (NRE), dedicated personnel, and recurring operational costs associated with developing a proprietary ground segment, with a simple monthly subscription plan proportional to the required performance.
Leaf Line: Leaf Line is a unique, multi-mission ground segment-as-a-service (GSaaS) solution, completely owned and operated by Leaf Space. A globally distributed network of ground stations and a reliable, secure software infrastructure comprise the base of the service, which can manage and optimize requests from different users.
Leaf Track: Leaf Track is Leaf Space’s launch vehicle telemetry reception service that provides launcher telemetry data to clients via the company’s worldwide, distributed Ground Station Network, mainly used by the company’s Leaf Line service.
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello and welcome to today’s episode. Thank you very much for spending time with us today on the Space Industry Podcast. We’re very pleased to have all our listeners here and just as pleased to have our guest, who is Giovanni Pandolfi, the co-founder of Leaf Space. We’ve had Giovanni and we’ve discussed Leaf Space on the podcast before, but for those unfamiliar, leaf space is a ground station network manager and operator that develops and manages ground station services for sort of missions all over the world and space services all over the world. So today we’re gonna talk a little bit about the ground segment as a service business model or operating model, and dive into the benefits that it can bring to missions and services in the current space industry.
But firstly, Giovanni, great to have you here with us today. Thank you very much for joining us and is there anything you’d like to just add to that introduction?
Giovanni: Just thanks. Thanks for you guys for having me here on the podcast. It’s good to be back.
Hywel: Fantastic. Okay, so let’s get into this now.
The ground segment is an essential backbone of the space industry. If nothing came down, we wouldn’t know if there was anything up there. So I wondered if you could give us a bit of a brief overview of the ground segment as a service operating model and explain why there might be room for changes or innovation in the market to meet these emerging capabilities.
Giovanni: Sure. The concept in general, the ground segment as a service, let’s say that it’s pretty new. Even though there are roots of it for a few decades, basically, there were. Let’s say a couple of companies actually doing something similar from when the space where it started, basically Swedish Space Corporation, Universal Space Network, that then got acquired by Swedish Space Corporation and KSAT basically, before was let’s say more of infrastructure as a service model.
So let’s have antenna sitting down a really special location and then lease time of it to the start operator. So to satellite users, let’s say that in, in the last years. And I’m glad to say that maybe also Leaf has its own, has its own push and its own role in this. We’ve seen more of a shift, not just from antenna leasing, let’s say business model, but to add some other layers to allow to have more abstraction on the actual use that the comparing zone that we typically say is with the cloud infrastructure, before maybe you were just using some server locating in a really high-reliability place in the data center right now, actually, you don’t even access the physical server, but you access a layer of a structure and then allows you to get definitely more reliability also to scale much faster, much better. And this is basically what ground segment as a service is right now. Layers of abstraction that try to simplify as much as possible the customer experience to actually connect between, to build up a connection between satellites and their mission control or the data delivery on this other side.
And there’s definitely room for innovation. I will say in general in the, on how we communicate with space assets. Because right now we are still like in the twenties or thirties of the terrestrial network here because, we had like in the terrestrial side, we had switchboards or manual switchboards right now in most of the cases to use our ground segmented service still like that, that we need to book to specific slots that to talk with a satellite. So I need to check where the satellite will be in a certain place at a certain time, and then book right to check if there is an availability over a specific station and book it. So it’s a lot of manual process that’s, it doesn’t make sense or at least it should not make sense for the evolution of the space.
If we see also historically in the world, as soon as we have, as we had a tech function on how easy we communicate, we had a natural evolution of the system, of the ecosystems in general because we were able to transfer much more information at the, an easier way and at least we really believe that we need to push for that to happen. Also in the space sector, to have a really efficient and effective way of communication that needs to be definitely easy to have. So there’s definitely a lot of space, let’s say, for innovation.
Hywel: Right. Excellent. So the thing here in the model is that the user requires access to their space-based assets at a certain time period with a certain level of data volumes, data quality, that sort of thing. But they are agnostic as to the ground station resources that provide that access and that data and that consistency and security.
Giovanni: Yeah. Yeah, there are different levels and different layers depending on the, let’s say on the ground segment as a service provider. Each provider has a different flavor.
On our side, we try to really abstract as much as possible to what the customer needs to do to interact with the network, to connect with their satellite. So we try to be as transparent as possible. There are different ways, we have seen our, works because we have a growing and ever-growing demand for our services, and we are able to deliver. So we believe that it’s a good way to, let’s say, take out the burden from the customer of certain works.
Okay. Not just economically, but really in terms of workforce and know, how that they need to have internally in companies.
Hywel: Okay. Brilliant. Let’s go into that in a bit more detail. You mentioned that Leaf has really been in, at the forefront of this kind of operator model for a number of years, and you’ve cast quite a wide net over the ground segment as a service industry segment I guess we would call it.
I wondered if you could give us a bit of an overview of how Leaf’s services and solutions can help in saving time and saving costs for space missions.
Giovanni: It also depends on what you compare this our service with, if we compare with how we used to do back in the days. So basically building out dedicated ground segment for a specific mission. What we say is basically that you don’t need to care of procurement of ground station. You don’t need to care of researching for location that have reliable power, reliable connectivity, and reliable. Let’s say men work to actually do maintenance and so on.
You don’t need to allow to do maintenance. You don’t need to ask for licenses. So there is a bunch of work that we take on ourself just because we do, we have our own network and so on. An additional part of the work that we take off from the customer is also on how we deliver data and how we allow these data transfer between the customer and their space asset because we built up a software architecture to abstract this layer to make it really simple, so we don’t need, for example, a single customer to connect to a specific station when they need to communicate their satellite, but they connect to an endpoint and then we send out messages across the network depending on which station is actually in touch with a certain satellite. And this is totally scalable, so you don’t need to rebuild everything from the ground. You don’t need to send hardware all around the ground stations to be sure that the antenna itself is compatible with your satellite. But we developed that baseband processing software on our side. We rely on standards to help on that.
So at the end of the day the advantage for the customer is that they don’t need to think about how to set up a network. They don’t need to think about how to operate a network. They don’t need to think about how to maintain the network, and they don’t need to have a team that stay that is 24×7 looking at maintaining a certain reliability for network.
And in these, in the space ecosystem, on the new space ecosystem, this is really crucial. Because the new space is dominated by startups or scale up. So whatever allows you to get faster to market or faster to revenue generation, the better it is. If you need to build up everything from scratch, it’s a mess.
And I can say that because we did some mess. And It’s always a pain. It’s good for us to do it because we have different customers that know we can. We really reach a point where we can add a customer to the network and it’s trivial for us. But you need, if you need to do everything from scratch for just your mission, it doesn’t make sense.
And also since the rate of innovation technology is so fast, you can launch a mission, have a ground segment that is perfect for that mission and that the following on mission is a totally needs some totally different architecture because of requirements that you didn’t envision before. And this is something that we take into account in our design, in our deployment of the network, of course. But if you need to rebuild a new network for its mission, It’s a lot of money thrown away basically.
Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. And I, I think also the, maybe the competition in the industry is Makes sense. Cause there are aspects of missions that are becoming a bit more commoditized and there are aspects where competition is increasing and therefore teams need to specialize or at least specialize in some aspects of their product or services that they can really be the leaders in. And if the ground station is not the core competency, maybe you should consider whether or not trying to specialize in it is right for your team rather than your payloads or whatever it is.
Giovanni: And now there are a lot of options. Apart us, there is K SAT, there is Atlas, RBC, then, we can have different discussions and all of that. But I think the good thing is that there is a market. Okay? There is a, there is an offer, a differentiated offer also. And if you think just a few years ago there wasn’t such a thing. I understand why companies like, Planet, Spire, they needed to build their own their own network because there was nothing on that and the, it’s also the reason why they build their own satellites. Okay? Right now, the, I believe the new space ecosystem really matured, or the small site ecosystem really matured in such way that there is a value chain. So you can actually take advantage of the competition. Okay. And you can choose whatever suits you better.
And it’s also a push for providers like us to actually always thrive, to provide the best service. So it is definitely, it’s definitely a big step that we have seen in the last five years, I believe more that, there’s also less satellite operators that actually that they have in mind, that of building their own property network. Okay. They don’t even have in mind. They just say, okay, I will get it. There is a commodity. There is also the opposite case where people thinks that there it is, everything is already ready and they can just plug in from one hour to the next one.
It’s not like that unfortunately, especially for licensing. Planning is crucial, but it’s definitely much better than what was back in the days.
Hywel: Excellent. And you mentioned the demand side of it coming from the industry and some of the satellite manufacturers you mentioned there.
Now we’ve seen that sort of the satellite industry is created business opportunities in the NGSO market, the non-geostationary orbits market. What are your thoughts on kind of reducing the investment costs for LEO and MEO, the low earth orbit, middle earth orbit ground stations.
Giovanni: Yeah! It’s definitely part of this business model in general. In fact, you don’t actually if you look at the, at space ecosystem in general, probably you don’t actually reduce the overall investment in the ground segment, but you just divide the single investment of each company to that particular segment.
And this is true up to a certain point. One of the things that we try to do with our software in infrastructure is really to optimize in such a way the network activity such that we can increase what we call the separation of each antenna. So how many contacts per day we can have those antennas because they higher the number of contacts the lower… so the higher the number of contacts, we can actually spread the cost, the fixed cost that we have over. And so the actual lower price for the customer we can have. So I believe the investment for now, it’s basically the same, but what is actually allocated to a single entity, to a single customer is much less.
And what we also try to do and is in general, the business model is. Move between a CapEx centric model to an OPEX centric model. And you know when you have a startup, when you run a new company, you want to have, especially in a financial market that goes like that, you always need to think about how to optimize your cost and of CapEx is CapEx. So once you buy it, you have it. And unless you have another financial route, you cannot change it or you cannot improve it. Opex, it is bad for us, let’s say, but you can switch it on and switch it off if you need it. Also on that side, we try not to tie our customers to specific long-term commitments and so on. We try to tie the customer to us because we have a reliable service and they are thriving in the business, and so they can buy more capacity for us. So let’s also believe, let’s say some. It’s risk management, okay?
We take some risk on our side, but to make it simple for our customers to thrive and so that we have a medium long term return on that. And I believe this kind of thing is right now is definitely, let’s say limited to LEO and MEO and non-GSO in general, but I’m starting to see more of this approach also to higher orbits, bigger satellites and so on. Now, one of the example that we have is that up to last year we were really focused on small satellite, let’s say so up to 400-500 kilograms that were our core thing, and now we are supporting satellites for more than one pound.
So why? Because actually the requirements in some cases from, for the network doesn’t change with mass. Okay? It doesn’t change. If you have a reliable service that is good for what the customer needs. Doesn’t matter if it’s small, doesn’t matter if it’s big, it doesn’t matter if it’s in LEO, doesn’t matter if it’s in a geo transfer and so on.
I believe, there is also a process that is is starting to show off That is basically, I don’t need a network that is specifically designed to the requirements that they have by design the mission to be in line to the network that already exists in not in such order to actually reduce the investment on the space segment.
That’s a new process. Of course, it will take some more time to actually evolve and to, but this is also, I believe is work for our for us and our, and also our competitors too. You know. Communicate much better what we have already, what is actually operating so that the customer can say, look, I spent this. If I take this service and I spend that, if I need to build or I need the provider to build a new network for us, that’s also new, a new thing that we see.
Hywel: Excellent. Yes. So as you mentioned this, those market forces coming into play in Yeah. Both ways, really. The supply forces or, encourages you and other operators to innovate and to provide a great service.
But also this is available to the, for the demand. What can you do with it?
Giovanni: And the nice thing is really that since customers are not and , let’s say spending time, but because they do, they spend time but not excessively spending time on the ground. They can really concentrate on their business.
And I believe that the, for example, the demand that we’re seeing right now in terms of capacity, so traffic, our network it’s also limited to the market that our customer, that our customers have. If you think for example, of earth observation the, there is no mass market right now. Okay.
It’s just government mostly government and some specific applications like insurance and so on. That already makes sense. But there is no a mass market. So if we make it simple for our customers to scale their business as they need, and so they can focus on their business, then their demand will of course it’s medium term, long term, but for us, also when you look at the numbers on the market trends, you say, yes, it’s growing it’s fine, but it doesn’t get the actual potential of eo, for example, that Skyrocket as the consumer market actually buy images, for example, buy analytics and on the same case, like it’s the direct to buyers market, you know that you are open a big chunk of market that you cannot see right now in space.
One thing is good projections or revenue growth. One thing is thinking on every vertical that can actually open up as soon as the business models for our customers actually proven and made reliable. There’s a lot of things going on, I believe.
Hywel: Yeah. Excellent. Actually that leads into our next question, the scalability aspect of the service provided.
I wonder if you could explain the network cloud engine . Because I understand this is how well part of what helps or enables customers to scale, particularly in new space missions or extending new space missions into a service based in LEO whatever it is.
Giovanni: Yeah. Absolutely. So basically the network cloud engine is what makes our network not down. It gives a little bit of intelligence to the network. So it’s basically it’s a set of microservices running in, in the cloud that we use to orchestrate the entire network and the entire activity and provide specific interfaces to our customer. And on the interface specifically, the thing is, customer has one interface. Doesn’t matter how many stations we have on the other side, they just connect to that. So the, let’s say the work of the customers is definitely not leaning with the number of stations that they get access to. So it’s one time, that’s it. Then it’s our, it’s on our side to actually grow the network to keep the demand.
And the other thing is really related to what we discussed before about separation. We need a way to, to be sure that we are running the network in the most efficient way. That’s why. We schedule the entire activity of the network based on customer constraints. So we don’t have customers directly booking on the capacity of the network, but we take constraints like how many passwords per day they want to have their latency requirements, the certain constraint on the link budget that they need to have. And then we optimize it in such a way we can actually run our network at really much higher capacity. Right now we are running the network at around a little bit more than 10,000 passes per month.
So it’s around 340, 350 passes per day on more than 70. I believe now 80 satellites that we’re doing, and we can see already that the separation of the network is starting to grow. Right now, the average separation is around 23%. So we still have 67% of overall capacity that we can locate.
But we have already some stations that were in a really higher separation, like around 60, 65%. There are location of course that works better where we have more customers and so on. So of course that, but the thing is that it is not really left to the bunch of customers to actually up that separation it’s on the network engine to do that.
And also it’s not really. Not even the network of engine is linear, scaled, so linearly with a number of stations. That’s because the architecture of the entire network and the console operation was built to have scalability mind in both sense on our side, more station, more customers, less work to activate new customers or to manage new customers.
And also on customer side, it’s one interface. One set of APIs, of course, we always improve. So there is always some more let’s say some integration work that a customer needs to do if we have a new feature. But that depends on them. So if they want that new feature, they develop the software to have that.
And we have testing environment and so on. Otherwise, they don’t. Yeah, that’s it.
Hywel: Okay. Okay. Brilliant. Thanks for explaining that. It makes a lot of sense and as you said earlier, that the making the experience of that layer of abstraction as pleasant as possible for your users is very important.
Giovanni: It’s all on the customer experience side at the end. The easier it is, the more customers will choose us because it’s easier. And the customer experience, of course, involve the technical side and operations, but it also involves how the pricing is standardized, how the contracts are standardized.
We try to standardize as much as possible, even though we have customers of really different sizes from institutional to commercial or whatever, but we really try to standardize everything. So that at the end it’s really simple for the customer to choose. It is not endless conversation on which price this past will have if I do over a location or if we do over another location, so on.
So it’s really to have the customer experience in buying to try to simplify everything. Of course, there are a lot of things that we need to improve this in general, at least the way started to.
Hywel: Excellent. Following on from that, I think having access to the most advanced ground station, resources that you can for any space mission is obviously gonna provide you with an edge. And you’ve described some of the reasons why regardless of you know, who the provider is, but also it requires time, timely maintenance on, on the part of the ground station. managers. Could you give us a bit of an outlook or maybe example on how the opex can be managed using the ground segment as a service model?
Giovanni: Yeah, it’s really simple based on how we start to it. So for us it is price permitted. That’s it. Depending on the customer, how many satellites they have and so on they do a certain traffic, a certain per day on our network. The OPEX is simple, is X Europe per minute times the number of minutes to use in that specifically.
Instead of having your P and L in the course, 20 lines of different different costs the renting, hosting, hardware, internet connection, maintenance, whatever. For each location, we just have one number and that’s it. Of course, we have also volume discount on the price per minute, so the more traffic is really like internet, the more traffic you do, the lower per minute you pay.
Even the, just the model is the model, is simple because especially when you, maybe on a, when you are on a company that is preoperative stage, you need to build up your business plan. You need to build up your budget. You can take that number. And that’s it. You put it in your budget.
It’s easy, it’s scalable. You don’t need to wait till six months to have a pricing or, and then spend another six months to find out how to optimize that pricing. It’s easy, you put that, you think if it’s good for you, it makes sense for your budget, and then it goes easily like that.
Hywel: Great! Makes sense. Yeah, that was I think covered most of the points I wanted to ask. I just as a final question, I wondered how you saw the adaptability of the space industry with regards to ground segment as a service model. We discussed there’s an impact both ways where the requirements in the industry are affecting why you are developing and how you are changing things, but also the data and the service that you can provide is also, you’ll see in emerging signs that’s changing the mission design. So wonder if you could discuss that a little bit about that in a bit more detail. And also just give us an overview if you are happy to have Leaf Space’s plans and your if they are plans to expand, across the globe and open up new areas or what the, what you’re looking forward to with the development of.
Giovanni: On the first question. So definitely we are seeing much more adaptability from the market on the cancer segment as a service model. But just because it’s more known now as a thing. And and I believe also it, it’s really related to the nature of the customer, and I can make you an example, right?
I know because of this scheduling that we do so that we have the control on the schedule of the network. This was not a concept actually aligned with the general market before, so few years ago. So what we. I will not say maybe the side. I believe we get to that, but we got to that, but not actually the side. But we got to, that was willing to start with specific customer that they were not already operational and grow with them with this model. And at the end of the day they saw the actual advantage of that and they stayed with us also because of this capability. And step by step, we also pushed other, Maybe o other operators maybe that were always, that always have operated with the booking strategy to us to move to this.
Of course by improving how we do the schedule, by improving the number of constraints how we communicate the schedule with our customers and so on. But I believe we had the right customers to start on that were, flexible enough. To actually grow with us so that right now we can push that in the, in the general market.
And of course, there’s adaptability for the market. To us, there is of course a need for us to be a, to adapt with respect to the market, and this is why we always improve the scheduling and the NCS and cloud engine and so on to, to try understand better the business case and use case, constant operations of our customers and to put all them together with an ever-evolving product.
So to try to be, to adapt on that. But we still got response on that for the market and that’s why our work capacity is continuing to grow. And that’s why get into your second question. We need to increase both coverage and capacity. Over our network. As was saying before, we already have some locations where we are not at peak levels in specific hours.
This due to the, let’s say, the SpaceX monopoly on the ride share launches, that goes every time on same orbit. Same. So we have a bunch of capacity over specific algorithm. We can put any more contacts over certain location. And that’s why we are doubling up the capacity on certain locations. Doubling up capacity means easily doubling up the number of tenants per and then of course over specific regional of interest or close to specific regional interest.
The Ukraine invasion of course played a, a pretty big role in the. Let’s say an increase of demand from earth observation operators over specific regions, because of course, the low latency needed to downlink that data. And, with, and with these, there are also, and other examples where it’s not just more capacities near them, among less low latency is also needed and we’re working to expand the network this year and especially the first part of next. To allow that. And also we’re looking to install, maybe we, it’s not public yet but we give definitely much more details in the coming weeks of expanding the network is to higher frequencies.
So right now, the main part of network support, snx band and band activity. We are looking also to k band because we have few customers that are already operating with that and want to expand their coverage. So it’s, it’s always moving. And also, this is a kind of example of how care segment as a service provider can actually be much more flexible than a property network.
Because if we have two free customers requesting ka, we can make the investment to say to for installing those K band capable ground stations. And we sub and we divide the investment over these three customers. Otherwise, if you are just one, you need to build everything by yourself. And and it seems, also with some operators like the first ones, like the ones that have their own array network.
For certain change in technology, they can actually use cancer medical service provider as a buffer. In the meantime that you build up your network because maybe you have a so big constellation that makes sense economically to have a fully integrated, dedicated network. But still you have, you need buffer, especially when you new satellites and so on.
No, there is a bunch of stuff I was saying going on at Leaf. The, we have seen a good growth as we was saying. So last year, we grew in a revenue, I believe around 2.5 times. We expected a year before, and this year is going definitely good on the. So I can give you the numbers because we’re close to the end of March, but basically the numbers of the first quarter are identical to the numbers where it’s a little bit more than the numbers of the first half of last year.
So it’s a growing capacity, we just made the launch vehicles to actually launch in time and satellites to, to work, but after that, we’re good to, grow with that. Yeah, I think.
Hywel: Yeah, I think a lot of people would like those two things as well. So that’s fantastic. Gni, thank you very much for sharing all that. Very open of you to share the plans for LEAF and the things you’re excited about the company’s doing.
So it’s a great place. Wrap up our conversation. Yeah. Really appreciate the insights you’ve given us into the ground segment as a service business model and the drivers behind it and how you see the industry changing and evolving. And I think it’ll be really interesting for all our listeners out there to learn more about this topic.
So thank you.
Giovanni: Yeah. Thanks to you and thanks for us. To meet, as it is always good for me, but in general, to push more and to make some outreach about the ground segment. We’ll see for the future.
Hywel: I think you’re, yeah, you’re working to change that, so that’s great. Exactly. Brilliant. And thank you to all our listeners out there for spending time with us today on the Space Industry Podcast.
As I mentioned, you’ve been listening to Giovanni Pandol from Leaf Space, and we will share some links to Leaf Space company and if you would like to get in touch to discuss more of these topics or find out whether this sort of service could suit your missions to your services or the plans you may have in the future, the company will be more than happy to speak with you and we will share up everything we can there. And obviously if you have any questions on the engineering or procurement side that you might wanna help with, remember SAT Search offers a free service for engineers and for anybody carrying out trade studies or procurement processes in the industry. So we’re more than happy to help you with that.
Would like to thank you again for being here and look out for our next episode of this Space Interview podcast coming soon. Thank you very much everybody.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>The space industry is evolving rapidly, with new technologies and innovative solutions emerging every month in order to cater to the growing (and changing) demands of the market. For business developers, salespeople, and marketers, it is crucial to stay ahead of the curve in this competitive landscape.
One way to achieve this is by leveraging digital marketing strategies that can effectively reach target audiences, generate leads, and drive sales. Here’s a simple introduction to this approach.
From a revenue perspective, digital marketing in the space industry should be approached like any other business development initiative. You need to start by setting out a strategy that covers:
With these in mind, don’t think about digital marketing as something separate from your other sales and business development activities. Instead, simply use digital tools and approaches to complement them.
A good place to start is to consider the digital element of your current sales processes. And trust me – there is a digital element.
We know first-hand that engineers are constantly reviewing supplier websites, datasheets, and other resources in order to do (at least) first order assessments of your space products and services. If these materials aren’t available, up-to-date, and of a reasonable quality, then you might lose prospective sales.
You may primarily win new business in person or over the phone, and you might think that expensive conferences and printed brochures offer the best return on investment – but many of the people you meet are certain to search for you online at some point in the process.
(Note – one simple thing you can do today is to update the copyright year in your website footer, if you have one. It is an easy thing to forget and it might seem trivial – but it is a bit disconcerting for your customers to see “2017” at the bottom of a site on which they were considering starting a six-figure transaction!)
You need to appear credible and legitimate to anyone searching for your business. This is crucial in the space industry, particularly if you aren’t a well-known brand, due to the nature of many applications.
So how do you achieve this? If you have a basic strategy in place and you appreciate the importance of following it, next let’s look at the tactical side of digital marketing in the space industry.
At a very basic level, you can think of digital marketing as matching a message to an audience and then scaling up.
The message is the description of your products and services, or, more specifically;
The description of the benefits that your products or services bring to a key target market + a description of your suitability to provide them (e.g. track record, customer support, financing options etc.)
The audience is your target customer – but there is also some nuance here. For example, the procurement engineer with oversight of the budget might be a different person to the systems engineer performing a trade study. But it is the latter person you need to convince – so that is the one to whom you need to speak.
Scaling up is simply a function of using digital channels. At a conference you can meet maybe 50-100 people a day, for a week (usually more like 2-3 days) for a total of 700 sales conversations maximum. But you’d likely need a holiday after that!
Your website could easily get 700 visitors in one day – maybe every day – without major additional effort in answering their questions. It’s always on and can be viewed at any time (subject to any national restrictions, depending on where you live) – so it needs to do the basic level of work to back up what you say to potential customers and partners in other situations.
To put your strategy into action, set out (or review) your target audience and the messages you want to share with them. Next, let’s take a closer look at the channels available to scale up the communication and build your space business online.
One of the simplest ways to organize a digital strategy is to structure it around the channels you will use to share your key messages. Broadly, there are two main categories of platform; primary and secondary, explained in more detail below:
These are channels on which it is possible to actually make a sale, or at least to definitively initiate a transaction process. These are the online locations where you will be sharing your sales messages and offers, carefully designed to resonate with your target market, and on which they can directly contact you or submit their interest in procuring from you. The main ones are:
Your website – this is the obvious primary channel. You should have detailed information about your products and services, your track record, and any other topic that helps back up the messages to your target market. It should be clear and easy to get in touch with you in order to discuss a potential sale.
Digital marketplaces (such as satsearch) – our marketplace attracts motivated buyers from around the world, from a wide range of companies and organizations. This includes engineers that may not have heard of your brand, procurement managers looking for quotes and proposals on an anonymous basis, and regular users that prefer to carry out multi-vendor comparisons and trade studies before initiating a sales discussion. These are all potential customers that are less likely to find and/or utilize a manufacturer’s own website to become a customer. Find out more here.
Social media – while a lot less likely, it is conceivable that a prospect might approach you directly on a social media channel about a potential sale – particularly on LinkedIn, which has a more professional, business-minded userbase than other platforms. So ensure that any social media accounts you use are up to date and managed as needed.
You make sales on your primary channels, but you need to get people to them in the first place. That’s where secondary channels come in.
There are many different types of secondary channels out there, and it is well beyond the scope of this article to list and give detailed advice on each of them, but here are some of the main ones to consider:
Social media – as mentioned above, active social channels might be a primary channel but are more likely to be used to drive traffic to your website or marketplace listings. Populate your accounts regularly with suitable, valuable content and occasional promotions of your products and services.
Content on third-party sites – create, or participate in, articles, videos, podcasts, and other content pieces that are published on other people’s websites or channels, and that link back to your website or other important pages.
Search engines – you can’t control what search engines show about your business, and for what searches, but you can affect it by utilizing search engine optimization (SEO) best practices. Consider search engines as another way to generate traffic for your primary channels in your digital marketing strategy.
Advertising – although potentially costly, online advertising is a simple way of practically guaranteeing traffic to your primary channels.
It can be very easy to get lost in the weeds when trying to build or evolve approaches to digital marketing in the space economy today. New tactics are launched (and sometimes declared dead) on a daily basis and there is a whole industry out there offering tools, advice, education, and services to help.
So don’t get overwhelmed. The key is to track the important metrics from the very beginning. Your aim should be to make sales – this is business after all – so ensure that you’re tracking what prospects originate from (or make use of) your digital channels. Then get more complex and work out how best to track the behaviors that lead to these engagements.
If you can tweak your approaches based on the data, you have the potential to build an ever more powerful and successful business development machine online.
This introduction to digital marketing in the space industry has explored how you can create a simple strategy to build business online and put it into practice with key messages, for specific target audiences, on primary and secondary channels.
There’s obviously a lot more that goes into this process, and we will discuss many of the topics in more detail in future articles, but hopefully this overview can help you get started and stake your claim in today’s competitive space industry.
Finally, if you’re interested in short-cutting the entire approach, and instead want to tap into existing demand from right across the world, click here to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program.
]]>It features the High Performance Radiators (HiPeR) Flexlinks product, designed and developed by Airbus Defence and Space Netherlands, which has the primary application of ensuring the transfer of heat from an initial to a final point in a space system. It also discusses how engineers can select the right configuration of thermal management system to suit their mission requirements.
The article was developed in collaboration with Airbus Defence and Space Netherlands B.V (Airbus DS NL), a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
In the current age of NewSpace applications, the use of compact satellite components and the demand for high-power systems are both rising. One of the results of these trends is the generation of heat during operations, at higher intensities than have been produced by lower power systems and in smaller physical spaces.
A variety of more advanced payloads, attitude control subsystems, and data processing equipment are also increasingly being used in tighter envelopes. Alongside the greater power requirements these bring, they can also be highly sensitive to thermal variations.
Currently, more than 50% of the power generated in a satellite is converted into heat and this is pushing the industry to rethink, revise, and develop innovative new solutions for thermal system management. To meet this rising demand in the space industry, Airbus DS NL has developed high performance, customizable thermal straps called HiPeR Flexlinks.
The space industry has traditionally relied on large satellites, which are composed of numerous hardware components, for several application areas such as communication, Earth Observation (EO), and navigation.
With the introduction of NewSpace technologies, where small satellites are more widely used, satellite size can be reduced from several tonnes to just a few kilograms. And as component size is shrinking, this has also led to greater innovation in the software segment; ultimately uplifting demand for software-defined satellites.
In this transformation cycle, the heat generated by high-end components can be significant and therefore, thermal management products will be of crucial importance for serving the needs of a variety of space missions.
Space systems consist of a complex nexus of electronics and high-power components which continuously, or intermittently, release heat during the operation of spacecraft. This heat, particularly if concentrated at a single location, can interrupt or cause severe damage to some components, ultimately disrupting the overall operation of the spacecraft.
HiPeR Flexlinks are a unique form of thermal strap that provides a medium to transfer the heat from the source of the application to a heat sink, which further transfers the heat to a radiator or heat pipe line.
The HiPeR Flexlink provides thermal coupling while introducing minimal mechanical coupling between two interface points within the system.
It consists of thin Pyrolytic Graphite (PG) sheets, stacked onto one another, operating as a flexible medium to transfer heat from one point to another. The PG consists of multiple layers of graphitic mono-crystal and its thermal conductivity is 3.5 times higher than copper, as well as 6-10 times higher than aluminum. This makes PG one of the most preferred materials for thermal management of space applications.
In HiPeR Flexlinks stacks of PG sheets include metal plates, allowing the product to also act as a thermal interface with other spacecraft structures. The product is then fitted with two aluminium blocks on the end of the straps to help it attach within the spacecraft. As graphite sheds particles, the product also consists of a layer of cleansleeve which prevents particulate contamination and makes the product suitable for environments and applications requiring a high level of cleanliness.
HiPeR Flexlinks is at TRL9 for GEO, LEO and interplanetary missions, which makes it a market-ready product that can be deployed in a mission with a short throughput time, as per customer requirements.
It also has a wide range of applications which can be used in several space missions such as EO, navigation satellites, science missions, communication satellites, and more. This versatility is very important in today’s industry, as discussed in the next section.
While linking a hot and cold spot, it is important not to introduce extra stiffness between the two interfaces. This is crucial for systems where high pointing accuracies are needed.
In HiPeR Flexlinks the thermal straps’ low stiffness feature prevents the transfer of mechanical loads between hot and cold spots due to displacements at those areas.
Physical flexibility leads to system setup flexibility; the ability to place thermal strap endpoints in a variety of different locations provides satellite designers with a greater number of options to fit systems together.
This in turn leads to operational flexibility. When satellite designers are confident that hot spots can be mitigated, wherever they occur, adaptable hardware and software architectures can be developed that meet a variety of application requirements.
Thermal straps should also be able to be integrated into complex satellite hardware setups in many different ways in order to provide the versatility needed to effectively manage heat during development and operation. The key to this is the level of configuration available, discussed in the next section.
In all space procurement, engineers need to thoroughly research and analyze their mission needs before placing an order for a specific component, or choosing to have a custom solution created if a suitable standard product is unavailable.
With HiPeR Flexlinks customers can select from standard product ranges, but can also choose a specific configuration and further customize per their mission needs. The different integration options available are determined by the endfitting type and orientation of the product. For example, HiPeR Flexlinks are typically integrated in the following ways:
Each of these end fittings have key advantages. Based on the interface area and volume, the end fitting will vary in providing high thermal performance.
Considering the current trend of small satellites, such configuration needs may vary and customers have to create an actionable trade-off between the interface area and volume in order to choose the most suitable end fitting for their mission requirements.
Available configurations also take into account the flexibility stack length, mass, and the operating temperature capability. The stack length varies from 60 to 160 mm, while mass varies from 120 to 420 grams. Considering the thermal performance, the qualified temperature configuration is available between -150 to 70 degree celsius.
These are the key variables that engineers need to consider when assessing the right thermal management components for their system. If needed, a custom solution can be developed to fit the satellite or spacecraft’s particular thermal loads and mechanical interfaces.
It is also important to use all relevant specification and modeling information during design and integration. Building out a flatsat or engineering model of the system with the precise thermal strap arrangement intended for flight will help you to determine how to mitigate any hotspots in order to avoid major hardware, software, or operational changes.
This process relies on access to good documentation. For example, Airbus DS NL provides the following for HiPeR Flexlinks products:
This documentation also provides confidence that the expected thermal performance levels can be reached.
Ultimately, however, the choice of how to manage thermal transfers in a satellite will come down to the overall application, and there are emerging areas in the industry where the process can be very important to ensure mission success.
One of the main reasons that thermal management is important in space applications is instrument precision, as mentioned above. In highly sensitive equipment minute errors or discrepancies in thermal management can create build-ups of heat that can lead to complete mission failure.
This is particularly important in the private sector where mission failure has immediate financial impacts. Given the tight funding landscape, commercial players need to carefully procure components to ensure the long-term success of their business.
Therefore, products such as HiPeR Flexlinks, which offer a wide range of configurations and robust operation in the space environment, are essential for the next generation of space missions.
Advancements in the upstream Earth Observation market, such as more powerful onboard image processing capabilities utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), might potentially increase the chances of more heat being generated in the system.
Similarly, use of optical communications equipment, an area where HiPeR Flexlinks are commonly used by several customers, can also result in an increased power budget for satellite-satellite and satellite-ground communication. And more power means more heat.
Alongside such processes, hotspots can be created in various innovative products and devices – wherever power is high, space is restricted, and/or precision is required.
Some of the missions and projects where HiPeR Flexlinks has been accepted for use include:
As can be seen, effective thermal management is important in a wide range of contexts and equipment as hotspots can occur in all sorts of systems and processes. Managing hotspots can be critical for ensuring mission success, particularly in cases where highly sensitive or power-hungry hardware is used.
The HiPeR Flexlinks portfolio has been developed by Airbus DS NL to provide a complete package of high performance thermal management systems; designed not only to help transport heat but also to bring robustness to missions and enable longer lifetime operations.
The Dutch team has developed the solution based on decades of experience in complex engineering systems and niche research capabilities, in order to try and eliminate even the most minor errors.
The HiPeR Flexlinks product is available through the satsearch platform, to further view the product details and to send any requests for more information, please click here.
]]>This article discusses the issue of space debris, the importance of Space Situational Awareness (SSA), and the automation technologies and services offered by Vyoma GmbH to support space traffic management. Vyoma is a paying participant in the satsearch membership program, with whom this article was developed.
It also provides an outlook on Vyoma’s vision to develop advanced SSA solutions, the current and future technology landscape, and the company’s efforts to contribute towards the sustainability of the European space ecosystem more generally.
The satellite industry’s growth has revolutionized several global sectors, from aviation and shipping to weather forecasts and banking. However, the issue of space sustainability has been largely marginalized for decades. One of the key reasons for this is the lack of regulation and enforcement that has plagued the satellite industry since the 1960s. Moreover, insufficient levels of Space Situational Awareness (SSA) guidelines and the nonexistence of Space Traffic Management (STM) rules have led to some catastrophic accidents in orbit.
Since the Sputnik launch in 1957 the number of assets in space has grown exponentially, with many satellites remaining in orbit at the end of their lifetimes, posing a danger for both new and currently operational missions. Out of the nearly 15,000 satellites mankind has launched to orbit to date, only approximately a third are still active. Additionally, there are currently millions of pieces of space debris orbiting Earth at an average speed of 35,000 kilometers (or 22,000 miles) per hour. Each of them pose a significant risk to space assets, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); “Averaging speeds of 10 km/s (22,000 mph), a 1 centimeter paint fleck is capable of inflicting the same damage as a 550 pound object traveling 60 miles per hour on earth. A 10 centimeter projectile would be comparable to 7 kilograms of TNT.”
Debris poses a threat to the 5,000+ active satellites currently in orbit, which support critical modern communication, commerce, travel, security systems, and research. Today, satellite operators perform on average two collision avoidance maneuvers per satellite per year.
Each avoidance maneuver requires the satellite to stop its services for the duration of the maneuver, which can last from hours to days, ultimately leading to a loss of revenue. The debris also represents a hazard for future space infrastructure in Earth’s orbit, including servicing satellites and space stations, as objects in space can take centuries to decay into Earth’s atmosphere.
Companies such as Vyoma, an SSA solutions provider based in Germany, are developing innovative systems to help satellite operators protect their assets in Earth’s orbit and coordinate satellite traffic. To better understand Vyoma’s service offering, and its importance in the SSA domain, we take a closer look at the company’s vision in the next section.
Vyoma is currently developing a constellation of space-based optical cameras that will track objects in real-time. The tracking data is processed into a timely, accurate, and comprehensive catalog of space objects. With its automation services, Vyoma enables operators to efficiently navigate their satellites in an increasingly crowded environment.
Increasing the completeness and accuracy of space object trajectories brings immediate benefits to satellite operators. On the one hand, it offers greater protection against collisions with objects that today cannot be accounted for, due to their small, yet potentially incapacitating size. On the other hand, higher accuracy translates into better predictions of the actual risk of collision. As such, many events that today cause collision avoidance maneuvers, due to limited access to tracking data, are actually perfectly safe and require no course corrections, ultimately saving operators from loss of revenue.
Vyoma’s vision goes beyond mitigating the threat of space debris. With its understanding of the environment and its dynamics, optimal planning of not only avoidance maneuvers but also regular operations can be achieved and automated. Within the next 5 years, Vyoma will enable satellites to be fully aware of their surroundings, and to autonomously take actionable decisions that support their mission goals, all while considering and negotiating with other active space users.
Today, Vyoma provides SSA services using a global network of ground-based sensors, providing satellite operators access to exclusive observation data. This network will be extended with space-based sensors in the near future, to make highly accurate trajectory predictions.
Protecting space assets from operational risks is becoming increasingly important as the industry grows. With the first paying customers onboarded, Vyoma is targeting a variety of global satellite operators, space reinsurers, defense organizations, and governments across the world. Next, we take a closer look at the company’s specific solutions.
Vyoma’s current network of ground-based sensors can track space objects with sizes of about 30 cm or larger. As the company continues to invest in advanced space-based solutions, it aims to achieve coverage down to 1 cm objects, which can still cause irreparable damage to satellites. Hence, Vyoma’s catalog will exceed the numbers of objects covered in existing catalogs by an order of magnitude.
As Vyoma strengthens its data-generation capabilities, it also plans to build a portfolio of services to offer customers more options to meet their mission requirements. In the list below are the key current and planned services offered by Vyoma to bring greater agility to the SSA domain:
1. On-demand tracking – This service is designed to provide customers with tracking data of space objects of interest, processed from images and other data taken from a global network of sensors (currently ground-based and in the future, space-based). The raw data is also made available to customers on request.
The service – which is fully operational – is geared towards users that want to better understand the domain in which satellites are operating, and to characterize the intent of satellites.
2. Orbit determination – Detecting the location of, and providing precise data on, objects in space is essential for operators to take timely action in response to debris threats. Vyoma’s Orbit Determination Service provides Orbit Data Messages (ODMs) containing the propagated mean state and covariance for 7 to 14 days into the future.
This service is useful for updating information of the objects involved in conjunction events and for rapidly obtaining an initial state of a satellite’s orbit following orbital insertion or a performed maneuver. Today, Vyoma provides ODMs on a per-request basis, and the service will be fully integrated into the On-Demand Tracking service by Q2 2023.
3. Collision avoidance: The growth in satellite constellation deployment has increased the probability of collisions. To meet the rising demand for assessing conjunction events Vyoma’s Collision Avoidance service is specially designed for operators of satellite constellations but is equally relevant for those operating single satellites.
The service is segmented into three levels, of which the Monitor service is free of charge:
The basic level of the Collision Avoidance Service is operational, with the subsequent levels being gradually introduced over the coming months up to being fully operational in Q3 2023.
Currently, Europe largely depends on the United States Space Force 18th Space Defence Squadron (18 SDS) to obtain orbital information about debris objects. Hence, there is significant interest in Europe to enhance data sovereignty and become less reliant on non-EU data.
Both the European Commission (EC) and the European Space Agency (ESA) have expressed an interest in deploying a European-led satellite constellation dedicated to debris tracking and orbit determination. Vyoma, with its head-start in this field, aims to be a major stakeholder in making this vision a reality.
Ultimately, Vyoma intends to support Europe in establishing itself at the forefront of space traffic management. Its data and services will advance the strengthening of Europe’s data sovereignty, safeguarding satellites, and contribute to the future of both the space economy and the setting of new standards for improved policymaking.
In a fast-changing world, we need expert and dynamic teams that can pave the way in tackling humanity’s most pressing challenges, whether it is space sustainability or climate change.
With the space economy expected to be valued at US $10 trillion by 2030, and with 8 billion people on the planet relying on aspects of space-based services every day, it is evident that keeping space-based services up and running is in the interest of individuals, governments, and the private sector.
As a company that prides itself on being active in the field of space sustainability, it is important to highlight that there are secondary positive effects for domains such as climate monitoring, food production, and agriculture, from Vyoma enabling safe passage of satellites in orbit and ensuring that these services remain online and accessible for the millions of farmers around the world.
This protects poorer communities from climate disasters, helping to secure fast emergency responses without any interruptions, ultimately preventing the loss of human lives.
To find out more about Vyoma, please view their supplier hub here on satsearch.
Alén Space is a small satellite product manufacturer and service provider based in Spain. In this podcast, we discuss:
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody and welcome to today’s episode of The Space Industry Podcast. In today’s episode, we are speaking with Maria Marante from Alén Space.
Alén Space is a new space company based in Spain, working on various different aspects of nanosatellite equipment and space missions, and we’ll hopefully discuss some of those today. But in the main today, we are gonna discuss, the advantages of sort of new forms of communication, payloads that are cropping up, that are becoming possible with the innovation in the sector in order to meet the challenges of modern space missions of today’s space missions.
So great to have you with us here, Maria. Thank you very much for being here. Is there anything you’d like to add to that little introduction?
Maria: Thank you. Hywel for having us here and let’s get to the topic.
Hywel: Okay. Absolutely. Before taking a bit of a deep dive into the communications payloads and the technical aspects of these things, I wondered if you could describe for us some of the major trends in communication payloads that, that you are seeing, that you’ve worked on, perhaps, and how their application in new space in space has been evolving over over the last few years.
Maria: Yes, sure. As we all know, over the past years, satellite communication has experienced an unstoppable revolution that has led to considerable market growth, mainly due to the change of philosophy on the development of the payloads. Up until a few years ago, these communication payloads were based on redundant analog components, which in case of failure, required circuitry reconfiguration.
As you might understand, this was costly, both in terms of time and service performance as it was a huge task. So with the introduction of software defined radios, a new paradigm in the design of communication payloads was presented, and it offered a way to launch the configurable satellite radio systems that could be also adaptable to the increase in market demands.
One of these demands, for example, for satellite communication and in line with one communication would be the development of infrastructures that are capable of exchanging large amounts of data. One would think that, for example, applications for earth observation, such as imaging, will constantly demand higher bandwidths and data rates for downloading as much information and details as possible.
This is the main reason why we are seeing a trend in cubesats to use higher frequencies evolving from the traditional VHF and UHF bands to S, X and even Ku frequency bands.
Hywel: That’s definitely something we’re seeing in the market. Absolutely.
Maria: Yeah. And this data rate increases will also need the development of new processing modulation and coding techniques as well as the design implementation and demonstration of new technologies, which are definitely going to bring new challenges to this space and the communication sector. Besides, in communication, there are also applications related to sensing, which are becoming more and more sophisticated. In this case, SDRs are used to passively collect the radio signals from Earth apart from scanning signals such as AIS or ADS-B for traffic control.
Current trend you are seeing is signal intelligence, which demands a wider bandwidth reception to gather and intercept a bigger amount of signals and monitor the spectrum. These payloads need plenty of onboard processing capabilities to analyze the gathered information with new techniques, such as machine learning, for instance, and they download only the relevant data, which lowers the requirements for downlink data rates and bandwidth of the machines.
But moreover, another growing field of application is related to navigation and transport control systems such as air or maritime traffic control. These navigation applications, they tend to be challenging for communications, and we use them as an example of the upcoming requirements of failures such as reliability on the data exchange with the ground accuracy, with time and position, secure communications, et cetera. All of these and surely more to come, are also changing the paradigm of space missions themselves and eventually of the payloads. Most modern missions designs are based on constellations of satellites, which will need inter satellite communication to be able to fly information.
This does not only require high processing capabilities and algorithms and so on, but the integration of higher number of antennas and frequencies to support this inter satellite communication and ground communication that will also influence the respective performance of SDR platform. These are just some examples of the trends you are perceiving in the market.
But, As we know, the potential of satellite communication is huge, and hopefully we will see many other applications in a short time.
Hywel: Thank you. That was, quite an overview. You’ve, you’ve prepared quite a lot there. That’s great. Thank you. Really interesting to see, to understand the difference in requirements from contrasting signals intelligence to some of the vehicle tracking and things that you mentioned, and using the requirements of the industry at AIS ADS level to drive what you think the upcoming requirements are gonna be on communications payloads from space. Very, yeah. Very interesting. And um, you mentioned there as well the importance of the software defined concept. And this is something we, we’ve seen, we’ve discussed with some of our guests on the podcast and in our articles, this very, very interesting shift. You use the word paradigm a couple of times. I think that’s very important. This idea of seeing a satellite as a system that produces a result as opposed to a set of Hardware that is individually important or interesting because of the hardware itself. That’s not the way we approach our personal computers, for example.
It’s all about the software that we put on them. I know Alén Space is invested in developing an SDR, the radio. I wonder if you could give an overview beyond why you’ve already mentioned of how SDRs are being leveraged in the industry today.
Maria: Yeah. Yes. Alén Space has been developing and commercializing software defined radios for a long time
And there are many uses of SDRs in the industry from satellites to ground stations, and the advantages of these kind of radios can be seen everywhere in the communication chain. On the space side, the flexibility of SDRs provides a wide variety of resources for satellites, and it allows the industry to think of new and multiple applications.
Some SDRs can be used for receiving and computing signals for earth sciences and signal monitoring, for instance, and others are used for inter satellite high data rate downlink and DTC communication. Their unique flexibility allows the upgrade of software modems, which can improve the protocols, the efficiency of the communication, or even evolve the original mission with upgraded payloads in existing satellites.
This is more and more important every day as the spectrum is increasingly crowded, so adaptability is becoming a basic requirement. Additionally, having the opportunity to develop and simulate new applications and then upload them to the satellite and test in real space is great advantage. Then, on the ground site during ground station infrastructures, they use SDRs to provide the service with multiple frequencies and channels, these SDR based ground stations, they are also capable of processing the downlink and uplink data that comes from both the satellites and the end user, and additionally in the ground as well SDRs are presented as an alternative to the traditional radio systems offering great advantages in terms of upgradeability as well with minor hardware and software upgrades new capabilities can be unlocked in an existing ground station, new protocols data rates, modern configurations, et cetera. And this agile environment reduces the costs of implementing and integrating new sports in the communication system.
Hywel: Brilliant. And for the ground station operators, obviously future proofs aspect of their missions as well. So yeah, it’s really interesting to focus on or to, not to focus, but that you discussed the ground segment. I think that’s really key in this discussion, that the value and the capabilities of any software service Is only realized once the, in most cases, is only realized once the data is being used on the ground for different applications. And so the ability to adapt to what’s being received from space to the requirements of the ground terrestrial end users is very important. So thanks for, yeah, for covering that.
And yeah, I think, as I mentioned, this is a really interesting area. The software defined concept as you touched on, as you’ve mentioned, is also software redefined. If you can change the, the scope of the mission, the primary focus, indeed other aspects of it for increased reliability and everything, but it’ll come down to what customization options are actually available for mission designers.
So yeah, when they are evaluating, SDRs as an example versus different alternative communication options, what customization options are typically available to them.
Maria: Yeah, nowadays, and luckily there are plenty of customization options available in market and even new trends are coming, such as optical communication that are opening new possibilities in this field.
But we’ll focus on the different options that video frequency technology provides for space communication as it is the most mature and flexible and accessible technology for now. First of all, mission designers need to study the kind of signal they would like to work with. And take into account its frequency, bandwidth, et cetera, to check that the data processing they like to achieve is possible with the SDR.
Then another important early decision for designers is the communications came of the solution, and this is critical to complete the communication system design. Why is that? This is due to the fact that other hardware and analog components such as radio front ends and antennas, Which also have limitations in terms of frequencies and bandwidth.
They rely on this selection. For instance, half duplex or full duplex schemas, or even if we consider a system with micro antennas, will require the use of one or another RF chain that will also need to be compatible with SDR capabilities. And of course, from a system level, it is crucial to check the integration with other subsystems.
Designers need to make sure that the type of interfaces and protocols are also compatible in order to connect all the subsystems and ensure beforehand that no speed, no memory, and no other kind of bottlenecks will be found between them . And finally, they also have to take into account what level of performance they expect from the SDR solution.
For instance, our SDR platforms at an end space are designed according to two architectures. The first one is a monolithic architecture, which combines one processing element, a typically a system on a chip with one transceiver all in the same model. And the second one is a modular design, and this is the architecture we used in our new SDR platform, TREVO, which separates an independent modules, the processing unit and a transceiver.
While the first approach the monolithic architecture might be enough for a lot of users, and it is still a more than valid option. This new model architecture unlocks the possibility of selecting and customizing the SDR platforms in terms of processing units and video channel capabilities for those applications that require higher or particular performances.
Of course, these extra capabilities do not come for free and other requirements, eh, other requirements need to be taken into consideration such as power consumption, for instance, as in every engineering solution, most decisions are based on the trade off, and a lot of factors are eventually key to the site.
Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. I think I say this on most of my podcast episodes. Tradeoffs are so important. Should have a bingo card at some point. The trade, the term tradeoff needs to be mentioned because yeah, as you mentioned, enabling these high level communications capabilities is gonna come with power requirement, maybe additional mass, et cetera.
So that’s the, that’s really interesting. So there, there are lots of opportunities open to mission designers. In order to, to be able to customize and adapt the systems that are out there to their specific needs. And can to follow up on that, really, can customizable software-defined radios enable users to produce their own SDR solution that suits and optimizes the emission communication requirements?
Maria: Yeah, sure. And that is one of the most attractive characteristic of SDRs, and it is a potential for customers to build their own radio system by software. Or in other words, developers can implement by means of software, all the conventional hardware blocks of the radio system, and as this is basically an application, as we said before, they can update it if necessary.
For example, if feedback is detected or the performance has to be increased. This offers huge flexibility and insurance as well, and also allows the implementation of different radio system architectures in just one same platform. But yeah, indeed. Apart from that, and in terms of hardware customizable and modular SDRs like TREVO offer huge flexibility by design.
The hardware configuration and electronics can be adapted to each mission, and most importantly, without extending the production time of the equipment. These customizations are, of course, based on the requirements of the mission and are basically related to the processing and frequency performance. For example, as we all know, SDR solutions are broadly divided in two basic parts.
The first one is the processing equipment whose score is formed by a system on a chip contained in the CPU and the FPGA. These two are both responsible for running the application itself, however, some of these processing tasks might require to be implemented in one or another. For example, the CPU offers more versatility and is destining to run general computing apps, whereas FPGAs show better performance and lower latencies as they allow the programming we know in the cell level of the most appropriate logic blocks for each task, and they accelerate and reduce the processing time of these tasks.
That being said, modular SDRs and specifically TREVO, allow the customer to select from a list of options, the number of system on chips to include in the SDR solution. This offers great flexibility while saving precious space in the satellite. For example, an extra model for processing can be used to boost the total processing capacity of the SDR
or use it as physical redundancy or even have two independent payloads in the same board, compacting in just one subsystem, multiple applications, and back to the parts of an SDR solution. They also require the existence of transceivers to receive and transmit signals, converting them into processlble frequencies and transforming analog information into digital samples and vice versa.
Depending on the mission, the number of channels for reception and transmission increases and more than one transceiver is required. This happens, for instance, in multi frequency or MIMO applications where radio requirements are demanding and the possibility of adjusting this number of transceivers is crucial for designers and customizable SDRs indeed allow these radio adjustments and for example, Our TREVO is in particular, is capable of integrating up to three transceivers and it provides up to nine reception and six transmission channels.
Hywel: Excellent. Okay. There, that makes sense. And. Yeah, flexibility in the mission requires, as you say, flexibility in the hardware. And that doesn’t that, that, that may come with additional modules and transceivers and requirements, but the value that’s provided is the scales with that. So that’s really useful.
Thank you. Obviously, a Alén Space is, I’m not quite sure how many people you are in the company.
Maria: At least, if I’m not wrong. We are 35. Almost 40. Yeah.
Hywel: Yeah. Not a small company for space, but not one of the larger firms. And in your area, there are, in your, the area where you are competing, there are some, some larger companies who are looking at this area. So what opportunities do you see for teams like yourselves who are outside of the traditional large players in. In the, particularly in the FPGA and system on a chip area of the market in the space industry.
Maria: Actually Alén Space was not conceived to compete with the traditional large players in the system on a chip market, although we have strong heritage in the field of communications and it is reflected in the products and subsistence we manufacture like SDR payloads and frontends.
We do not aim to compete with traditional manufacturers as we do not design the chips. We integrate them and we do the same with complete satellites. In fact, our objective has always been to build new space missions and provide small satellite turnkey solutions, offering the space as a feasible option for everyone.
And, coming back to our communication expertise, we also aim to be at the forefront for new emerging technologies and actively participate in the creation of new protocols that can comply with innovations in an agile way of new space. And from a more human point of view, we are lucky to have a multidisciplinary team, With great professionals from different technical backgrounds, that work side by side every day created wonderful synergies between us throughout all the phases of the mission.
We consider this as a huge strength of our team as this allows us to respond quickly to the market demands, adapting our designs. And providing as many customized solutions as possible for satellites and payloads in record time. That was also the mantra for designing TREVO, our new SDR platform. We wanted to port the philosophy that defines our team, that versatility to a product that we design, a powerful and flexible communication platform with the purpose of responding as precisely and as quickly as possible to the new challenges of the industry.
Hywel: Excellent. Yeah, very interesting. Talk about the multidisciplinary nature of the team, obviously. If you’re providing versatility, flexibility to your customers, having people with different experiences is vital to that. And you mentioned the ground and the space side of things and so, yeah, and I can see that’s a really interesting place to work.
So great. Thank you for that. And yeah, you mentioned there at the end, the emerging. Needs and requirements of the people in the industry, how you’re trying to respond to that. So I wondered, just as a final question, because I, I think I’ve covered everything I wanted to ask today, but how do you see the new space market responding to these innovations that are being released or are soon to be released in software defined radios either.Either as payloads or as see equipment.
Maria: This is a very good and interesting question. From our experience, we feel that the new space market has embraced this new line of products and innovations from the beginning. Alén Space has always bet on SDRs as we have always. Considered this technology is a powerful and flexible solution for communications.
And moreover, I think not just us, but all the companies in this sector, we have managed to demonstrate the value, the feasibility. And the advantages of these innovations, this technology has the potential to bring to the space domain new types of applications that have been before reserved to the ground, for example, 5G, and with enough flexibility and cost effectiveness to enable new services to make use of the space infrastructure.
We are also proud to say that most of our products have already been successfully launched from SDRs to payloads, such as IoT, AIS, ADS-B, and also DTC Solutions, while other more innovative solutions such as TREVO will fly soon this year. This is proof that the new space sector is also betting on these innovations as the results up until now have been more than satisfied, and the potential and capacity of these kind of products is undeniable. And finally, with constellations and the kind of missions that are expected to come, we think that enhancing these products, offering flexibility and moreover offering customers platforms that are robust and customizable is key in this sector.
We know that for them it is important to have a solid and safe ground base in which to implement the applications, which are, as we have seen before, more and more complex and autonomous every day.
Hywel: Excellent. Thank you very much, Maria. I think that’s a great place to, for us to wrap up. You covered many aspects of the, the advantages of different, new, more flexible, adaptable software defined communication payloads with the emerging challenges of the missions and the service level expectations of today’s clients in the space industry. Customizable SDR designs are obviously gonna continue to play a big role in some of these, some of the missions that we’re seeing coming down the pipe and some of the services that are developed, if not, lots of them, Most of them. LEO communication missions are becoming more complex, and I think you mentioned some of the many reasons why the expected levels of performance, the congested areas of the spectrum and the different requirements in different industries that are expected, and then the versatility and adaptability that’s, that’s end users and or people in the middle are expecting with changing conditions.
There’s sorts of solutions you’ve described today. Very interesting. And it is great to, yeah, great to hear from you and hear what Alén Space is doing to work on these specific problems. So thank you very much for sharing those insights with our listeners today.
Maria: Thank you for having us here. It was our pleasure.
Hywel: Great. Thank you. And to all our listeners out there, thank you very much for, uh, spending time with us today on the Space Industry Podcast. I think, like I said, Maria shared some great insights that. Can teach you a lot about how the Software Defined Radio area is evolving and the other aspects of a space’s work are progressing.
If you’d like to find out more about the company, you can do so at the company’s website and also on the satsearch platform. You can request any further information on the products that have been discussed today, or even, of course, the products and services. The company Alén Space offers outside of what’s discussed today completely for free, and we are more than happy to connect you with the company to pass on any information or requirements you may have.
So thanks again for being with us today.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Please note this is a fast-moving industry segment and we will be keeping this article up to date when new products come to market, or older sysems become obsolete.
Microsatellite platforms are pre-designed satellite systems featuring various subsystems, structural elements, and electronics to enable primary payloads to be integrated faster and with greater ease than creating a completely bespoke system.
They are often also referred to as buses and can bring various interesting new capabilities to engineers developing microsat missions and services.
There is significant variation in the masses and volumes of microsatellite platforms available on the market. You should carefully consider the performance and redundancy requirements of your mission or service against the cost of a larger system, to assess the overall potential return on investment (RoI) that is expected.
In addition, every mission team has a different set of specialist skills, so it is important to determine what sort of integration, calibration, and testing requirements each microsat platform has in order to determine the best system for your needs.
Aside from these characteristics, here are some of the other factors that need to be considered when selecting the right microsat bus for your needs:
Microsatellite payloads and technologies are bringing some powerful new capabilities to many different segments of the space industry. Utilizing a pre-integrated (and often pre-qualified) platform could be the ideal choice to accelerate the development of your mission.
You can find more such advice, as well as details on both microsat and CubeSat platforms, in this article. In the next section we share information on variety of microsatellite platforms on the market.
In the list below we have rounded up a range of commercially-available microsatellite platforms from suppliers around the world. This list will be updated over time when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Please note that we will be keeping this page updated with changes to the marketplace, so please consider bookmarking the page for the future.
CubeSat buses and CubeSat platforms are becoming increasingly viable options in the space industry. A CubeSat platform includes various components, connections, resources and subsystems needed to provide basic operations, and available volume and power budget for the primary and supporting payloads.
There are many aspects to selecting the right CubeSat platform to form the backbone of a new satellite, for example;
Size – in general, the larger the satellite, the greater the performance that can be achieved, and the simpler the engineering and testing will be. But bigger systems will typically cost more than smaller ones, so this is a trade-off for each mission.
Included technologies – the pre-integrated subsystems, interfaces, and other components in the bus can help you determine the best fit for your mission. Consider your entire mission plan and target service level, as well as the hardware you have already developed or planned, when deciding which platform setup and contents best meet your needs.
Technology heritage – in most cases, a commercially-available CubeSat bus has a high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and the heritage data will be available, in some form, for your review. But there might be opportunities to negotiate favorable terms for unproven systems, if you’re happy to take on the risk of course!
Qualification and compliance – ensure that you understand what aspects of compliance and licensing are your responsibility and what will be handled by the CubeSat platform manufacturer. The regulatory burden each stakeholder takes on might affect your supplier decision.
Vendor fit – as far as possible, you need to ensure that you’ll have a good working relationship with the bus supplier. Factor this in to your decision and try to determine how well you might collaborate during the initial sales process.
More information on the factors that need to weighed up in a satellite platform decision can be found in this article, along with details of microsatellite platforms available on the global space marketplace. In the following section you can find details of various commercially-available CubeSat platforms, organized by form factor.
If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to see the product listings, the links below will take you to categories of platforms arranged by form factor.
Please note that this is a rapidly-evolving segment of the industry and we will be keeping this article up to date when new products come to market, or old ones are made obsolete.
Satellite buses and platforms are essentially readymade systems for transporting and operating primary payloads in orbit. They typically feature a set of subsystems, power resources, connections and structural architecture to perform the basic functions of a satellite, once the primary payload and supporting systems are integrated.
The terms “satellite bus” and “satellite platform” are often used interchangeably. Traditionally, the term “bus” was often used to refer to the part of the spacecraft which actually enabled the payload.
The term “platform” seems to have come more into common nomenclature to describe the handling of the payload integration, involving manufacturers in more of the overall mission. In practice you’ll see both terms used to refer to the same system.
A mission designer looking to launch a new satellite might consider utilizing pre-designed platforms or buses in order to accelerate development. With such a system there is usually no need to acquire, integrate, and calibrate the basic architecture of a satellite, which enables engineers to focus on higher level goals, such as refining the mission plans or improving the proprietary payloads.
In recent years the number of successful CubeSat and microsat missions has provided flight heritage for an array of subsystems and components for manufacturers across the world. This has enabled several manufacturers to bring new, flight-proven manufacturers to the market, giving engineers more choices; driving down costs and increasing performance levels.
However, the greater diversity in the market also means that engineers need to weigh up a lot more factors to determine the best fit for their needs. We take a look at some of these in the next section.
The selection of a satellite platform is one of the most fundamental hardware choices in a space mission. It dictates the overall Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) budget range available for the rest of the setup and has knock-on effects on all other aspects of the mission design.
Here are some of the key criteria to weight up when selecting a microsatellite or CubeSat platform:
Do-it-yourself (DIY) vs. pre-designed bus – firstly you need to determine whether a platform is actually right for your mission. The alternative is to build and/or purchase all of the elements present in a bus and then integrate and test these yourself.
There are many factors at play when making this choice. For example, if your goal is to build engineering capacity at your organization, a pre-built platform might not be for you. On the other hand, as is the case with many new space-based services; if your aims are to achieve a certain level of performance and reliability, and you’re agnostic to the technology that achieves it, a pre-qualified bus could be the best choice for you.
Form factor – the physical dimensions of the satellite is a very important consideration and will define the limitations on many of the subsystems you are able to use. The most important part of this decision is to again consider the service or performance levels that you wish to achieve and the mission plan that will be developed to do so.
Making decisions based on what your intended outcomes are, including the expected return on investment (RoI) for the mission, is going to determine what size of satellite should be used. There are many aspects of this decision, from primary payload dimensions to financial budget, but the important thing is to accurately assess the range of satellite platform form factors on the market to make the best choice for your mission goals.
Launch and deployment options – in the last 10 years microsat and CubeSat options have had a major impact on the market. The options for launching and deploying a nanosat or microsat are now well-developed, and shouldn’t be a major issue for professional missions.
Cost and availability will always be an issue, however, this is more of a mission planning consideration rather than a significant determining factor for the size or structure of the platform you may use.
Supplier restrictions and standards – as with any mission choice your platform decision also needs to take into account any limitations you (or your collaborators) may have on importing from certain countries and territories.
In addition, if your technology has military or other sensitive applications and/or requires particular enabling subsystems that need to adhere to certain standards or regulations, this might dictate which platforms on the market are available for you to use.
Supplier heritage and fit – finally, alongside the technical considerations and data analysis that needs to be carried out in order to pick the right platform, you also need to consider the expertise of the team you’ll be working with.
A satellite platform is a complex piece of equipment that will usually require a lot of collaboration with the manufacturer. You need to make sure that team you’ll be working with are experienced and flexible enough to meet your needs.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t consider platforms with little or no flight heritage, as it might be possible to negotiate more favourable contract terms in these cases. You may be able to develop closer working partnerships with newer teams as you will be taking on more risk. On the other hand, you might decide that well-established suppliers, with products that have significant operational heritage, are a safer bet.
Ensure that you try to assess how well you would work with the supplier in your project as part of the procurement process.
In the following sections we share details of a variety of commercially-available microsatellite and CubeSat platforms on the space market, organized by form factor.
Smaller form factor CubeSats have some obvious limitations on primary payload size, volume budget for supporting subsystems, and mission plans. However, recent advances in miniaturization across the industry means that it is possible to develop relatively powerful and advanced satellites in volumes of 3U or less.
6U CubeSats typically feature one primary payload and are sometimes used as the standard system for a constellation. 6U CubeSats have also been designed for lunar missions and other exploratory projects – for example, the satellite that captured imagery of NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) system impacting the Dimorphos asteroid in 2022 was a 6U CubeSat called the Light Italian CubeSat for Imaging Asteroids or LICIACube.
8-12U CubeSats can feature powerful primary payloads, such as optical Earth Observation (EO) systems with reasonably large apertures. Satellites with this volume are capable of many different mission applications, solo or in constellation, due to the array of subsystems and capabilities available on the modern market.
Satellites with volumes of 16U are typically more powerful and versatile versions of 12U systems. They often also have enough available space for redundancies or additional capacity (e.g. spare propulsion propellant in case unplanned maneuvers are required or deployable systems that are ancillary to the main mission objectives).
Alongside standardized buses in the form factor categories listed above, some companies also offer platforms in a variety of size and/or classify them by weight instead.
Microsatellites can offer very high levels of performance, reliability, versatility, and redundancy. Although they may be costlier to build and launch compared to smaller CubeSats, the quality, consistency, and volume of data that may be collected can provide a higher return on investment (RoI) for some missions and services.
It discusses what the technology is used for and how to make the best choice for your space hardware testing, before giving an overview of the commercially-available products on the market today.
If you’re familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
Thermal Vacuum Chamber, or TVACs, are vitally important in the development of any space mission or service. The environment of space is harsh and requires hardware capable of withstanding extremely low pressures and a wide temperature range, when launch is factored in.
Space missions are also highly risky and often require significant amounts of pre-launch testing and validation in order to satisfy regulatory compliance and mission planning criteria, insurance considerations, and other such criteria.
Thermal vacuum qualification enables teams to identify systems, components, interfaces, or other design issues that need to be updated or changed before launch. This can save engineering time, and cost, as well as de-risk aspcects of the mission. TVAC analysis is typically mandatory for launch vehicle operators, rideshare partners, agency programmes, and upstream clients.
A Thermal Vacuum Chamber simulates some of the environmental conditions of space, but without us needing to leave the planet.
It removes air, creating a vacuum of around 1×10^(−6) mbar or lower, and also enables thermal cycling across a wide temperature range, often around -180ºC to +300ºC, or higher.
You might need TVAC testing as part of the development of a new commercial subsystem, for an entire satellite, or for the ongoing validation of different component setups.
There are different chamber setups and sizes available depending on your requirements, as well as different testing approaches to use.
When selecting any piece of technology for a space mission it is important to be aware of costs, lead times, integration and testing requirements, as well as the physical requirements of your system.
In addition, here are some of the key performance criteria to consider when assessing TVAC testing options for your mission or service:
In the list below we have rounded up a range of commercially-available thermal vacuum chamber products and services for space missions. This list will be updated over time when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying an optical payload for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>This article is produced in collaboration with Australian space sensor solution provider Infinity Avionics (IA), a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
Footage of the International Space Station (ISS), satellites, landers, and rovers taken in orbit or on other celestial bodies are visual proof of the billions of dollars spent in the space industry. But acquiring such data about in-space processes or assets has been a complex and expensive task.
When you see a video recorded and sent by a rover of its landing on a Martian soil, the impact is compelling. Likewise, footage of an astronaut on a space walk outside of the huge facility orbiting Earth that is the ISS can be inspirational to every person on the planet. And they can also be very useful at the same time.
For example, below is a video posted by NASA a few years ago recorded by NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson during a spacewalk on the ISS on Thursday, March 30, 2017. The video has around 4 million views and 40,000 likes on YouTube, making it a great communications asset for NASA.
But if you watch carefully, at around the 6th minute you will see that one of the shields slipped away from the astronaut during installation.
This footage is also critical visual aid for understanding and analyzing what went wrong during the installation and why the shield slipped away. If this had not been recorded or been an autonomous system, rather than a person, we may never have known the exact cause of the issue if such visual feedback wasn’t present.
A single piece of footage, or even a series of still images, taken in space can be powerful and have multiple uses. The growing integration of, and reliance on, advanced space services and subsystems, combined with their miniaturization in today’s missions, makes it possible to obtain such visual data of in-orbit assets.
There are many risks and opportunities in space that can be addressed by such visual feedback. In the next section we take a close look at some of these.
Currently, there are only limited methods available for visually monitoring assets in space. And such assets are subjected to varying radiation and thermal loads, physical pressures, and structural changes throughout launch, deployment, and operational phases.
These technical challenges demand systems with a variety of in-built health monitoring capabilities.
Therefore, visually assessing technologies such as deployable solar panels, radiators, and cameras, satellite deployers and dispensers, rocket fairing deployments, battery jettisons, and other such processes can provide mission operators with a wealth of information.
Below is a screenshot of the video footage of Expedition 68 showing NASA’s SpaceX Crew-5, from the 5th of October 2022. You can see how the nozzle is lit up differently as the velocity increases. This visualization can aid engineers in understanding how a product works in space over time and is affected by the environment, changing mission parameters, and other factors.
Image credit: Expedition 68 – NASA’s SpaceX Crew-5 Flight Day 1 Highlights – Oct. 5, 2022
Such footage and imagery also has a role in marketing. Being able to demonstrate mission success and create engaging content for use online helps space companies tell more sophisticated and compelling stories about their work.
Space applications are fundamentally quite difficult to visualize and appreciate, particularly when smaller assets, such as CubeSats, are in use. The lack of light, the distances involved, the lack of moving parts, and the complexity of both the technologies in use and the ability to downlink information about their operation, all make it hard for non-specialists to fully grasp the scale of a mission.
In engineering and design processes this is addressed with simulation, but this too has its limits, and can be complemented significantly by visual feedback. For example, below are two screenshots from a video streamed by NASA of the Artemis I Close Flyby of the Moon. The first image is from the video recorded in space by an onboard camera and the second is a simulated animation driven by the spacecraft’s telemetry data.
Image credit: Artemis I Close Flyby of the Moon
Although the simulated version shows the primary details, the actual video feedback also shows the mechanical structures and external systems of the Orion spacecraft as they are actually deployed at the time of capture, illuminated by sunlight.
Employing visual imagery along with simulations gives an extra dimension to the amount and quality of information that can be captured for a mission in progress. Whether this is then used for marketing, education and training, troubleshooting, historical record, or other purposes is down to the creativity and strategic objectives of the mission designers.
In the next section, we discuss how visual feedback has also been used in post-failure analysis of a mission and the potential opportunities areas where it could be used in the future.
As has been shown, visual footage and imagery provides real-time (subject to downlinking windows) and reliable preliminary information about the status of a system that can be used to fast-track time-consuming troubleshooting or post-mission analysis.
Throughout the history of the space industry there have been many incidences where a satellite or a space asset has stopped working, partially or fully, due to technical error. For smaller satellites in particular the rate of systems that never return an operable signal following launch (i.e. known as being ‘dead on arrival’) is often quoted as around 15-25% and in many of those cases (potentially up to a third) the reason for the failure is forever unknown.
Obviously, in virtually all such cases it is not possible to retrieve, process, or analyze the telemetry or monitoring data following a failure. And even when partial data is available it can take weeks or months to understand the cause, requiring significant manpower and resources.
It may be possible, in some of these failure analyses, to get some of the preliminary information through visual feedback, possibly even before analyzing other telemetry data. This preliminary information can provide a starting point for a more focused analysis of telemetry and other system data.
For example, Astra’s two-stage Launch Vehicle 0008 (LV0008) lifted off on February 10, 2022 resulting in a failure costing two customer satellites. Footage from the camera mounted on the rocket showed the upper stage began to tumble and shortly after, the rocket was lost. The video footage can be found on Astra’s website.
Another example of a situation where video feedback would be highly beneficial is in space debris monitoring around a specific space asset for collision avoidance or other mitigation processes.
In March 2022, there was news about the breakup of Yunhai 1-02 due to a space debris collision. But it was not until a series of intense analyses were carried out that the cause was found. Imagine in such scenarios how helpful it would be if the satellite was equipped with an external camera to monitor its vicinity.
The concept of monitoring the health of a system through visual inspection is not new and it is also being extensively researched, developed, and adopted in the aerospace industry. Combined with advancements in computer vision and AI, there are developing fields such as ‘Intelligent Prognostic Health Maintenance (PHM)’ and the creation of digital twins of physical assets.
These analysis concepts combine visual feedback and multi-sensor inputs to monitor various areas such as the health status of different physical assets, the quality control of manufactured products, tests of the wear and tear of materials and components, and process control. The space industry can take a lot of cues from developments in aerospace (and vice versa!) in order to improve satellite status assessment.
But how can you actually put these ideas into practice in a space system? Next, let’s take a look at examples of the actual hardware that would enable you to capture visual feedback, if integrated into your system.
In all space applications, performance and functionality come down to technology choices and trade-offs. Where visual imagery and feedback systems are concerned, the priorities are to integrate a usable device (or series of devices).
For example, the Infinity Avionics SelfieCam Engineering Camera and SelfieCam-Video Engineering Camera are suitable for deployment monitoring, spacecraft orientation identification, and even low-resolution Earth imaging. These cameras have been used by Infinity Avionics’ customers to monitor spacecraft deployments such as antennas, solar panels, solar sails, and other components. The cameras can produce highly compressed image data to ease downlink bandwidth requirements.
The SelfieCam Engineering Camera has held flight heritage since 2018, and has Single Event Upset (SEU) immune MRAM, a resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels, and is qualified to NASA GEVS standards. The cameras were also tested up to 30kRad TID (Total Ionizing Dose) without functional degradation.
The SelfieCam-Video Engineering Camera can capture JPEG-compressed images at a rate of up to 12 frames per second. It can save up to 500 images on board and can support three different lens options with different fields-of-view (FoV). The camera is suitable for spacecraft deployment monitoring, health monitoring, and spacecraft orientation verification.
The company’s new hardware products, the Lynx4MP series of cameras, have various FoV optics and provide high-resolution space asset monitoring capability. The Lynx4MP-500 is a 4MP RGB/Monochrome camera with a 500mm focal length optical assembly, providing a 5.5m Ground Sample Distance (GSD) from a 500km orbit.
The Lynx4MP-70 is a 4MP RGB/monochrome camera with a 70mm focal length optical assembly. It will be suitable for space robotics, scientific experiment monitoring, and low spatial resolution Earth Observation (EO) applications.
Infinity Avionics is currently developing other modular camera products which allow its customers to mix and match between optics, sensors, storage, and processing.
In addition, Infinity Avionics is developing edge processing capabilities to deliver intelligent camera solutions for space asset monitoring. In the next section we discuss existing, and future, edge processing functions, as well as how higher downlink and processing bandwidth are enabling new capabilities.
In order to make visual feedback technologies genuinely scalable, autonomous, and rapidly responsive, we need a system that does not only rely on human operators. This is the case for a wide array of current and future applications.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an example of a technology that enables onboard cameras to operate intelligently – with new functionality, and more advanced and higher volume data processing.
For terrestrial purposes AI is already used in a variety of monitoring camera applications, such as facial recognition in law enforcement imaging, restricting security footage of a facility to a specific area of interest, or scaling up more focussed analysis at certain times of the day.
Due to the limited downlink capacities from space assets to ground stations, cameras often need to be accompanied by an intelligent processing system to increase efficiency.
An AI-based smart system can help autonomously turn the camera on and off when needed, identify patterns in the collected images, identify the usefulness of collected images, and perform more advanced processing, even combining images with other datasets.
For example, in space debris monitoring, a number of images could be captured during every orbit of the Earth and the processing system could identify patterns that might indicate debris. It would then downlink this data only when it is needed to facilitate a collision warning or for commissioning an avoidance maneuver.
Infinity Avionics is both developing on-board storage solutions with customers and advising on and developing on-board processing as part of its cameras, in order to only organize and compress data that is useful to the end-user.
Smart camera solutions with edge processing and AI capability will allow autonomous decision-making in space, which can be highly beneficial for space robotics and in-space manufacturing applications. A real-world example of the value that visual feedback in space missions can bring is discussed in the next section.
The M2 Cubesat is the most complex Australian CubeSat mission to date. Launched as a single 12U spacecraft, the M2 performed a controlled separation in orbit into two separate 6U CubeSats, named the M2-A and M2-B.
Both the M2-A and M2-B satellites have an Infinity Avionics SelfieCam on a deployable antenna arm. These were used to capture the moment of separation and the resultant video is available here.
The image sequence provided feedback on safe separation, separation velocity, physical condition and configuration of each spacecraft, all of which was invaluable for assessing the success of this unique maneuver.
Following the successful separation the M2-A and M2-B satellites proceeded to perform a number of formation flying maneuvers and communications experiments, as well as an EO imaging demonstration. Find out more about the mission here.
Visual feedback enabled by the SelfieCams, such as the image below captured during the Launch and Early Orbit phase (LEOP), was used to ensure that:
In the images captured the operators were even able to see the remnants of the burnwire used to deploy the solar panel and to confirm the main telescope cover is still stowed.
The M2 CubeSat in LEOP (image credit: UNSW Canberra Space).
Such innovative CubeSat missions are driving new approaches and experiments right across the space industry and the application of visual feedback in this area will lead to new operational models in both commercial services and exploration. In this next section we take a closer look at some examples of the latter domain.
Deep space missions are highly autonomous and could employ visual aids for navigation, monitoring, exploration, marketing/PR, and analysis in a number of ways.
The Mars Perseverance Rover is a perfect example of how visual feedback can be crucial in autonomous deep space applications. In total it has 23 engineering cameras for navigation, risk reduction, and other purposes, aside from the science cameras onboard.
The Engineering cameras include Entry, Descent and Landing Cameras Lander Vision System Camera, Hazard Avoidance Cameras (HazCams), Navigation Cameras (Navcams), and CacheCam.
Mars Perseverance Rover engineering camera dispersion (image credit: NASA).
The Lander Vision System Camera is an interesting system where the combination of AI and vision hardware enabled Perseverance to autonomously select the safest touchdown site within its landing area. Here is video footage of the descent and landing of the rover on the Martian surface.
In the future, visual feedback will likely play a significant role in in-space manufacturing facilities. Footage and still imagery will enable or enhance various fabrication functions such as cargo re-supplies or the movement materials to delivery points, or other areas where they are required.
In addition, it is likely that images and video would act as useful evidence for confirming process success for clients and insuring space assets. With large-scale, complex systems, showing the telemetry data as proof of certain processes being completed can be a huge undertaking, and visual feedback of the system actually working in space would be useful alternative or complementary evidence for commercial, insurance, and legal compliance.
So, having discussed the challenges and opportunities, how do you get started with designing a system by making use of this hardware and processing systems? In the next section we consider some of the factors that mission designers need to consider when bringing such capabilities onboard.
As with all space systems, mission objectives and purposes need to be clearly defined before designing a smart visual system. The mission purpose would enable the definition of the following parameters:
These parameters are important for selecting the right hardware for your application. The mission’s purpose and technical limitations will also determine the form of AI algorithm or processing protocols that need to be trained and used to enhance the cameras’ operations.
Infinity Avionics offers different camera solutions to meet different user requirements. The SelfieCam provides low resolution, compressed images that can be downloaded even with weaker RF links, and is ideally suited for spacecraft commissioning activities.
High-resolution cameras, such as the Lynx4MP-70 and Lynx4MP-500, generate more data than SelfieCams, but also provide greater details and accuracy. These cameras will be suitable for space robotics and scientific experiments. Infinity Avionics’ cameras with edge computing enable autonomous decision-making and also reduce the amount of data downlink needed, to cope with the higher data volumes.
Infinity Avionics also offers unique and tailored solutions for customers and encourages early collaboration on proposals and projects to unlock the full potential of onboard imaging capabilities.
Ultimately, Infinity Avionics aims to be at the forefront of ensuring the engineers and scientists have visual data at their fingertips to achieve mission success.
In this era of exploration, where our reliance on technology is growing, space missions have a range of limitations that demand effective remote monitoring. This is particularly the case for commercial space stations, advanced in-orbit processes, and human spaceflight (including tourism).
But such capabilities are available and valuable on missions of all sizes. Intelligent visual systems and video feedback can open up new revenue opportunities and aid mission assurance in a wide variety of applications.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video in space might just be worth a million!
If you are developing an autonomous spacecraft or if you are interested in a visual system for a specific application, please feel free to reach out to Infinity Avionics for more information on their visual feedback solutions.
]]>Bright Ascension is a Scotland-based software company that builds tools, model-based platforms, and solutions for space engineers and other stakeholders. In the podcast we discuss:
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody and welcome to today’s episode of the Space Industry Podcast. I’m joined today by Peter Mendham, the CEO of Bright Ascension.
Bright Ascension is a space software development company based in Scotland in the UK. And today we’re going to talk a little bit about sort of alternative approaches, approaches to building space software infrastructure, sort of the things that companies need to be thinking about in the industry today as we are seeing so many new innovations and ideas come online and become possible in today’s industry.
So Peter, thank you very much for being available and spending time with us here today. Is there anything, firstly, that you would like to add to that introduction?
Peter: No, it’s great to be here Hywel. Thanks for the introduction. I think it is maybe worth mentioning that we started the company about 11 years ago now with quite a focus on developing software for the space industry and over that period of time we’ve spotted the opportunity to create products to really empower people to develop space software themselves.
And so now what we do is a mixture of those two things; helping people do things themselves, helping them with that, but also supporting them with the benefit of our experience and expertise along the way.
Hywel: Brilliant. Thank you. So that kind of leads into my first question there. Talking about this experience that you do have as a company.
I think, we’re always worried in the space industry about the mission timings, which is the case for every aspect of development and it, it may be a little bit of a how long is a piece of string question, but I was wondering, to begin with, if you could give us an idea of how long it can take to develop a sort of typical space software system or an application today, one that will cover both the space and the ground requirements?
Yeah. Maybe you can discuss some typical timelines for different sort of common types of missions and yeah, give the audience an indication of what we’re working with.
Peter: Sure I’ll do my best. It is a bit of a piece of string situation, but I’d say that it’s actually quite interesting in a more, there’s a more complicated answer to that question that I think is a bit more interesting, which is that it’s not just about a kind of a shrinking of development times.
It’s also about what the way that development is structured and the way that the problem is typically being explored. I think. The short answer to the question is really that although we, when we started out, we were really looking months as a very typical development period and coming from a background that would probably be characterized as more old space, that was certainly seemed as very short.
But I think the pressure is really now on to be looking at kind of six to nine month development periods. But that doesn’t tell the whole story because what we are looking at during that period that makes it harder and more complicated is that there’s a lot of moving pieces. There’s a lot going on at once.
The things like payload development, things like the aspects of delivering the actual service, whether it be earth observation or a communication service or technology demonstration, those will be being developed at the same time as the mission. And that means that the understanding, the shared understanding, and therefore the requirements is gradually evolving during that period.
And so it’s really a process where everything is changing. So some of that pressure means that it’s natural to adopt a more iterative development than has typically been the case in the past, and also to shift what’s done to post launch. And so it’s really about managing a constant process of change where that change is impacting both the flight side and the ground side & when I say ground side, not just the the day-to-day necessity to communicate with a space segment, but also the other aspect of operating a space system and then delivering a service using that space system. So getting all those different elements to, we all evolve together. And to manage the challenges of the kind of constant change and an evolution to try and improve efficiency across the life cycle is a really big driver for why we take the technological approaches that we do.
Particularly we take a model-based approach to how the software is built. Runs, and that’s why we do that. So we’ve got a lot of information captured that allows you to manage that change across that. So that means in some ways that the, perhaps the development period, if you look at it as a whole kind of, to come back to your original question is at least as long used to be and we’re still talking 18 months to two years. It’s just that the time to market is shorter. The time to first results is shorter, and so we are pushing more of the development period to be post-launch or post-mission and things like that, and we’re seeing a lot more, a lot of folk embracing the need for a certain amount of continuous improvement and continuous change.
Hywel: Brilliant. Yeah, that definitely ties in with a number of trends we see in the industry with more versatile and software defined systems and things. And so it, it definitely makes sense that the software development timeline would be, would scale with the complexity of the mission and would, it’s very interesting to, to hear how much or the aspects of it can be shifted to post-launch and in many ways, that makes a lot of logical sense because you need to, you need certain elements of the telemetry and you need to know what data you are going to be actually collecting in space in order to inform, I’m guessing, aspects of the software development.
So that’s great. Thank you. And you mentioned a number of areas that are important to factor in and that have an impact on the software development, payload development time, and the rest of the hardware development. And I was wondering what the common bottlenecks can be in space software development, which can impact the success of the space missions, whether they come from those externals or whether they are just internal fundamental aspects of space software development in general, and how could such issues be resolved?
Peter: I think a lot of the major concerns with the development, and particularly the main things that will impact the overall success. And I suppose if we’re looking at an iterative development, we need to look at both the success of each particular iteration, but also some kind of end goal of some kind. The largest influence that we see, as commonly occurring across different mission types and situations is when there is not really enough focus on the larger picture and when engineering developments particularly say within the spacecraft or parts of the spacecraft even, or particular element of the ground segment are siloed and treated in isolation. And I think that this means that there’s a, there’s a real kind of shoring up of some quite significant risks which end up being deferred until later in the process.
And those risks typically result in significant changes having to be made late in the development. Probably if we are talking about the kinds of things you were particularly stressing, software defined systems, which is absolutely a core part of where we are now is that we; the kinds of risks that that may get left until later by not taking a large picture approach is that those risks could be at the kind of architectural level, the level where significant engineering effort, redevelopment, refactoring, is necessary to address that risk.
So I think not particularly. Taking an operations-led frame of mind when you are looking at the overall infrastructure and taking a focus on the kind of engineering aspects that allow you to manage change and allow you to manage things like scalability and efficiency of operations, the ability to work with diverse and heterogeneous systems, particularly in the context of constellations that allows you to manage the high level kind of architectural risks right from the beginning.
And then to be able to hopefully mean that as the iteration goes on across the development of the system, that the issues that come up are at a smaller scale, and that you are always focused on the end goals of how everything work together? How are we going to deliver the overall service from this constellation?
Say, are we taking a focus to the whole problem, which is about the total cost of ownership in commercial terms, even for a science mission. I think it’s worth putting it in those terms and that’s, again, it’s at the root of the technological approach we take with a kind of model-based approach. And we also use a kind of, service oriented approach to help split the problem up and structure it.
We have a very strong architecture and this hasn’t come out nowhere. I would say that this has over time just from experience. It’s not like we, we suddenly, we had a eureka moment to left out the bath and, and created a new kind of way of doing space software. It’s, it’s better experience and it’s allowed us to create these tools and ways of working over time.
Hywel: Brilliant. Yeah. I think makes perfect sense of the focus on, like you said, on the commercial side of things, total cost of ownership and the holistic approach to the value generation at, on a commercial level, at the end of the operational cycle from the very beginning is necessary to, yeah, answer these architectural problems and adapt to changing conditions and things.
But you used the word risk, quite a lot in that answer, and I think that’s very important. We talk about risks at all sorts of levels on the podcast with different tech companies. So in, in your view, and as you mentioned, the system has not come from nowhere. It’s come from experience with different missions and different engineering projects.
So I wondered if you could share some of the highest risk or even highest cost kind of pitfalls or even errors that engineers need to really look out for when developing their missions.
Peter: Yeah, I think this is an exciting question cause it’s quite broad and I think there are a lot of places that things can come from.
I think that in practice, If I look back at experience of what we’ve been through as a team and the folk who we’ve had the fortune to help along the way, getting their missions up and successful. The places we’ve seen issues, the common element in some ways is how subtle that is, and particularly around things like a selection onboard the spacecraft or selection of a particular supporting service on the ground, such as a ground station network or hosting service or something like that.
Connecting the technical details of that particular sale, let’s say hardware subsystem to the big picture that we were just talking about is where the pitfalls are and underestimating the extent to which there could be something really significant, and I think this is why I was harping on, you picked up on it very well, harping on about risk, is that I think, a way of viewing this is through the lens of risk and to look at how much residual, technical, or otherwise risk is left in your analysis. So if you’ve read commercial sales summary of a hardware subsystem and it seems to do the job, you’ve retired some risk, but not all of it.
To pick a very concrete example during the analysis for a specific mission, a little while ago, we eventually got into the detail of analyzing the low level protocol, which was being created by the, by a particular payload and the payload was being, was generating data which was getting down linked, and the payload hadn’t originally been specified for direct downlink of data, which meant the protocol wasn’t specifically defined for that purpose and it was missing useful field.
And when we propagated, that propagated the impact of the fact that it was missing this field in the protocol, it turned out that made it harder to be sure that we got all the data and when we worked out how, what the impact that was going to have on the number of contacts, satellite contacts that it took to get the data down.
We found that we weren’t able to meet the mission requirements. We weren’t then able to meet the service requirements for delivering data to the end customer. And so for the want of a nail, for the want of, for the want of a field within the particular protocol, there were some really significant implications of that.
Now, that’s a really super extreme example, which is why I picked on it, but I think that’s where the pitfalls are of trying to retire those sorts of risks that connect the small scale to the big scale, and that have those big impacts. And some of them are unavoidable. All you can do is take a risk driven initiative approach to that, I think, and to try and build in enough flexibility into the way that you are approaching, particularly your software.
You come back again to software defined systems. There is an opportunity there. To allow software to absorb some of the flexibility that you need in your system as long as you are capable of managing that change as part of the kind of normal operating procedure of your system.
Hywel: Excellent. Yeah, that’s a really great example. Thank you. It, as you say, for want of a nail, I think back to a high level overview, the architecture and the service level that you’re trying to provide and the real systems thinking, the engineering is so important to balancing these things and yeah, we discuss it and we’ve seen it time and time again, and I think, yeah, the nuances of how the individual subsystems connect to the overall system and deliver the service that’s required in operation is is vital.
So just to follow on that a little bit, are there cases, I don’t know whether the case, you’ve, the main case you’ve discussed qualifies for this. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I wonder, I was wondering if there were cases where you’ve seen software as being the main cause of a mission failure and how maybe you could explain how the team could have avoided that issue. If you are aware of any, that is.
Peter: I think software issues of one kind or another are inevitable to a certain extent, especially if you are taking an iterative type approach to development. I think it’s a natural part of that. So part of the flexibility that is needed is to be able to assure enough of the software that you don’t see mission loss or significant degradation and mission performance to the point where it’s not going to deliver on the mission needs? I, I think we, yeah, I think in practice in terms of software being the cause of a mission failure. I think in practice, from our experience anyway, it’s never that simple, particularly in the situation where increasingly you’ve got commodification of hardware elements, particularly on board the spacecraft.
So the element of the overall system, which needs to be mission specific because everything else is off the shelf, is the software. And so it’s typically about the contract between the software and the underlying, and I think. there’s a few, there’s a few areas that I think we’re picking up on. One of them is semi apocryphal, which I apologize for, but there’s certainly, in the early days of CubeSats there, there used to be a lot of sharing of information and experience within the community, particularly when it was less commercial than it is now and there was a great series of papers on looking at causes of mission loss in CubeSat, and there was a frequently reported set of failures that were around deployables and they were reported as being entirely kind of hardware issues because it was about deployables not working, deployable antennas or deployable solar arrays being the main ones that folk were focusing on.
And talking to people though within the community and actually asking them about these, I think in most cases it looks like there could well have been a software dimension to this in that if the, if the deployable has particular kind of weaknesses in terms of the temperatures it’s deployed at or whether or not the state of the battery needs to be and the power state of the spacecraft needs to be in a certain way, then were those, or weren’t those built into the software algorithm, which was responsible for activating the deployable?
And we have worked with folk on both sides of that, where folk have done everything they can to try and make the deployable work under absolutely low conditions. And then a bit adamant that the algorithm needs to be incredibly simple. You just press go and that’s it. Alternatively, we’ve worked with folk who have incredibly, carefully characterized every aspect of that deployable and landed us with an algorithm that is hugely complicated. But on the other hand, it’s, I guess in some ways back to risk. It’s a, it’s then a well-characterized and retired risk cause it’s been so thoroughly investigated.
I think in terms of examples of near mission failure, the first ever spacecraft we worked on in this sort of, nearly 35, I think spacecraft now flying our software and the first one was in 2014. It was the UK Space Agency’s first CubeSat. And a lot of the people involved were doing things for the first time and there were issues on board, which were their root cause were hardware issues, but, it was, the mission implications came from what software did with them.
And I would say that this is, we see the most common is there might be some kind of root hardware cause, but there’s no reason why that couldn’t be handled in software. But for whatever reason, it’s not so perhaps no one knew about it or it’s behaving in an undocumented way or that kind of thing. And in this case, it was a case of the software.
We never saw the issues on ground. It behaved very different in flight, and so the key to addressing them was flexibility in the software and being able to adapt and having a very clear baseline for what the core trusted part of the software was. As long as we could continue to talk to the satellite, as long as we had the mechanisms for updating software in a robust way.
And in this case, we uploaded some new onboard scripts to the spacecraft and that allowed us to work around the problem. And that kind of flexibility, I think, and reliability in the core elements is essential for coping with all a really wide range of potential issues.
Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. And I think we are seeing, we’re seeing now in the industry and in the discussions that people are having now, because you picked on the example of, or picked the example of, deployables. I think that’s a really key area where these issues can very clearly manifest. But at the same time, without, as you’ve mentioned, a flexible system for communicating with the satellite and adapting to how the satellite is behaving. It’s never a hundred percent clear what the possible issues of the problem is.
Maybe the issue is with the sensor, the system, the solar array may have deployed, but the sensors that are in charge of informing the ground control, controller, is faulty, in which case, as far as you, you get a no power.
Or maybe it’s, if it’s a solar array, there, may be an issue with power collection and you have no other way of sensing or determining deployment aside from how much power is being collected, but the wire’s broken; you collecting no power and you think, okay, well the solar panel hasn’t deployed, and there’s these issues are complex when you can’t see a satellite in operation and you have to adapt to it in different ways. I think that’s really interesting, thank you.
To go back to the way that I introduced the discussion, so we’ve got, we’ve been through typical timelines of space development and the bottlenecks and the risks and pitfalls that are there and the how software can adapt so that it’s, it is not necessarily going to be a weakness, but a strength, not a weakness, it’s a slash bit of the system, but how it can avoid being an area of risk and reduce areas of risk on the rest of the hardware.
So with all these things in mind, you mentioned iterative development and the way that the, you’ve seen systems being worked, but have you got any other thoughts or insights on how space software should be developed in order to work seamlessly, you know, across a IOP operational use and with the downstream downlink service delivery, which is the ultimate goal, essentially?
Peter: I think that our, certainly our main focus at the moment from having, from having really useful discussions with customers about, particularly focusing on the total cost of ownership, which we were talking about earlier. I think it, it is fragmentation in that overall solution. that is a major cause of inefficiency.
When you do look at the bigger, very much, the bigger picture over the long run, and we’re, we are really seeing solutions that, that do tend to be disjointed and inefficient because of that, and there’s two dimensions to this. One of them is the end-to-end system, which I think is part of what you’re talking about.
So the system that goes from say, the space segment and perhaps a payload in the space segment through the, the space platform to, to the beginnings of the ground segment through, through ground stations and such, like through to operations, payload, operations, service management and service delivery to, to the downstream.
So that’s one dimension of the problem is that end-to-end nature of this. And I think you can easily see how fragmentation within that and any part of that being disjointed or managed very differently is likely to lead to inefficiency. And we, and most systems we see really relying on a certain amount of ad hoc and mission specific glue in some of that to keep it all together and maintaining that is, is often a significant challenge.
But there is another dimension to this, which I would say is orthogonal, which is another aspect of that you picked up on though in your question, which is looking at this system over time and even without iterative development, which I would say is increasingly the norm within a large scale space systems, they’re looking at things from even small constellations to large constellations.
There’s going to be constant replenishment satellites in a nano satellite constellation certainly. Each of those replenishments is an opportunity to do something differently. And then we’ve also talked about software updates and software defined systems. And all of those are an opportunity to do things differently or improve, which means that system development is an ongoing activity that is constantly taking place throughout the life of the system. So I would suggest that’s a kind of orthogonal dimension if you’d like to the end-to-end system. You’ve also got the kind of life cycle and the way that goes together, yeah. You were picking up in your question about about, about whether or not there are inefficiencies there, and I think within that life cycle, again, you’re right.
There are, we see issues in how well the life cycle integrates together. So how well does the requirements capture, integrate with design, integrate with development, with test, and then commissioning and so on, across that life cycle? Um, but then also how well does that sit within the context of a gradually evolving system.
When you superimpose that with a life cycle of, say, a single new software update for the flight system, when you superimpose that times over and over for all of the things that are happening in your system, that’s where those two dimensions come together and you end up with a two dimensional problem of both the end-to-end issues and kind of the ongoing development because this is frequently underestimated part of the system and only becomes clear as a, as something which impacts total current cost of ownership over a longer period of time.
That’s why we’ve tried to make it the focus of our, of at least our current developments and improvements to our core products and services, is to try and take into account all the challenges we’ve seen in both of these dimensions and to look at ways of helping people manage the complexities of both of those dimensions. Again, through things like model based aspects and taking a component based approach to software and taking a service oriented approach to the overall system architecture.
Hywel: That’s really interesting. Thank you. So that was a really interesting answer. I do really like the framework, the orthogonal case that you discussed, where you’re looking at the entire evolving system over time. If you consider comparing just in one area, the delivery of broadband connectivity, for example, on the ground versus from on the ground, broad cables versus from satellites, the system, there’s no reason why the system can’t addressed in the same way on the ground, you’ve got a series of optical fibers that gradually need upgrading, and I’m fixing and updating.
You have people’s modems and that they’re using to access whatever it is, certain websites and to run their accounts. And the same is true of, of a satellite delivered broadband service, where over time you want to upgrade the system.
As you said, every change you make to the system is an opportunity to do things differently, to improve and you obviously you also have actual operational data on which to base those improvements when you take a system approach. Really interesting. Thank you. I think just finally, Peter, I wonder, and I think this is where we can wrap up, because I think you’ve shared a whole load of really useful information for everybody to understand how space offer infrastructure can and should be built today.
And so I wondered if there was just anything else that you think sort of mission and service developers need to consider on the software side during their own development and indeed in, in the design of a new mission or service, or an upgrade to a mission or service that they’re running? I wonder if there are any other insights you’d share or anything you haven’t touched on yet that might be interesting?
Peter: Maybe. Maybe it’s a bit a little bit random, but I would say that we’ve taken a very technical focus in the discussions that we’ve had so far. But engineering and especially software engineering, I would say is a human problem as well as the technical one. And when we are working with software, which obviously you can’t grab hold of and you can’t show it to somebody, the way that folk in a team communicate about that in terms of not just the engineering, but the wider teams around actually getting this system to work well in terms of delivering its service.
How well those teams talk to each other can be, make or break for how well that system is built and how well it fulfills its objectives. And so I think the human side of this is easily underestimated, and so exchange of information is really important.
And that’s why we gain from experience, have added more human aspects to our model-based approach in terms of capturing things like documentation and facilitating the exchange of information, but also having really clear workflows that provide a really clear way of managing the development process, the management of change, things like that, and which build kind of human collaboration into that process right from the beginning so that both the technical and human aspect of this system or service that we’re trying to build really mesh together well.
And that’s when we can see the most success out of these kinds of systems.
Hywel: Brilliant. I think that’s, yeah, a great place to wrap up, Peter. The human communication side of development of any aspect of a space mission or space service is vitally important. And you’ve mentioned how Bright Ascension is focused on really ensuring that the tools for doing so are, are built and used and are understood and the workflows and all that sort of things.
But the other aspect of that is obviously, of course, education. People understand what they’re talking about and how to discuss these problems and these opportunities with each other, and I think hopefully, the insights that you’ve shared today helps them to do that with the understanding the possibilities that exist in software development for satellites in the modern space industry.
So yeah, on behalf of the Space Industry podcast that our listeners out there, Peter, thank you very much for spending time with us and sharing these insights and these experiences that you’ve had and how you are approaching this area of the industry at Bright Ascension.
Peter: Thanks, Hywel. It’s great to speak to you.
Fantastic. Thank you. And to all our listeners, thank you very much too for spending time with us today. We are really grateful and you can find out more about Bright Ascension and the topics that we’ve discussed in today’s podcast on the company’s website and the SAT search platform. We’ll have links in the show notes and, if there’s anything that you would like to, any questions you would like to ask the company regarding your own missions and services and your own, the procurement, or the development and design of the missions that you might be building tomorrow, please do feel free to reach out to us a and to Bright Ascension and we will, we would love to hear from you. And yeah, thank you very much and all the best.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Precision analog signal chain solutions are required for data acquisition, processing, and response generation, including the monitoring and diagnostics of subsystems, and their optimization is a complex challenge.
In this article, produced in collaboration with global electronics manufacturer Texas Instruments (TI), a paying participant in the satsearch membership program, we take a deep dive into how to improve satellite health monitoring by optimizing data acquisition systems in space applications.
For more on this topic you can also take a listen to our podcast with TI on optimizing data acquisition systems in space applications, which covers similar information.
Monitoring the health of a satellite requires the use of accurate and timely telemetry data. Such data acquisition systems high channel count and versatility at high data rates. They must also operate reliably in a very harsh environment, but with low power consumption and a small physical footprint.
In addition, beyond the data acquisition system of a satellite’s payload — which requires high precision and high bandwidth — there is also a need for analog components capable of acquiring data for monitoring, diagnostics, and control of the satellite. In other words, the complexity of the data acquisition system goes far beyond fundamental functions such as the read-out of the Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) sensors in a camera system.
But analog components in data acquisition systems pose challenges to designers as they can often result in conflicting design goals. For example, the high radiation levels in space may lead to latch-up situations in a semiconductor component. The system must detect this and react fast enough to prevent permanent damage to the component which could, in extreme cases, lead to the loss of the entire payload.
This is just one example of the issues that electrical engineers must consider when developing the optimum monitoring architecture for a satellite. In the next section we take a look at a number of others.
Whether in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mission, a manned space initiative, or deep space exploration, it is crucial for mission control center to know the health status of the spacecraft. Satellite health in particular is primarily monitored by analyzing onboard telemetry data.
But with more powerful subsystems on board the current generation of satellites, and more ambitious mission objectives being worked on, telemetry data acquisition systems are causing increasingly challenging design requirements. Two of the primary challenges are:
When it comes to assessing the first issue, typically designers are forced to fulfill the demanding signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) requirement of the data acquisition system, which is the heart of the telemetry application.
For example, one of the most crucial components in this system is the Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC), and designers will need to take into account several factors on which the final resolution performance of an ADC is based, such as:
Another fundamental decision for determining the circuitry’s radiation protection requirements (which enable it to give accurate satellite health data) is the radiation hardness level that the satellite must exhibit in order to have a successful mission. This depends on operating orbits, and the importance of adaptability to different orbital radiation requirements is outlined in the following section.
For high Earth orbits, such as Geostationary Orbit (GEO) or in deep space missions, there is typically no room to compromise on radiation requirements and designers will always try to use QMLV-RHA qualified products. It is important to note that such devices are often quite expensive and choices in the marketplace may be limited.
For Low Earth Orbit (LEO) missions there is an opportunity to go with a lower radiation hardness level. However, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS devices) are often still not a good choice for such applications, unless the stay in orbit is planned to be only very short, and the total cost of the satellite, and risk appetite of the operator, allows for a potential loss.
For LEO missions, designers typically prefer ‘radiation tolerant’ products over the more expensive ‘radiation hardened’ products.
Satellites operating in low earth orbits fly a lot faster than the Earth’s rotation and can pass points on the surface multiple times per day, moving from full exposure to the sun and into the cold shadow side of the Earth and back.
In most cases, COTS devices are simply not robust enough for such extreme temperature cycling. In addition, while radiation levels are lower than for GEO missions they are still significantly higher than on the ground where the Earth’s magnetic field and the atmosphere provide a strong shield.
For further details about the different integrated circuit (IC) quality levels of space-based products, please take a look at our earlier article onSpace Enhanced Plastic products for NewSpace with Texas Instruments.
In more advanced systems memories and digital circuits have an increased risk of an error caused by radiation simply due to their larger size and higher complexity. Accordingly, semiconductor process technology must be improved for the best possible radiation hardness in such systems.
The potential to develop a high-performing system with adequate radiation protection eventually comes down to the circuit design itself. Next, let’s take a look at the circuit design of a data acquisition system and the different electronic components that comprise it.
Data acquisition systems are designed to convert measured data, such as sensor-captured data, into electrical signals for transmission. These are conditioned by an Analog Front-End (AFE) circuit and then sampled by an ADC.
For the data acquisition circuit, designers typically start by defining the requirements of the ADC as this is usually the most expensive and power-hungry device in the data acquisition system.
For telemetry and health applications in particular a high number of signals need to be monitored. In order to avoid each signal requiring its own ADC, designers typically add multiplexers.
In many cases, such multiplexers are already integrated into the ADC. For example, TI offers a 12-bit ADC, the ADS128S102-SP with an integrated 8-channel multiplexer and is designed for such satellite applications.
Just upstream of the analog to digital conversion, the signal chain has to be conditioned too. For any signal conditioning needs, designers have to cover several different cases. Next let’s take a look at how to protect the signal chain.
There are many aspects to ensuring the satellite health monitoring signal chain is fully protected. In this section we illustrate a number of these with reference to the space-grade solutions that Texas Instruments offers.
Firstly, the circuit’s operational amplifier (OpAmp) must provide good performance with low drift and offset voltage. TI’s OPA4277-SP is designed to offer a wide supply voltage range and good signal conditioning performance, with ultra-low offset voltage and offset drift.
Another OpAmp, the LMP7704-SP, is suitable for interfacing with precision sensors that have high output impedances, as it offers an ultra-low input bias of less than ±500 fA. It is a true rail-to-rail amplifier, designed for versatility and that can be configured for the transducer, bridge, strain gauge, and also for transimpedance amplification. Ensuring such versatility simplifies the circuit design and reduces potential single points of failure for a higher level of protection.
In contrast to the LMP7704-SP, some amplifiers are specific to a single use case, such as shunt current sensing. For example, there is a dedicated current sense amplifier available from TI named the INA240-SEP. This device features enhanced PWM rejection and can sense drops across shunt resistors over a wide voltage range.
During satellite operation there can be situations where the supply voltage level or current level rises too fast, damaging or even destroying a system. It is important that the system reacts quickly to such events. A classic data acquisition system, with an ADC and a Microcontroller Unit (MCU), in the signal chain is often too slow in such cases.
Designers must typically implement a comparator in the analog domain to enable a faster response to such problems. As an example, in TI’s portfolio the TLV1704-SEP offers rail-to-rail inputs and a low propagation delay of 560ns.
In addition, with an open collector stage the output can be pulled to any voltage rail up to 36 V above the negative power supply, regardless of the TLV1704-SEP’s supply voltage. This device is therefore flexible enough to handle almost any space application, from simple voltage detection to driving a relay, with a low propagation delay that can account for rapid voltage and current changes.
Texas Instruments (TI) offers a broad range of precision analog products that enable designers to build applications to the required performance criteria and protect the signal chain at every level.
But these aren’t the only concerns when designing an electrical system for use in space. Satellite applications demand high levels of robustness in design along with sophisticated solutions for detecting faults.
In the space industry there is obviously a consistent focus on making technologies highly robust against the harsh environment. But despite the highest standards and most rigorous testing requirements, there is always the chance of a major issue occurring, such as a fatal Single Event Effect (SEE) or a generic component failure.
To mitigate this, designers can add multiple monitoring and diagnostic capabilities into the system to ensure robustness and redundancy. Recovery strategies such as a controlled power cycle of the affected subsystem and a switch to a redundant component or module can also be used.
As mentioned, with the new generation of products in the electronic industry, the circuits are getting more and more complex. And this is bringing an exponential increase in potential failure mechanisms. Designers must make sure that any failure scenario is properly identified and understood, and that its impact is mitigated as much as possible.
In addition, with the cost-sensitivity that LEO constellations face, there is also a trend toward MCU-based implementations as radiation-hardened FPGAs are typically very expensive.
And whether such digital systems are FPGA-based or MCU-based, fault detection and fault mitigation becomes even more important in LEO. Components with integrated fault detection and fault mitigation technology will bring high value in any application, but particularly where margins are thin.
Now that we have covered the design requirements for data acquisition systems let’s have a look at future trends in space electronics in the next section.
Electronic manufacturers offering space products are expected to find a solution that is not only low cost, but is also smaller in size and has lower mass (to reduce launch costs), and meets the lower radiation requirements of the LEO orbit.
With these aims in mind, Texas Instruments is at the forefront of one new trend in the industry that is having a big impact on size, weight, power, and cost (SWAP-C) budgets – the availability and use of new devices in plastic packaging. Traditional QMLV devices are provided in ceramic packages which are physically larger and heavier than the more common commercial plastic devices used on Earth today.
TI has been working with its customers, the space community, and various government agencies to create new standards that will allow for greater use of plastic packages and substrates in space applications.
TI’s first space developments with plastic packages came with the introduction of the radiation-tolerant Space-enhanced plastic (Space-EP) portfolio. Customers were looking for lower-cost space devices as a solution for the higher volumes required for Low Earth Orbit satellites or in other NewSpace domains.
Plastic packages are attractive because the scale of the semiconductor supply chain can be leveraged to reduce costs, while maintaining performance, and provide a smaller overall solution. Today, Texas Instruments has 20 such products in production or sampling in their Space-EP portfolio with many more in development.
In addition, to take advantage of first-hand insights on current trends in the industry, TI’s experts provide support in assisting designers optimize their solutions. Such application materials enable designers to make faster evaluations of different architectures and rapid decision-making. It also provides a great head-start for actual development.
For example, you can view TI’s reference designs at this link and the company’s Spacecraft Circuit Design Handbook. Such references are invaluable for developing efficient, successful, fault-tolerant circuits that can take advantage of the high-performance payloads and subsystems on today’s market, while also accurately and consistently monitoring the health of a satellite during operations to ensure mission success.
You can find out more about the Texas Instruments space portfolio here, or you can use this link to access the TI E2E™ design support forums where you can engage further with the company.
In addition, you can also get more information from TI engineers on procuring electronic components and reducing power consumptions in space electronics on the satsearch blog.
]]>In this article we give a brief overview of what SADAs are and how they operate, followed by an overview of systems available on the global marketplace for space.
If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
Surface-mounted solar cells and stationary solar arrays have long been used for power generation in satellites. But as the industry has grown, the development of more demanding payloads and advancements in propulsion systems are pushing power requirements higher.
In addition, with the miniaturization of satellite platforms and sub-systems, optimizing every component for Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWaP-C) is a significant challenge. In some cases conventional solar arrays are no longer adequate or, at least, optimal for modern, agile, and multi-functional satellites.
This is leading many engineers to consider deployable solar arrays, which can offer access to higher levels of power once in position on orbit. Such arrays have several components and in this article we take a closer look at one of the most important – the Solar Array Drive Assembly.
Solar Array Drive Assemblies, or SADAs, are an integration of mechanical and electrical components used for rotating the solar panels on the satellite. The mechanical actuator drive system of the SADA rotates the solar arrays based on sun tracking information, while the electrical component of the SADA provides a pathway for power transfer from the arrays to the satellite.
A SADA mainly consists of Solar Array Drive Mechanism (SADM) and Solar Array Drive Electronics (SADE). While several companies sell a full SADA solution, many others have also made SADM and SADE available as standalone products.
A SADA is used to position the solar arrays towards the sun (or in another required direction) and transfer the generated power from solar panels to the satellite bus. For this function, SADA utilizes a combination of onboard computer/electronics (which is a part of the SADE) and motors as well as actuators (which is a part of the SADM).
The SADM forms the complete mechanical structure of SADA helping the spacecraft to achieve flexibility to rotate and position the solar arrays as per the mission requirements. On the other hand, the SADE ensures the smooth commanding of these mechanical components.
Optimal positioning of the solar arrays with respect to the position of the sun maximizes the acquired sunlight and increases the power output for the same given area of the panel – so potentiometers are used for position feedback. SADAs can also help reduce the mass and size requirements of solar arrays significantly.
Some of the key specifications commonly identified for commercial SADA products are:
The power transfer range, and therefore consumption, varies significantly based on the size of the satellite for which the SADA is designed and the circuit lines used.
Twist capsules or slip ring modules enable power and signal transfer within the system to ensure precise control. For noise-free limited rotation ranges and power transfer requirements, a twist capsule is used, and for continuous rotation, slip rings are preferred. Multiple slip-ring modules or hybrid slip-ring and twist capsule configurations are also available in the commercial market.
The operating environments and applications of SADAs include Low Earth Orbiting (LEO) missions, Geostationary (GEO) satellite operations, Antenna Pointing Mechanisms (APM) for LEO data downlink antennas, powering inter-satellite links, and supporting interplanetary missions.
In the section below you can see an overview of various SADAs and associated equipment, subsystems, and accompanying devices available on the global market.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the SADA products, or you can submit a generic request for a system to meet your mission needs by simply sharing your required system specifications with us (for free!)
Texas Instruments is a global electronics manufacturer and innovation company with a strong interest in space. In this podcast Michael and Adrian delve into the myriad of decisions that face engineers looking to develop optimally-performing data acquisition systems for space. We cover:
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello and welcome to today’s episode of the Space Industry Podcast by satsearch. I’m joined today by Adrian and Michael from Texas Instruments.
Texas Instruments is a company that I’m sure you’ve heard of, and especially if you’re in our industry. And today we’re going to be discussing how to optimize data acquisition systems in space applications, and quite a technical topic that I think has a lot of applicability to missions and, and systems of all sizes.
So firstly, Michael and Adrian, thank you very much for being here today. I wondered if you could just explain what you do at the company.
[00:01:03] Michael: Yes, hello and thanks for having us here, Hywel, Yeah. I’m Michael Seidl. I’m a systems engineer in the systems engineering and marketing group, and our team is in particular responsible for the Aerospace and defense market sector.
[00:01:18] Adrian: Hello everybody. I’m Adrian Helwig, I’m field application engineer and I’m supporting space customers in Europe.
[00:01:25] Hywel: Excellent. That’s great. Thank you guys. So, okay, let’s get into this, uh, the, the topic today of optimizing data acquisition systems. Now, Earth observation applications, as we know, are kind of driving up the requirements on components because they need higher data rates and as always in space, they’re looking for low power consumption and smaller physical footprints.
Even when there are large optical instruments with large apertures, other aspects of the entire system, they still want to minimize the, uh, the physical size. Every satellite has complex requirements in terms of telemetry, as we know is that’s defined by the nature of space.
What are the compromises that you see designers facing when it comes to developing, you know, solutions for data acquisition systems? Where are the trade-offs that have to be made, or what limits are we seeing in the industry today?
[00:02:11] Michael: I think the very fundamental decision criteria is really the radiation hardness level that probably comes before we look at size, weight, and power and cost. And, uh, the radiation hardness levels is where many of the customers or many designs really are focused towards the higher earth orbits or geo stationary orbit or deep space missions.
And this is where it’s typically no room for compromise at all for designers and just have to pick the so-called QMLV-RHA products, even though they. Very expensive. And there’s also limited choices they can do there. Now for the low Earth orbit, also the all they call the LEO missions, there is indeed the opportunity to go with something that is lower in radiation hardness.
And here, of course, still the commercial off the shelf devices are still not a good choice in such applications unless the day in the orbit is planned for very short period and the total cost of the satellite allows you even to for a potential loss of it. So LEO emissions designers then typically prefer the so-called radiation tolerance products over the more expensive radiation hardened product.
Still, it’s not that trivial. Also, in the lower orbits, right, the satellites operating in the low earth orbits, they fly a lot faster than the earth rotation and and pass multiple times per day from full exposure to the sun, into the cold shadow side of the earth and back. And this is where the commercial of the shelfs devices are simply not made for such extreme and permanent temperature cycling.
Right, and then also, right, of course, in LEO you have lower radiation levels than in the GEO areas, but, but still, right? When you compare this to Earth, in on Earth, you have really the full protection or a lot of protection from the magnetic earth fields and from the atmosphere. That is in the LEO space, not the case that much.
And this is where radiation tolerant devices really are still required. And this is where TI office here classification called the Space Enhanced Plastics or SEP in shorts. So that was now the very general answer and is applicable to any type of design.
[00:04:31] Adrian: Yes, Michael. So this was general, but I think it does also apply for the data acquisition system.
[00:04:38] Michael: yeah. Yes, of course. Right. So it’s like for any design, so, but you’re right. Let’s look into the specifics of the data acquisition design itself. So for the data acquisition circuit, designers do typically start with defining their requirements for the analog to digital converter is this is typically the, the most expensive and also the most powering hungry device in the data precision system.
Especially for telemetry and health monitoring, satellites typically require a very high number of signals to be monitored and in order now to avoid that, each signal requires its own ADC designers to typically add multiplexers. And in many cases, such multiplexers are already integrated into the ADC.
For example, at TI, our 12-bit ADC ADS128S102-SP comes with an integrated 8-channel multiplexer and is very popular in such applications.
[00:05:36] Hywel: Right. Fantastic. Thanks. That’s a really good introduction. Um, I just wanted to say quickly for the, uh, for the listeners, you don’t need to remember ADS128S102-SP.
Okay. Um, we will include these in the, uh, show notes of the, of the episode and, um, on the satsearch blog, we’ll also link to the, any of the products mentioned. By name and, and so you can see the product page. Uh, so, uh, yeah, don’t, don’t wear out your pencil writing down the, the codes. Um, but yeah. So as I mentioned, this is a, a, a really good overview of the overall kind of data acquisition needs of the system, and especially explaining the needs of the ADC. But what about the rest of the, um, of the signal chain itself?
[00:06:22] Adrian: Yes. That’s also very interesting topic and I think designers needs to consider here a very different cases, right? So, and in our portfolio we have a lot of products, different products, very well known for various reasons. So let me give you an example, like the OPA4277-SP.
It’s very well known device because it has a very wide supply range. Um, very good, uh, signal, uh, conditioning performance, and also very low offset voltage and drift, right? Another example could be the LMP7704-SP. This is again, a very good choice when interfacing precision sensors with high output impedance.
And, um, this device for examples an ultra-low input bias of less than ±500 fA. And, uh, it can also be used for different configurations like transducers, uh, bridge configurations, strain gauge, and also trans-impedance amplification.
[00:07:34] Michael: Yes, Adrian. Fully agree. LMP7704-SP is a great choice in many cases. But, in contrary to the LMP7704-SP, there are also amplifiers that are very specific to a single use case such shunt current sensing.
For example, there is a dedicated current sense amplifier available from TI called INA240-SEP. This device compromises enhanced PWM rejection and can sense drops across shunt resistors over a wide common-mode voltage range, in this case from –4 V to 80 V, and this is independent of the supply voltage. It has a strong voltage gain of 20 and maximum gain error of 0.2%.
[00:08:17] Adrian: Okay, Yes. Uh, thanks Michael. I fully agree with you. So already for a topic of, of sensor interface, there are a lot of choices to be made already. Now, during the operation time of the satellite there are situation where supply voltage level or current level, if rising too fast, could destroy the system. Therefore, it is important that the system reacts fast.
A classic data acquisition system with ADC and MCU included in the signal chain is often too slow in such cases. Designers must typically implement a comparator in the analog domain to enable a fast response to the problem. Within our portfolio we have TLV1704-SEP which offers rail-to-rail inputs and low propagation delay of 560ns. In addition, with the open collector stage the output can be pulled to any voltage rail up to 36 V above the negative power supply, regardless of the TLV1704-SEP supply voltage. With this device, customers are really very flexible to handle almost every application.
[00:09:45] Hywel: What are the sort of bottleneck that you see designers facing in areas such as, you know, with Earth observation applications when it comes to applications like the telemetry system?
[00:09:54] Adrian: Yeah, that’s a very good question. Well, there are several aspects of those challenges, and I can mention maybe two of them. On the one hand side, uh, the achievable technical performance of the system is very important. But on the other side, there is also adaptability to different orbit requirements. This means LEO or geo constellations and their radiation requirements.
So if we now talk about the technical performance, When designers are thinking about that acquisition systems, they always need to fulfill some kind of SNR performance of this system, right? And this is because the, data acquisition system is obviously the heart of the whole system. And now, because the final resolution of the ADC also depends on several other factors like, uh, clock jitter, reference voltage accuracy, input stage configuration, power supply rejection ratio, all those aspects needs to be considered, uh, during design process.
If we look now at the specific products, for example, if 12bit resolution is sufficient our very well-known 12bit, 8 channels, 1MSPS ADC128S102QML-SP can be used, but in some cases, like for example optical payloads or satellite sensor signal acquisition systems, finer resolution is needed and we see that customers more and more that this finer resolution is really a requirements. And this could be because they need to monitor temperature more accurately, or they need a finer resolution for position feedback.
If that is the case we are also offering ADS1278-SP, which is 24bit, delta-sigma, 8 channels simultaneous sampling precision ADC or ADS1282-SP, which is also delta-sigma converter, but the resolution is even higher and goes up to 31bit.
[00:12:30] Michael: Right? And, and for such high resolution data conversion, it’s also very important to provide a super clean reference voltage to the adc. And interesting implementation I want to mention here could be like using a shunt reference such, for example, a LM 40 50 QL Dashs P, followed by a so-called composite amplifier where you could use the high impedance amplifier LMP 77 0 4 again, as we mentioned before, and combine that one with the LMH 66 20 which is a very fast and super low noise amplifier and such configuration kind of combines the best out of two worlds then for you.
[00:13:12] Adrian: Yeah, fully agree, Michael. And let me add something else here. So another important aspect that we need to think about is also to fit the input signal to the ADC with the best possible quality.
So we need to think about parameters like noise suppression amplitude and linearity. So we at TI, we developed fully differential amplifiers such as the LMH 54 85, and this device provides to customers very high unity gain bandwidth for best possible linearity suppression of any common mode noise. due to the differential architecture and on top of this, this device also offers a very low current consumption of only 11 milliamps.
There is also another important point to mention here in case the input signal is coming from a passive sensor. So in other words, the signal source is, uh, high impedance in nature. Here the LMP7704-SP would be once again a good choice. For active sensors such as CCD sensors in imaging applications one could feed the signal directly into the differential amplifier LMH5485-SP.
Now for active sensors, like for example, uh, CCD sensors in imaging applications, uh, you could feed the signal directly to the differential amplifiers like the LMH5485 we talked about.
[00:14:59] Michael: Right. And yes, Adrian explained with this, we have built now a great data acquisition system for all kind of specific use cases.
But now let’s also talk about the, the second item that Adrian introduced in the beginning was about the design adaptability. This is what we mean with this, is that designers typically want to prepare the solution for the different orbit requirements. Uh, so. Simplified way. Just develop one board, one design, and then simply adapt it by only exchanging individual components according to your mission requirements and to help that Texas Instruments is offering the whole range of space related products.
ADC128S102-SP is also offered as ADC128S102-SEP. As said, the SEP stands for Space Enhanced Plastic – This is a version with lower radiation performance, minimum of 30krad and 43MeV and plastic package opposed to its ceramic package sister device which ha the 100krad and 120MeV, fairly high radiation tolerance which you need typically in your higher orbit missions.
[00:16:24] Adrian: By the way, uh, let me add something so that the LMH5485-SP I just mentioned before does also exist as a -SEP version. There is also much more, but the important point is that the complete data acquisition system is covered by Texas Instruments in -SP and -SEP flavor.
[00:16:52] Hywel: Right. Okay. Yeah, it’s amazing. Discover, you know, how much is involved in these decisions that need to be made at the, uh, at this level in order to create an effective data acquisition system and, and overcome these, uh, typical challenges. And, uh, very pleased you touched on both performance and adaptability cuz as, as mentioned earlier, I think both things are becoming so much defining so much of the decisions that need to be made by satellite designers and, and satellite operators.
And, and ultimately they are related to the business cases of, of the end users. So that’s great. And, uh, just to remind, uh, the audience again, that we will, uh, be linking to all of the products mentioned in this audio, so you, you’ll be able to find out more information about, about those.
So we’ve talked about how to develop a, you know, a really high performing data acquisition system, and you’ve mentioned how it would be adaptable to different areas as well, however, Obviously in space, things that don’t always go quite as planned, and they’re a data acquisition system and the components that are, that are in it will be interfacing or could potentially be affected by lots of the other, uh, systems in the satellite or the behavior, the satellite itself.
So how good are the, um, fault detection and fault tolerance systems being used today in some of the applications that we’ve discussed. And do you see there being, you know, plenty of room for improvement in the next generation of missions or missions and services that are in, in development?
[00:18:20] Adrian: Yeah. That’s very interesting. So in space developments, obviously there is a great focus on making the technology highly robust against the harsh environment, right? There is always a chance that something breaks in the system and uh, it could be a fatal single event effect, or it could be even a generic component failure. So now designers, they add a lot of monitoring and diagnostics capabilities into the system.
And they are also trying to develop, uh, recovery strategies such as, uh, controlled power of or, um, of the affected system to switch to the redundant component, for example. Uh, but like in every industry, um, the circuits, um, get more and more complex with every new generation of the products. This brings an exponential growth of potential failure mechanisms. Designers must make sure that any failure scenario is properly identified, understood and its impact mitigated. Components with integrated fault detection and fault mitigation technology bring very high value in this topic.
[00:19:49] Michael: Right, right. Yeah. Maybe, uh, I, I could add here an example on that out of the power management, here’s the TPS7H4001-SP, which is a rad-hard 18-A, synchronous step-down converter and comes with several protection features such as: under-voltage lock-out, over-current protection, over-voltage protection or thermal shutdown.
The great thing about having those things integrated is not only the PCB space savings but also the aspect of easy-to-use in terms of dimensioning the design margins and thresholds.
[00:20:27] Hywel: Michael, can I just ask, are these, are those four the most common sort of failures that would need to accounted for?
[00:20:34] Michael: I would think these are common challenges in, in, in power designs that you fear a too high current, a too high voltage, obviously, but also the too low voltage because you cannot turn your transistors on properly anymore.
And, and of course as a result of whatever happens, a thermal issue may arise and you need to at that as the last resort have to shut it before your semiconductor would die? Yes. Okay.
[00:21:00] Hywel: Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, sorry to interrupt.
[00:21:03] Michael: No worries. No thanks. Glad to clarify. Yeah, I think this, this dimensioning, right?
This is what people need to get under control and you have to be tight enough, right? But you also don’t want to be too loose or you have to kind of be loose enough because otherwise you get a lot of false alarms. Right. If you overdo it and, and this is not a trivial task today, they find the right threshold because you must consider also the right temperature range and also the drifts of the component parameters over time, as you’re permanently exposed to this high radiation that makes kind of, it turns aging on your device as it’s up there. And this is where the such a device like the TPS7H4001-SP, it really simplifies this task significantly and provides such capabilities in the most optimized way already.
[00:21:56] Adrian: Great example. And I can even add another interesting example, and that’s product on this topic is our eFuse solution TPS7H2211-SP, with voltage range of 14-V and 3.5-A current handling capability. It is an integrated load switch with additional features that provides: reverse current protection, overvoltage protection, and a configurable rise time to minimize inrush current (so called soft start). It can be either placed into the power tree to protect any circuitry downstream or it could also be used as a switch between redundant components or modules in the system, for the case one of them would turn into a fault state. There is also a sister device TPS7H2201-SP comes even with a programmable current limiting trip and retry capability.
[00:23:01] Michael: Right, Adrian? Yeah. Great examples. Thanks for bringing them up. Let me also add one from the digital side, what you, uh, it’s really typically more cost sensitive LEO constellations. There’s also the strength towards MCU based implementations. As the radiation hardened FPGAs are typically very expensive.
Our customers look here now for alternatives, and now overall whether such digital systems are FPGA based or MCU based. The topic of fault detection and fault mitigation becomes even more important here. Has to do with just these large memories and larger, additional circuits just have an increased risk of an error caused by radiation simply to their larger size and higher complexity.
And accordingly, the semiconductor process technology must be improved, uh, here for the best possible radiation hardness. Uh, here an example, TI’s MSP30 MCU is based on FRAM memory technology which is a lot more robust against radiation than the traditional Flash and SRAM technologies used in most MCU products on the market.
TMS570LC4357-SEP offers very strong diagnostic and fault detection and fault mitigation capability. Its architecture is a grounds-up functional safety design. Its heritage comes from automotive and was designed in accordance to ISO 26262 functional safety standard. Now, at first glance you may wonder if an automotive safety concept is really applicable to space applications. But let me assure you it really makes sense as all these functional safety standards pursue a very similar objective which is ‘freedom of unacceptable risk’. Exactly what we also want for any of our space missions.
[00:25:05] Hywel: Yeah, that makes sense. I was just going to ask, Yeah, for clarification on that. I mean, visions of Elon Musk’s Tesla in the, in the Starship. So, um, yeah. There’s a lot that goes into it. I mean, you’ve just covered a whole variety of topics just on the fault detection side of things and, and diagnostics when you need to consider the individual fault, you know, identification and mitigation performance of, of the components, how the components are even assembled together, how tightly they packed the things like thermal effects or electronic effects between components and, and obviously the, as you mentioned, their performance over time.
The, the drift in the, the parameters, the ability to insert specific fault s witches, uh, you know, fault mitigation switches, uh, at different parts of the power tree. There’s a, and then the digital side of things as well. There’s so many, uh, factors and variables that go into these decisions. And I wonder, are there any tools or methods you, you might suggest people could use, designers can use for, to like more quickly evaluate the different architectures and, and make decisions.
I mean, particularly when it comes to achieving their original design goals for, uh, acquiring data in, in certain mission.
[00:26:19] Adrian: Yes, there are several tools and methods we can offer to accelerate the customer decision process as well as to predict the achievable system performance.
One of the very well-known tools on the market is the design and simulation tool PSpice®. Texas Instruments is offering a free version of PSpice for customers. In addition, we are also releasing unencrypted Spice-Models for our components and those are available directly from ti.com.
With that customers can, for example model the complete input stage of the ADC and for example, compare different configurations.
After that, when the proof of concept is successful and real hardware measurements are required we can offer Evaluation modules and reference designs for most of our components, and those are also very often available directly from TI-store.
With that, real performance measurements are possible and if needed the system can be modified and adjusted to reach the expected performance.
[00:27:51] Hywel: And I assume you can model their different conditions and different applications.
[00:27:56] Adrian: Correct, you can. You can change and adjust to your specific needs.
[00:28:00] Hywel: Brilliant. Okay. Okay. Makes sense.
[00:28:01] Michael: Right. Yeah. And, and If customers want to complement their knowledge or seeking for ideas solving design challenges I can recommend to check our E2E-Forum.
In the E2E-Forum engineers, both from TI and from customers, discuss possible solutions. In addition, TI’s web page is offering thousands of Application notes and White Papers for very wide topic selection.
In order to find information about space application customers can visit TI’s application page for ‘space’ via https://www.ti.com/space/ and review specific application pages like for example the page for Command & data handling or for Optical imaging payload and many more.
By visiting our reference-design page and selecting space, customers can find complete reference designs according to their needs. A good example is here our reference design for satellite health monitoring with several implementations for current, voltage or temperature monitoring. All with an accuracy better than 1%.
This design is available under TIDA-010197. Customers get access to the complete design guide, test results, explanations on component choices and also how the designs was configured so customers can quickly adapt to their needs. And of course we also provide here the full design materials, like the schematics, bill of material and even Gerber files.
[00:29:56] Adrian: Something else came, came to my mind. Michael, if you’re talking about this, let me add something else. if someone is looking for circuit ideas I can recommend to look into our Spacecraft Circuit Design Handbook available from ti.com which provides sub-circuit ideas that you can quickly adapt to meet your specific system needs.
Each circuit is presented as a “definition by example.” It includes step-by-step instructions, like a recipe, with formulas enabling you to adapt the circuit to meet your design goals. Additionally, all circuits are verified with simulations.
[00:30:51] Hywel: Okay, brilliant. We’ll include links to all of those, uh, resources you’ve just shared, uh, in the show notes, obviously to help, uh, all the readers out there. I think, um, part of our mission at satsearch has always been to open up the, uh, the information in the industry to more people from as many companies as we can and, and to try and democratize access to that information and just help her bring forward the entire industry in that way.
And I think, um, there are now so many missions that can be analyzed and relied upon. To give people a better start when designing new systems, subsystems, circuits, missions, whatever it is. So it’s great that at ti you’ve also invested in, in making that information available to people. I think there’s no need to start with a blank piece of paper anymore when there’s been so many CubeSat missions and, and missions of all levels.
So that’s fantastic. And like I say, we’ll share, we’ll share all of that with the, the listeners. I think. Uh, yeah. Finally, we’ve touched. Well, pretty much all of the technical topics. Uh, and to bring it kind of back to looking to the future, cuz we see there’s so many, um, options out there now to optimize the data acquisition systems.
But, um, thinking more generally about how trends are moving and, and we talk about all the time, the importance of swap, see budgets, size, weight, power, and cost. How these trends are, moving, how these trends are changing in the next three to five years, uh, when it comes to data acquisition systems, in space applications, particularly as we mentioned, with the increased use of high data rates.
What is it that designers need to watch out for what’s coming, you know, what’s coming online that they could access, or what potential issues are there that they need to, to be thinking about as, as the industry progresses?
[00:32:29] Adrian: Yeah, that’s, uh, that’s a very good question. Obviously one trend we see making very big impact on size, weight, power, and cost is the availability and use of devices in plastic packages.
As you know, traditional QMLV devices are in ceramic packages which are physically larger and heavier than the more common commercial plastic packages today.
TI has been working with our customers, the space community, and government agencies such as the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) or ESA to create new standards that will allow for the use of plastic packages and substrates in space applications.
TI’s first space developments with plastic packages came with the introduction of our radiation tolerant Space-EP portfolio. This was really an answer to customer needs looking for lower cost space devices as a solution for the higher volumes of Low Earth Orbit satellites or New Space.
The challenge was to find a solution that was not only low cost, but also smaller size, lower weight, which, uh, which is obviously reducing launch cost, and, uh, meet the lower radiation requirements of the LEO orbit.
If you think about this, plastic packages were a great choice because we could leverage the scale of the semiconductor supply chain to reduce cost and provide a smaller overall solution.
In our space EP portfolio, we now have 20 devices in production or sampling with many more in development.
[00:34:33] Michael: Yeah. And then as the industry become more, more accepting of plastic packages, we also notice the need for devices with plastic packages, uh, that really meet the, uh, rad hard requirements. So TI worked with the Defence Logistics Agency (DLA) to develop the new QML Class P standard and the updated QML Class Y standard which should be ratified by the end of 2022 (or early 2023).
Similarly, ESA has developed the new ESCC9000P standard which closely matches QMLP.
These new standards allow for plastic encapsulated package in the case of QMLP or organic substrates in the case of QMLY.
We already have devices in development to meet these new standards. Since the plastic packages can be much smaller, they also have an added benefit of allowing for higher performance devices and high performance in, in several ways.
So, maybe just lemme give two examples. Uh, like the one is, Uh, where overall, right, the smaller package means shorter bond wires, or even no bond wires for flip chip devices, and therefore less parasitic inductance and resistance.
So on the examples on, in on power, right, this means you can make a more efficient power device, uh, which then potentially reduces the need for additional thermal management in the satellite. Or in the case of RF, right? It allows you to run things at even higher frequencies that way.
And the other benefit is like our, since the development time for plastic packages is shorter, we are able to release more modern devices to the market quicker allowing for more innovation is space.
[00:36:45] Adrian: Yeah, that’s totally true, Michael. We are continually releasing new, more modern and more efficient devices into market. Let me give you an example. We already talked about the analog to digital converter, ADS1278-SP analog to digital converter operates at less than 20mW per channel.
Similarly, our MSP430FR5969-SP microcontroller with even sixteen 12-bit ADC channels integrated consumes less than 9mW in active mode and less than 0.7uW in shutdown mode Another example: our TMP461-SP is a fully integrated digital temp sensing solution operating at ~1mW for a conversion and 50uW in standby mode.
These devices give satellite designers the flexibility to pack more features into the same power envelope on the spacecraft compare to that what was possible in the past when using older or more discrete circuits.
[00:38:04] Hywel: Right. Fantastic. Which for so many designers is the goal. And, uh, as we’re seeing Yeah, new innovative payloads being developed that needs a, a certain architecture based around them.
This is the sort of designer considerations that will need to be increasingly made in order to cope with that. So, um, Thank you very much. I think that’s a great place to, to wrap up. I think, um, you guys have shared some really useful information today. I think for anybody. Look at their looking to optimize their data acquisition system.
It’s very clear from, you know, that the component level and, and circuit level that the, the TI’s experience with and, and product lines that have precision analog, uh, signal chain solutions, you know, give you the authority to, to speak on the subject and covered many of the different factors and problems that can crop up.
And, and that’s really useful. And then obviously we’ve looked at full system solutions from, you know, actual data acquisition to processing, response generation, and obviously everything that goes into the whole monitoring and diagnostics. I think that was very interesting for people to consider. It’s not just about how the, uh, system is put together and optimized in the clean room.
It’s about how it works in space and deals with problems, you know, on orbit, but, and, um, Yeah. Finally, as I’ve mentioned when we talked about it, I think the, uh, the work that, that TI is doing to help designers make better decisions or start in a start further along the process when they’re doing their own designs are really useful.
And, and we’ll share the links to, to the various resources you have to help people deal with the compromises that are forced on them by the environment of space, and by their own SWAP-C budgets. So, um, I’d like to thank yeah, both of you for, for spending time with us on The Space Industry podcast. Really appreciate all the insights you provided today.
[00:39:52] Michael: Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you. Our pleasure.
[00:39:56] Hywel: Great, thanks. And to all our listeners out there, thank you too for, uh, spending time with us on the Space Industry Podcast today. As I mentioned, we will have lots of, uh, links and resources for you in the show notes about Texas Instruments, and you can find out more about all of the products and innovations and the information they provide at those links.
So thank you very much and we look forward to seeing you next time.
Thank you for listening to this episode of The Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to sat search.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments.
Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter, and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google Play Store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Cloudflight is a digital innovation and solutions provider working across many sectors, including space.
In this episode we discuss the applications and processes involved with building space-related digital products that incorporate AI. We cover:
You can find out more about Cloudflight here on their satsearch supplier hub.
Cloudflight’s space data processing and analytics services are designed to create bespoke data products to maximize the chances of mission success.
Cloudflight works with prospective clients following an agile approach; assessing, evaluating, and proposing possible solutions. The end result is a minimum viable product (MVP) that is tailormade to the client’s (and their data’s) specific needs, maximizing the chances of mission success.
Cloudflight supports new space business models by helping companies test and develop service concepts suitable for the modern market.
Cloudflight has the expertise to harness digital tools and capabilities in order to develop and evolve business models better suited for today’s market conditions.
Cloudflight can also provide access to additional data streams to satellite operators and startups to support any R&D department, thus helping in finding new, innovative business models to maximize the success of a company.
Cloudflight’s algorithm development and optimization services are designed to improve processing and mission outcomes.
Algorithm optimization is the process of finding the input parameters or arguments to a function that result in the minimum or maximum output of the function.
One of the main tools to achieve this is machine learning (ML), an approach that enables the efficient processing, organization, labeling, and categorization of information, making it easier to learn from and/or apply to real-world problems.
One example of algorithm optimization in action is Cloudflight’s partnership with GRASP, the world’s most complex algorithm for aerosol detection. GRASP is a scientific research project that uses Earth Observation (EO) data on the effects of aerosols (from sandstorms, volcanos, wildfires, pollution, etc.) on the global climate.
Cloudflight’s predictive maintenance services are based on the company’s expertise in aerospace manufacturing, a field that strives for “zero failure production.”
While high-resolution, multi-dimensional datasets describing the condition of a machine or building component offer an unprecedented level of quality, they’re also challenging and time-consuming to inspect.
Cloudflight integrates its knowledge of big data analysis and process automation with technologies such as computer vision, augmented reality (AR), and machine learning (ML), to build applications for intuitive and accurate quality assurance inspection workflows and to optimize manufacturing processes in general.
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
[00:00:32] Hywel Hello and welcome to the episode. Uh, I’m joined today by Michael Aspetsberger, Head of Aerospace at Cloudflight. Cloudflight is a digital innovation and solutions provider. The company works across many different industry sectors, including space.
Now, today I want to discuss a real sort of trending topic for many people. Different levels of the value chain in the industry. And that’s this concept of building digital products that incorporate AI using space data or based on space-based data.
And, um, I think there’s lots of, uh, applications to this sort of technology and there’s lots of different ways that companies are assessing it and testing it. So, uh, it’ll be good to get into that detail. So Michael, hi. Welcome to the podcast today. Thank you very much for being with us.
[00:01:14] Michael: Thank you, Hal, for having us here. I’m really excited and I hope we have an exciting, uh, podcast ahead.
[00:01:19] Hywel: Fantastic. Great. Well, let’s get into this, um, this discussion. So firstly, my question is, in, in your view, what do you think are the key roles that data process and algorithms play in satellite missions and, and services, and how can AI sort of accelerate their development?
[00:01:34] Michael: So, as you have mentioned, I mean we as Cloudflight, we have seen many different areas over the years, Right? We have been working with the public agencies, We’ve converting with the private new space industry, both big corp, uh, and small startups. And the one thing that we have really seen is that the data processing is the, the heart of the value chain, right?
All the data you record from space, you need to transform it to have some benefit for your ultimate customers. And so the data processing really is the driving force behind generating that value. And what we have seen there is really artificial intelligence can be a way to be accelerating the development of this data processing pipelines it, instead of having to spend an awful lot amount of money and, and effort and, and resources into trying to understand certain aspects of the system, you can really try and prototype quicker with AI, right?
You can try many more things more rapidly than you could if you would model the entire system, uh, using some, uh, classic procedures. And at the same time, also with the new capabilities that you get artificial intelligence, uh, you can also compensate for some of the deficits that, uh, your, your specific hardware hand has.
[00:02:47] Hywel: I think. Um, Drivers as being seen in other industries as as well. I mean, you mentioned rapid prototype in there. Well is one of the key value ads of something like additive manufacturing. This what company’s talking about all the time, and this is on the data processing side, so, so that’s, yeah, very, pretty interesting.
But this relationship between software and hardware is important. So again, in your view, how can AI help when hardware alone isn’t adequate, isn’t enough in a satellite mission, you need to go beyond and you need to, you know, use routines to go beyond standard toolkits.
[00:03:19] Michael: Yeah, absolutely. So if you compare against like the classic, uh, way of building the, the, the big satellites, right?
In the, in the, in the past it was, you would try to get the best possible thing you can, right? You would try to get the best possible pointing for your satellite, the best possible calibration with the FUS and whatever. You try to really have an extremely well calibrated and well-built instrument to have an A package that can generate the maximum value out of what you have in orbit, basically.
Now, when you want to build a full constellation, that won’t work, right? You have budget constraints, right? You can’t build a hundred satellites with the cost of a hundred or 200 million each, right? You have to make compromise. The constellations. They’re not only driven by pure scientific demand or by what the taxpayers or whoever decide, but really by, by the industry.
You have to understand what is the, uh, what is really the benefit or the value. That is to be generated ultimately, and you will make some compromises, right? For some early demonstration, it might be sufficient if you have, uh, a degraded pointing or if your instrument calibration is not perfect, right? All that matters is that you can generate something and, in these fields, when your data is not perfect.
I think this is particularly one of those areas where with AI you can try more novel approach to some other strategies. For example, if your pointing is not accurate, By the advances that, um, have been done over the last years, you can now use some AI co-registration routines or you can use some feature extraction routines to try to better understand what place of earth are you looking at and how does it match with, um, historic observations you have done before.
Right? And try to, uh, sort of build that, the product based on the data that you have attend. At the same time, there’s other techniques such as, uh, data assimilation and, and also data fusion. And, and all the way to super resolution where recent, the recent technological advances in AI can really help you make a difference in the product that you have.
[00:05:20] Hywel: We talk about all different aspects of, uh, earth observation industry and, um, ensuring that you are actually imaging the location that you want to is a key part of this.
[00:05:30] Michael: That’s really critical for, for getting a good product. Because if you’re doing some crop monitoring product right, then you’re monitoring the parcel of your neighbour.
Uh, whatever index generating out of it, it will be extremely beneficial to him, uh, but not to you, right? So it’s really critical to get a good geometric accuracy and it’s got really interesting, really important to get a good radiometric accuracy for the, the more sophisticated algorithms you might be running on it.
But then again, you need to have a product first before you can get to the point about being picky on the, on the data quality side.
[00:06:00] Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And this is what you mean about this hardware and the software, you know, going hand in hand and working together. I’m very pleased. Also, in the previous answer, the previous question, you used the word compromises.
Because this comes up in every podcast, every space mission. There’s only so much that we can launch, that we can operate, that we can power, and that we can fit into the, uh, the, the volume of the satellite and everything involves a trade-off and optimizing the entire system for the key performance criteria that you want that will earn value to your mission or to your service.
So working within those constraints, how can data processing help or accelerating data processing, how can this help to reduce costs and potentially also mitigate the impact on the environment? And do you have any examples you can share with us on this?
[00:06:48] Michael: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, data processing is specifically the component on the ground, right?
I mean, as I said before, the data processing per se, is the heart of the value chain, right? And you can do some data processing in space, right? There’s more and more edge computing going on there. So there is certainly a space component to it. But the big data problem typically is on the ground, right?
Because you’re collecting the data and you’re reprocessing the data over time. And in many cases, the, the algorithms that are in play there. These are the very scientific POCs, the proof of concept you did a long time ago, Right? And you tried to get the fit right and you, you expanded on it for those that were working fine.
And often there, the focus on getting those proof of concept done was not to get it to be done efficiently or get it done fast, but it was to generate the actual product out of it. Right? Like the quality of the, the product was the, the primary focus. And now if you bring that poc, the prototype to production, and particularly you most likely are going to do it in, in the cloud, right?
Because cloud gives you an abundance of resources, right? There is no shortage on, on that side. A simple way of bringing that to production is just to randomly cloud and throw as many hardware on it as as necessary to produce the results. And there’s certain costs attached to it when you want to have like near real time product.
And there is a different cost attached to it. When you want to have a new generation of, of data product, a new algorithm version coming in, because you need to look at the entire history and, and regenerate the results. Of course you can throw a lot of more resources on it and try to solve it that way, but as you said, that’s going to drive your costs up.
And one of our core offerings to, to the European Space Agency, for example, was to accelerate algorithms. Right? Because the, the thinking there is quite simple. If you invest a certain amount of time in making it faster, you will reduce the, the time it takes to run to, to do the data processing per se.
Right? And for as long as the initial investment is a quantity, that is handleable the benefit that you continuously generate when you put this in operation. Will basically be being offset by this, right? So if you improve something by, um, a factor of two, uh, you will have half the, the infrastructure cost going forward, at least on the processing side, not storage, but processing side.
If the initial investment was there only a few, 10s of thousands or a few hundred of thousands, that could really be something. That, um, has a big impact on you in the long run on the financial side.
[00:09:16] Hywel: Particularly if it’s a constellation, right?
[00:09:18] Michael: Absolutely. Now, historically, I admit that we have only been looking at the, the financial side, right?
Because many of the organizations, of the companies we talk about, they’re in the early stages, right? And they, they are looking specifically to optimizing their costs because that is their, they’re basically their runway, right? Whether they, they still have, uh, time to grow or not. But at the same time, the maturity of the cost that you spend in the data center is on the energy side.
Right. And this was already in the past, and it’s going to be much more going forward now with the, the current, um, situation A across the globe. The energy shortage. Yeah. Yeah. So at the same time, when you reduce the, the cost on the infrastructure side, you’re also reducing the, the amount of resources that it takes you to generate it. Right? Like the electricity that ultimately powers the, the data center. And so improving those algorithms and making them more efficient, making them run quicker. And maybe also, you know, optimizing algorithms is not just by trying to replace the hardware, they run on with more specialized hardware that’s maybe more efficient.
It’s also about redeveloping the algorithms, reduce their complexity, right, And make them more maintainable and. More easy to use to resources attend. So all this, by reducing the infrastructure resources, you also, uh, reduce the strain on the environment because ultimately the power that you need in a data center needs to be generated somehow.
And there is only so much energy you can get out of renewable energies like wind or solar. So whatever we do to reduce the costs, And in turn, the resource there. It also has a positive effect on the, the environment for us.
[00:10:55] Hywel: Yeah, that’s great. I think that’s a really interesting story. You know, the, as you say, the, the global situation at the moment has thrown into sharp relief, the costs of energy, of power in anything from your home to your business.
And at the same time, we’ve seen the, uh, the effects of climate change continually hitting home and companies are looking at how they can become more sustainable, say they are more sustainable, all these problems, and ultimately it comes down to reducing resources if you can.
[00:11:26] Michael: Absolutely. Because you also have to be, be frank here, I mean, many of the constellations are being launched, many of the products that are being generated there.
They’re often for purposes of monitoring specific characteristics down on earth, right? And many also with the intention to provide more insight into climate change and the environment and how well we treat the resources we be that we have on the ground. But at the same time, right? If you have those bold goals, which I fully support, right?
You shouldn’t be sort of compromising them, but with the way how you treat the environment yourself by by, by processing massive amounts of data and storing massive amounts of data. So you should be sensible in how you do those steps to make sure you are not the bigger impact on the environment than what you’re trying to, to monitor and improve.
[00:12:11] Hywel: That’s great. Actually, that leads into my next question. So, and you, you’ve mentioned a few things that companies need to think about when they’re developing products, you know, based on these sorts of technologies.
You talked about the idea that the proof of concept is a different situation to the operational system and approaching your, your sustainability goals and, and ideals with, with these technologies in mind can help you achieve those aims. Do you have any, any further advice for companies you know, more generally based on your work in the industry?
[00:12:40] Michael: I think the one advice I’m giving the most of the times, and I’m, I’m always giving it because I think it’s the most valuable one that I can give, is to really try out things right and try to find a fit on the market.
Now that’s, that’s much easier said than done. So I know that saying that per se is, is, is kind of empty. So what I, we are not trying to give examples, what I’m trying to say is you will need to run many different prototypes for your product, right? You need to have a way to rapidly try out new algorithms, new data products, generate new indicators, new information from the data that you generate.
And what I see in many different startups is often there is a focus on having something in space, right? Uh, trying to build a satellite or trying to build a very specific, uh, instrument. And then there is the expectations that once you launch that instrument, once you launched its satellite, uh, the business will come automatically.
But in, in, in nine of out of 10 cases, that’s not going to happen. Right? You need to have a really, a really niche product that nobody has done before to make that work, right? In most cases, there will be some kind of product that is somewhat similar. Or at least some sort of observation that is similar to the one observation that you generate.
Often, the in orbit characteristics of the observations you make, uh, might not be really what you had intended initially. You also had to make compromises to get it up there, right? So what I’m trying to recommend is when you have something in orbit or there is some data that is similar to what you want to have in orbit, try to build your product based on that.
Try to have your algorithm prototypes in place and try to have many different there because most likely the product you’re going to be successful with ultimately on the market. It’s not going to be exactly the one product you had envisioned initially, right?
So trying out many different results there and be able to rapidly adapt and extend on them. I think that is key to have the success that you will need in the early stages. Once you have that in place, once you have the found one or two of those cases, which are giving you a fit, then you really need to bring that into production, right? And you need to extend on it, but only do that for those where you see really a fit.
Now when you want to try out many different prototypes and when you want to, uh, polish them up to bring ’em into production, that is a quite labor intensive, um, effort, right? For one, you need to find the right staff to do it, which is not easy. I mean, we ourselves are very limited in finding good stuff cuz it’s specifically in the IT side, uh, and specifically the IT on earth observation side.
You’re always in a tight competition on the market. It’s not easy to find stuff there. And at the same time, you don’t want to move your core staff around, right? Because you want to have the core staff focus on your core activities in, in, in your organization. So you don’t want to put that at risk by just trying 10 different new products too.
And so our recommendation on that side is we don’t recommend to simply buy some off the shelf solution or buy some completely external component for it. Our recommendation really is to enter into a corporation there and try to use outside resources when you can, when it helps you, when the staff is the limiting factor.
But try to keep the the knowhow in house, right? You don’t want to be vendor locked on a specific organization or a specific product, because that will expose you for your further growth, right? It will limit you. But bringing the right party in to um, sort of cooperate with you on, on trying out these different prototypes can be a way to stay flexible and agile because that way you’re also not tied up with a long term engagements because I mean, hiring people and, and firing them, if something doesn’t work out, that is going to put a lot of stress on your internal organization as well.
But if you have some, some cooperation going where you are flexible in the way how you, how intense you work on a certain topic, that can really be a way to rapidly throughout new approaches and see if it fits or if there is a market fit or not.
[00:16:48] Hywel: Yeah, you need do need to strike that balance between what you can do in house and what the third party vendors do.
And the smaller the team, also the, the more crucial kind of key staff turnover can be because the people who leave can have a huge amount of knowledge and it’s very difficult to replace them rapidly.
So, perfectly understand and you emphasize versatility and flexibility, and I think that’s very important for companies to consider if they’re trying to be commercially focused in, in today’s space industry that involves, of course, as you mentioned, third party suppliers and providers at different stages in the value chain.
How does then maintenance and operations factor in of such products, you know, with that value chain, with different people playing different roles?
[00:17:31] Michael: Bringing some prototype to operation to true 24- 7 operation to true, truly an automated business is not an easy task, right? I mean, many people think all you need to do is just let it run on the computer, right?
And it works fine, but that’s not true, right? If you want to have a true 24-7 offering, right, that is resilient, that customers can rely on. You need a different type of thinking, right? You need to, first of all, make sure that your, your system is running fine, right? So that there is enough redundancy and there’d be enough error recovery built in so that it can survive.
But at the same time, it also requires organizational rethinking, right, Or reorganization in a sense. When you’re operating 24-7, you also need to have on call personnel available, right? Because I mean, space is the space industry specifically. It’s not a local business, right? It’s not that you’re sitting in, in Germany or in France or in the United Kingdom and you launch a satellite, you’re launching a constellation and your customer is sitting next door to you, right?
It’s sitting in the same time zone. In many cases, that is not the case, right? Because the space data, it’s global, right? So you could. Some customers sitting in, in Canada or in, in, in South America, in, in India, all the way in China or Japan. Your data will be applicable to them, but they’re sitting in a completely different time zone.
So if they have any urgent request or if the system goes down for whatever reason, uh, you need to be able to respond to this. For this, you need to have no-call team that can, can react to this. And you need to have mitigation procedures in place. What happens if you are, if the data link is down, or what happens if a specific bit of your data processing pipeline fields, how can you recover from it?
You need, you need to have some strategy in place on what you can do to recover quickly to re bring the service back up, and then have, have enough time to investigate and, and fix it in the longer. And now we have had multiple customers on this side, right? We built products for them, we operated products for them.
And as I said, it’s, it’s a difference in, in how you handle a scientific product to an operational system. And it’s essential there to make sure that you, you understand your system. Uh, it’s also essentially how do you understand the external inferences that impact your system? And if you rely on external partners, you need to make all to make sure on their capabilities.
Not just go, I don’t know, look up in some directory and look for the, the most inexpensive, the cheapest call center you can find to sort out production for you. Because ultimately your, your customers, if they rely on you, they trust you and they’re willing to pay a premium price if you can offer a premium product.
[00:20:21] Hywel: Absolutely. That’s, that’s great. Thank you. So we focused, you know, almost exclusively on the use of AI and advanced process in satellite data generation and because that’s where the vast majority of the value generation is in the industry when we look at these sorts of missions.
But how else can such solutions be utilized in space, mission development, or manufacturing, those sorts of areas?
[00:20:47] Michael: Right. I mean, manufacturing is an entirely different business, right? I mean, most of what we discussed, they just said it was more on the downstream side, like on the payload, in the ground segment, on, on how you can use data to generate value to your customers. But if you look at it from a pure, uh, technical point of view, if you’re manufacturing components, you also have machinery.
And the machineries, it’s, it’s not just that you turn them on and to produce something and you’re taking the output and you’re happy with that, but the machines, they, they’re having more and more sensors, uh, being placed in. Why? Because you want to better understand how the production is is going, whether there is any congestion or where the bottlenecks are, how the production chain is generating the products.
And because you know, when you generate any instrument or any component or any, any piece of machinery per se. What do clients they’re interested in is really to understand when they can get it right. When is the time by which you have completed manufacturing? And also they’re interested in the quality, right?
How good is the instrument? Is there any, any defects in it? Uh, so for, for your clients, this will be essential. In understanding how they can work with it. And now these sensors, these machines have more and more sensors, right? And understanding the data out of that sensors can be essential in understanding what these machines are actually working, how they’re doing right now at this very moment.
And the way how you can analyze that data, it, it’s going to be massive amounts of data. If you have a continuous sensor running on a, on a 24-7 production line, because you might have sensors that measure the, the throughput. You have sensors that measure the, the certain strength of certain activities. So there’s an abundance of data coming together and evaluating that data.
It can be obviously tempting to just look at it once and then throw it. But if you want to have some sort of history behind it, because many machines, they don’t stock from one day to another, or they don’t make any faulty production from one minute to the other. It’s something that often degrades slowly over time.
You need to have a way, if you want to be proactive and, and you want to understand how your machine is doing right now, you also need to have that history, uh, in mind, right? So you can’t throw that all the data away. You might be able to aggregate it to some extent, but you shouldn’t be throwing it away.
And the way to really understand that data and to assess that data. This is really a place also where artificial intelligence can be of help, right? Because some of the problems that machines face when they have some production malfunction, you can anticipate, right? Because out of experience, you know that every, every, so many cycles, you know that a certain piece of equipment will likely have issues.
Or maybe there is even some information from you, from the supplier on, on this bit and pieces. But in many cases, problems specifically for machinery that is not standard off the shelf, but it, uh, is being custom-built. Many of the mistakes or the, the, the problems coming into life, they are not known upfront, right?
So you need to be observant. You need to watch the, the various metrics that the sensors generate and try to detect anomalies, right? Try to find what could be an issue that’s causing that hasn’t been there before. That’s maybe the reason for why other metrics also turning sour, right? That is really a place where also artificial intelligence can help you to better organize the data, better detect patterns in the data, and ultimately, um, help you to have a better understanding of what the situation is and also give you predictions on, on how things can go forward.
So, although it’s an entirely different industry, I would say, right, many of the strategies that you can employ to generate value out of data for earth observation, for example, um, some of those strategies you can also apply to, uh, improving the production in, in a manufacturing business.
[00:24:56] Hywel: Oh, fantastic. Thank you. That’s great insights. Yeah. And you could clearly see the impact of the different sectors you work in at Cloudflight like this.
Which yeah leads me to my final question. What are you currently working on at Cloudflight? And, um, I always ask conversion of this to, uh, everyone of our guests. What are you most excited about in the next few years?
[00:25:17] Michael: So, at Cloudflight I mean, we work with so many different things, right? That there is so many industries, specifically in the space industry. What we see is artificial intelligence is getting more and more present, right? So it’s, it’s not just used. Very small or isolated cases, it’s being used even in in cases where you wouldn’t think of it in the first hand.
Right. At the same time, also cloud resources are now standard, right? So doing stuff on premise. Is something that in the space industry we barely stumble upon, right? Many of the, the small companies, the startups, they have a limited budget and spending budget on building your own data center, that is typically a no go.
We see that there is, uh, a point when they reach a certain size, right? And maybe the constellation is five or six satellites. You start thinking twice about, um, using standard cloud resources because of the price issue that comes specifically with storing data. But in most cases, cloud, there is the way to go and, and also for the classic industry that was probably more conservative in, in moving things to the cloud, that they’re seeing the change there and they’re trying now to also be more agile in terms of their own internal IT resources.
So cloud computing, it has arrived and I think it’s here to stay for the next years. At the same time when it comes specifically to like Internet of things and, and assessing sensors, edge computing is something that’s more and more coming, or at least that where we see more and more projects, um, uh, coming ahead to us.
Cool. The, the clear quest there is how can you reduce the big things on the ground? How can you make smarter decisions? How can you make smarter assessments directly on the sensor basis, uh, just to be more, more dynamic, more agile in certain cases. And there’s going to be a little bit of conflict there.
Because you know, the data that you discarded early on is a data you can never recover. So it, it needs sensible choices, how to go forward there. But in many cases where privacy, right, where, where data privacy, where there are really critical data about persons or individuals in play, then these edge computing can be essential to even enabling any business model.
Blockchain used to be a hot topic a few years ago, then it has faded a little bit. Uh, we see there are small resurgence because trust, generating trust for your products is, is something that is still present and, and, and nothing else has been found that could, uh, compensate for this. So we see a slight resurgence in there.
And then there’s also a lot of other different technologies, also more exotic ones that we are working out. So it’s, it, there is a big abundance of different, uh, technologies that are being tried out in the industry now, and it’s a little bit difficult to see clear trends there, what I’ve already mentioned before.
But what I do see in, in, with many of the organizations that approach us, and also with many of our own internal folks here, is that the environment matters, right? And in the past you would only think about a, what’s the cost attached to it or can it be done or can it not be done? But we’ve really seen a change in the way how people think, right?
It’s, it’s really okay, I can do it now, but what does it mean to the environment? Right? Can this approach be sustainable, both in terms of the, the financial side and the, the resources it takes, but also on the environmental side, right? Because more and more people are seeing this as their main concern going forward, right?
And even now, in times of when we are discussing a lot about the energy shortages and, and how can we heat our homes over, over winter, um, you would think that this is completely off the table. Because, you know, you might say this is only like a, a first world problem, right? Like when you’re rich, you, you can care about the environment.
But it isn’t right. I think even nowadays people are very focused on this activity and try to keep it on the table. So really trying to improve the sustainability, uh, the environmental sustainability of solution is something where we see, at least at people working at Cloudflight, this is something they truly care for.
And we are glad that it’s the same for our customers and what I’m personally really excited about is I’d really like to see how the constellations go forward. I mean, there is, constellations is pretty much in every, uh, new space startup, a new space company I talk to, they all have their eyes set on a constellation, right?
I barely meet one that says, Hey, we only want to launch one satellite, and that one is going to the core of our business, pretty much anyone says we want to have a full constellation, and I’m not even talking about the mega constellations from SpaceX and, and Emerson Kiper, et cetera, but I’m talking about like smaller ones, like maybe a hundred satellites, maybe 50 satellites only.
So I’m really excited how that works out. I’m excited from a business perspective. Even if you use very inexpensive satellites, it takes a lot of resources to launch them. Right? I’d really like to see how that runs out. I’d like to see it from environmental perspective. I mean, obviously the space in space literally is in a sense unlimited, but there’d will be capacity issues being seen.
The situational, a bareness in space, right? Seeing, trying to understand various space debris and, and how that impacts your constellation specifically, or the constellation of others is a really hot topic, right. There’s also the issue about the orbiting satellites, right? And, and the impact it has on the atmosphere.
There’s the issue about light pollutions for astronomers, so there is many environmental impacts it has when you launch a constellation. I’m pretty sure that there can be, a way can be found that works for everyone, right? And that also makes that thing happen. But it’s going to be an interesting way forward.
But ultimately, the one thing that I’m really most interested about, about all the constellations is really in the data they generate. Because if you look back 20 years ago, or even 30 years ago, the few you had on Google Earth, right? Or or, or Bing Earth or bing maps, whatever, it was a special thing back then, right?
You had maybe like one satellite crossing over your location. Two weeks or so, or every once a month maybe, whatever it is. And now with the constellations, you are seeing over the very place that you live at maybe 5, 10, 20 different views on it. And not just once per day, but maybe as much as 3, 4, 5, maybe even 10 times a day.
So the way how we can see our earth is going to be changing so dramatically. Now that data is, is not the same data as we had before, right? In the past, most of the data was owned by the government, right? So, or by the public agencies. So you could have accessed it at maybe even free or at least no cost. Now we have commercial data coming in.
So I’m really excited about the possibility this brings. And at the same time, we also have to see how well the data is being archived because the information behind it, it’s going to be incredible.
[00:32:18] Hywel: Absolutely, absolutely. And in more than the visible spectrum, of course.
[00:32:22] Michael: Absolutely visible, near infrared thermal radar, maybe only like the, the atmospheric sounding.
You also have not only the, the few on the ground, but you also have the position of ships, of aircrafts, of things on the ground. So it’s so many different layers of information. If you can combine them, I’m, I’m a hundred percent confident that there is new products in there to be explored and new business models to be found to be ultimately successful with that.
[00:32:52] Hywel: Excellent. That’s, um, really exciting, uh, vision and I think that’s a great place to wrap up. Thank you, Michael. I think, um, you’ve shared some really good insights today for our audience, the discussion on rapid prototyping of new products and space, uh, compromises the companies have to look, making missions and services more sustainable.
I think its very important goal in and of itself, as well as the benefits, the multiple benefits here it brings to, to companies, uh, the share some great advice on setting up a new product on new business, and yeah, bringing in your insights from other sectors and looking forward to, to what could happen in the future. So from all of us at, at satsearch, on behalf of the listeners of the Space Industry podcast, I’d like to say thank you very much for spending time with us today.
[00:33:31] Michael: Yeah, thank you. It was a blast here. Really awesome job you guys are doing and leading the knowledge and connecting people. That’s really great. And yeah, I’m looking forward to the challenges ahead of every one of us.
[00:33:41] Hywel: Fantastic. Thank you Michael. And, uh, to all our listeners out there, thank you too for spending time with us today. We’re very pleased to have you remember, you’ll be able to find out more about all the, um, information that, uh, Michael has shared with us today, the companies, the innovations and resources satsearch.com and in the show notes for the podcast. And, um, just please stay tuned for our next, uh, episodes coming soon. Thank you very much.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Vyoma is a space debris monitoring company, based in Germany, developing solutions designed to ensure safe passage through space.
In this episode we discuss the background, technologies, motivations for, and current state of the space situational awareness sector. We cover:
You can find out more about Vyoma here on their satsearch supplier hub.
The Vyoma Conjunction Assessment Service is designed to support operators managing satellites, whether single systems or large constellations.
In combination with the company’s Orbit Determination Service, in which dedicated tracking campaigns are run to update Conjunction Data Messages (CDMs), timely and accurate assessments can be provided to take informed decisions.
This multi-level service is designed to enable the screening of maneuvers against the chaser and the entire catalog of objects.
The Vyoma Orbit Determination Service helps obtain orbital information of space objects of interest in a timely and transparent manner.
The service is based on dedicated tracking campaigns executed through the Vyoma sensor network, consisting of globally distributed telescopes covering all longitudes and orbital regimes from LEO through GEO.
Next to providing an accurate estimate of the orbit itself – e.g., following orbit insertion, after a maneuver, or simply during normal operations, this service also provides a propagated trajectory as well as the uncertainty evolution of the object in the form of an Orbit Ephemeris Message (OEM).
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody and welcome to today’s episode of the Space Industry Podcast. I’m joined today by Stefan Frey, Co-Founder of a satsearch member company, Vyoma. Vyoma is a European company that’s developing solutions to protect space assets. This is a really interesting and an increasingly important topic in the industry and I’m quite excited to get into the detail of this with Stefan today. Specifically, we’re going to discuss the current state of the space situational awareness domain. But before we get into the questions, Hi Stefan. Thank you very much for being here today.
[00:01:02] Stefan: Hi, Hywel. Thank you very much for having me.
[00:01:04] Hywel: Great. No problem. Okay, so as I mentioned, an increasingly important topic that a lot of people are focusing on, and I wonder if first you could just ground us by giving a brief overview of the current space debris environment in the different orbits. If we just look at LEO, MEO, GEO, Where do you see most of the threat, actually the real threat emerging for satellite operators potentially?
[00:01:26] Stefan: All right. So assuming that your listeners already know what LEO, MEO, GEO means I’m just going take it from there.
[00:01:31] Hywel Curtis: I hope so 😊.
[00:01:33] Stefan: All right. So most of the objects that we currently see up there are actually in the lower earth orbit, so in the LEO region. And it’s becoming, Increasingly congested, I’m making satellite operations around the altitudes of 500 to 800 kilometers, really increasingly dangerous as well, and that means that satellites there actually have to perform regular collision avoidance maneuvers just to make sure that their assets remain safe.
If we go up a bit farther to MEO and GEO, so MEO is where GNSS satellites are, and then GEO is the point in the orbit that doesn’t move with respect to the earth surface. It’s not so congested yet, even though, especially for GEO we have to say that there are a lot of objects already out there. And it’s of course because of it, the fact that it doesn’t move with respect to the earth is very precious orbit, so we have to take special care there as well.
However, I think as respect to LEO, it seems to us, working at the European Space Agency actually looking into how the different actors in space behave with respect to this space debris mitigation guidelines is that in GEO actually, they’re behaving quite well because they know that they have to protect their own slots. While in LEO it seems to me personally, it’s more of tragedy of the common space.
MEO, as the last point, I think the danger there is basically the GTO so the crossing orbits, which are today not well observed, and we don’t know very well where they are actually.
[00:03:10] Hywel: Okay. Interesting, interesting. Yes, obviously the incentives that different companies are actually under to, to look after the systems and look after the debris change dramatically with the size of the systems the orbits I say good overview. Thank you.
And then in, in terms of tracking this, these assets, what sort of the different space based and ground based sensors or systems are used or of interest for space situational awareness and what kind of resolutions are needed or can be provided in order to identify space debris?
[00:03:41] Stefan: Right. So in terms of space based observational capabilities, there is really not that much today. So I’m just going to focus on the ground based solutions that are out there right now. And I think the most prevalent in terms of technology are radar and optical, especially when it comes to cataloguing objects. There are other technologies such as laser ranging however you need to already know where the objects is to be able to actually point your laser in the right direction.
Most of the data that, that everyone especially yeah everywhere, but also here in Europe is getting access to, is actually coming from US Spacecom it’s an American connection to the US military actually. So they have a very large ground based radar, but also optical network. So they’re observing objects in LEO, MEO and GEO, and they’re providing this kind of information in the form of TS. So tool line elements, but also special EEM especially perturbation EEM.
So this is a very great source for everyone working in the industry to understand what’s the situation up there. However, we have to mention here that they’re tracking roughly 45,000 objects and that based on or an existing 1 million objects that are up there right now. So we, as humanity, basically we see less than 5% of the dangerous objects that are actually threatening our satellites. And this is something that we would like to change at Vyoma.
In terms of revolution you were asking as well. It always depends for radar especially depends on the energy you put into the radars.
Because as you might know, there is the radar equation that means the more energy you put in the more signal you’ll get back. But the problem is that this signal gets weaker with distance and it gets weaker very fast. And that’s not only distance, but also the size of the objects that you’re looking at.
So right now the US-based column catalog is more or less tracking objects that are 10 centimeters and larger. There are radars that are capable of going lower. I want to mention here, TIRA in Germany – they can see centimeter level objects as well. However, they really have to put in a lot of energy. And right now in the current situations, that energy really not what you want to do. And at the same time, it also burns your instruments. So the wear and tear of putting through so much energy is actually making it very costly for operations.
[00:06:00] Hywel: Excellent. Are there any other sort of pros and cons for the different types of sensors and systems used?
[00:06:06] Stefan: Yes. So if you’re talking, if you’re comparing, of course, ground based to space based, I think one big pro for ground based obviously is maintainability, right?
So if something is broken there is no issue and you just fix it. On top of that, you have energy available on ground as well. You have generally a lot of heritage that is has been around for many decades. But if you look at the cons from radar, for example, from ground based is as I said, as I mentioned before, it’s distance to the targets, right?
The farther away is the less signal you’ll obtain. So this is something that’s, especially if it’s passing exactly above you, that’s easy to catch, right? But if it’s somewhat far away, you’re looking at it at a lower elevation angle, it’ll already get much harder to catch it. If you look at optical ground based telescopes, they are very simple to set up.
They’re quite cheap, and they can really provide the data as well in, in no time because they’re connected to the internet or connected to a computer, which is of course another con if you’re looking at space based, because there, you really need to make sure that you have inter satellite link which is doable, which is but you have to make sure, and this is what we are doing, that you do a lot of onboard processing already, right? So you’re not going to be able to download all the images in, in full resolution. But what we can do is we actually reduce those images down to just the small parts of interest for us.
So really actually that’s image coordinates of where the objects are that we see plus some coordinates of stars as well. I also want to mention some pros of being space based, especially for optical. Of course is to have a constant sun illumination angle, right? Is this something that you don’t have on when you’re on ground.
You’re also struggling with weather, atmosphere, so there’s a lot of time actually your telescope is not going to be running while in space. We can really achieve a near 100% duty cycle. So what does that mean? Actually observing all the time. And top of that we don’t have flight pollution. So we can achieve a very high sensitivity when we are in space.
[00:08:03] Hywel: Excellent. Okay, that makes sense. You touched briefly on the work that you guys are carrying out at Vyoma in the space situational awareness market today.
You also mentioned earlier that there is a volume of data or sources of data available, and I believe there is plenty that can be accessed for free, although, all be it, for a limited number of objects compared to what is actually up there. So within that environment, yeah, could you explain a little bit more about where Vyoma sits and what work you do and plan to do?
[00:08:33] Stefan: Yep, absolutely. So indeed one thing is, going from 45,000 objects to actually seeing and warning operators to, to 1 million objects.
But this is not the only, Yeah, the only thing we’re working on. Basically because what we want to achieve as well is help satellite operators avoiding unnecessary maneuvers.
So how do we do that? We do that by observing objects more often. That is currently being done. So shrinking the uncertainty about the location where they’re, cause every time you observe them, again, you can shrink the uncertainty of where they’re Plus I also want to mention here that we have a very good understanding of the environment where satellites are flying. So we have near real time calibrated atmospheric density models.
What does that mean? We’re actually taking observations from satellites that already in orbit and feed those into our models to get a better understanding of the environment they’re flying in.
And all of this really helps us predicting better where objects are going to be. In terms of avoiding unnecessary maneuvers, that basically really means that we can tell us that operators with our improved data and our improved predictions that they actually don’t have to maneuver while maybe with previous available information they would have to perform this costly maneuver.
And why are these maneuvers so costly? This is simply because you have to basically turn down your services that you usually provide during the time of doing the maneuver. And of course you have to involve the lot of specialist performing. Anyway, though the SSA part for us at Vyoma, is really only the foundation.
For our automation solutions. So our vision really is to shrink operation centers to the tip of your finger. Basically make sure that you can operate your satellite from a tower.
[00:10:13] Hywel: I see. And to go back to the maneuver, monitoring and the, when you need to give notifications and things, how much of a heads up can you potentially give satellite operators about a potential threat to an asset? And how accurate do you believe your assessments can?
[00:10:28] Stefan: So we can give a heads up or an early warning already weeks before an incident. Yeah. But indeed this is not necessarily useful because of course uncertainty grow over time. I think what is much more important actually is reducing the time of still obtaining information before taking decision to, to do the maneuver. And this is where our solution comes in as well. Cause we’re screening all the objects, couple of times per day basically. So we can first of all predict when we can make an update. So giving operators a heads up when the information, next information data point will come in.
Plus we don’t have related issues, right? So this is a very high reliability on providing this data, basically. So the idea is to provide a data point very shortly before the actual time of predicted collision, right? And then give operators the possibility to wait as long as possible to take the decision to do the maneuver. Because in most cases, there is actually no maneuver required, right?
Simply once you have better data you actually know that it’s going to miss your satellite just to give you one more data point here. Today’s satellite operators are moving out of the way if the collision risk is higher than one in 10,000, right? And what really means in a very simplified way, is that 9,999 out of these 10,000 maneuvers are actually not required.
[00:11:50] Hywel: Right, that’s an enormous amount. I’m very surprised at that. But yeah, just the nature of the lack of information ac well accuracy that we have in the domain. So that’s interesting. Now I know that there’s a number of teams working on different aspects of space situational awareness. I was at the IAC in Paris last week and there were several teams, exhibiting there.
So there’s obviously a growing, there’s a growing demand because of the amount of objects up there, but there’s growth on the supply side as well, which is from a marketplace perspective, which is where we are at satsearch, this is great to see, but from, your perspective at view, do you see a need for greater coordination within this community to, mature SSA systems and make it a more kind of trusted area of the space industry?
[00:12:33] Stefan: Now there is no doubt that bundling together observation data, using observation data from different places will make any product more accurate, also reliable reliable. Of course, on top of that, we can also validate each other solution, which I think is something that is currently lacking cause everyone is just relying one single source of truth.
Yes, indeed. There is no doubt that we have to collaborate with each other. I don’t know exactly in terms of coordination. That sounds a bit like it’s something from top down, which I don’t think is required basically because we strongly believe that all the solutions in the end will be somewhat distributed, making them much more reliable also in terms of, if one system stops working all of a sudden basically. So we really do believe in a distributed system.
On top of that, I think what’s really cool about our industry in space in general is that we’re, we’re all driven by a sense of urgency of solving this problem, right? So it’s much, competitiveness. I think it’s much more collaboration that is intrinsic to everyone working in this domain.
[00:13:33] Hywel: Yeah, that makes sense. And I think the nature of what the satellite operator is trying to achieve by using your data, move a system. So that there is an impact is by nature collaborative because you’re moving it out of the way of space debris or in other existing satellite, you’re trying not to create further debris that would damage other companies who maybe your competitors’ systems, yeah, by nature it’s a safety for all.
[00:13:58] Stefan: Yeah. Help each other to help yourself, right?
[00:13:59] Hywel Curtis: Yeah, absolutely. And on that are there are such satellite operators, spacecraft operators, able to use threat assessments to move their assets when they don’t have propulsion systems on board who can maneuver or they’ve run out of propellant or the propulsion system isn’t operated at the moment.
And how long might they have to act? You mentioned the times you give them before a potential conjunction, but that would vary by orbit as well, I’m guessing?
[00:14:26] Stefan: That’s correct. Yeah. So what they can perform are differential drag maneuvers. What does that really mean? So they can rotate their satellite to achieve a different area to mass ratio because there is still a bit of atmospheric drag left where most satellites are flying right now.
So if you change your, the area that is actually being perpendicular to your to your velocity factor, then you can really change the resistance and you can actually slightly change the orbit towards your normal operations, your normal attitude that you would have. Of course it depends a lot on the shape factor of the satellite.
Or the sides very long as compared to the front. And as you say, correctly on the altitude of the orbit, cause the lower you fly the more drag effects will be there on your orbit. But indeed so significant changes can be achieved. I think what’s important here again it’s not so much how early you have to do it, but how well can you predict where it’s going be, right?
So if you can say we’re fine with missing an object by 10 meters, then of course you can, you can wait really long until before it happens. But if you say, Okay, we make sure we miss it by 300 metres of course you will have to start quite early. It’s actually a similar problem for satellites that have electric propulsion available only.
They also have to make sure that they start thinking hours, maybe even days before closest approach itself.
[00:15:45] Hywel: That’s very interesting. And are there any recommendations that you would like to give satellite builders from, from the awareness of getting ready for space situational awareness and being able to carry out the right maneuvers and understand the data that you are being provided and things.
Is there anything, any advice you’d like to give them in the early stages of a mission?
[00:16:03] Stefan: Do consider space debris and related additional requirements very early in the process. Of course, the later you start trying to adapt the design to, to these kind of risks, which are very real the more expansive it will get for you.
Of course. Also I think ESA is actually going towards index and index that, tells your mission on what’s the footprint that you have on the space environment, right? That’s taking you to account the risk of colliding, but also the risk of having an explosion onboard, basically.
So if your payload permits, really try to avoid the most congested regions, right? Just go somewhere where the risk of collision is much smaller.
That can be just, going to, to maybe 1000 kilometers instead of going to six, 600 kilometers altitude. So if your payload allow, try to avoid the congest regions.
[00:16:49] Hywel: Okay, brilliant. So start from these assumptions. There are going to be potential for you to impact something that could, there could be debris effecting you start it don’t build a satellite, assuming it’s never going to happen then.
[00:17:00] Stefan: Right, yeah, Unfortunately. Unfortunately. Yeah. So just to give you also one more update here.
So I’m, since the dawn off the space should have been more than 500 explosion events happening in space. So this is something that. It’s really real, right? It’s collisions are much less frequent. They have been so far four confirmed collisions in space. Nevertheless it’s getting more and more risky.
[00:17:24] Hywel: Then I was also interested in how the data that, that has been collected and provided and the systems that have been developed can have an impact on the other aspects of a satellite mission and its administration. Interesting aspect of this.
So towards, the insurance for space assets. So do you see insurance industry maturing and offering schemes that spacecraft operators can adopt based on SSA assessments that could be provided and, is this industry ready for using that sort of data for transforming their operations in this way?
[00:17:55] Stefan: So it’s not going to surprise you that of course we’re talking to the big reinsurers that also have space insurances and indeed so we, what we see really is them towards really taking this problem seriously. Today, space insurance generally covers any loss of satellite in operations, in space, right?
And that can be from space every day, can be from faulty battery, from a faulty payload, whatever. And this is, I think because of two reasons is this cause a space debris is still a small part of the overall failures that you can see in space. And secondly, often it’s not clear what is the actual cause of a failure, right?
Because sometimes you just lose communication and that’s it. You don’t know exactly what happened. But with the better pool of data that we’ll have in the near future and with other modeling capabilities as well, this will change because we can predict, or we can also tell you what was really the cause of this.
So what we think or what we see the space insurance is going towards is a model where you, if you actively consider space debris and you actively perform, avoidance maneuvers and you react to space debris, your insurance payments will actually be lower. So there is a real financial incentive as well to behave behave responsibly in space.
[00:19:06] Hywel Curtis: Yeah, that, that makes sense. Think about it from the point of view of traffic in, on the roads. If you couldn’t see out the windscreen to see the other traffic, then you should pay more for insurance, I think.
[00:19:18] Stefan: So yeah, I think that’s a very accurate that’s actually a very accurate description even of space.
[00:19:24] Hywel Curtis: Great. That’s fantastic. So a final couple of questions I think just to just to get back into the technical aspects of it and the hardware software with this emerging environment on the administration side and the different combination of data systems and you mentioned the use of ground based Components and hardware.
What combination of sensors do you see in the future has the best potential to give a satellite operator, for example, a complete or a as complete as possible of a picture of their environment in which they’re working?
[00:19:55] Stefan: Indeed it will be a combination of radar and telescopes as well. Cause they give you a different set of data.
Radar generally gives you range and range rate. So how far away is the object and how is, how fast is he moving with respect to you? And telescope give you angler information of where the object is right on top of that. Radars are generally very good in spotting objects that are of metallic nature.
So they, it’ll give you More signal back. While they’re not so good in, in seeing non metallic objects on the other hand telescopes can see bright objects. That can be, even pain flakes, right? Which would not possible to be caught by radar, for example. So it’ll be definitely a combination of these two types.
I think if you want to go to even more precise or determination, you’ll also want to have access to laser ranging information. So what we are actually working on now for our second generation of satellites is because the first one is only going to carry telescope is also considering radar or lidar.
So technologies that are capable of measuring the range and the range rate. The only problem with these kind technologies is that they’re generally limited in range, while we can actually see from LEO to LEO, LEO to MEO and LEO to GEO as well with optical, this will be much harder to achieve with any kind of technology that can do range and rate in space. If we don’t have access to unlimited source of energy there.
[00:21:21] Hywel Curtis: Thank you. That’s a good summary. And finally then back to to finish on Vyoma and your, obviously your personal ambitions and excitement about the company as well. What role do you see Vyoma playing in the European space industry or global space industry moving forward? So what are you, where do you see yourself, where, what are you most excited about in the company?
[00:21:41] Stefan: I think we really see ourselves as a supporter and also an enabler of satellite operations and enabler of, the whole space industry. And we really want to do this by just making operations safer, but also by making it much more affordable.
Cause right now, go to market for new brilliant ideas of having some payloads in space, it just can take years. And it will take so much effort for people that have no experience or no network of actually being able, pulling this off. And we really want to make this much simpler by providing this kind of operation center as a service basically, right?
Satellite operations as a service, so we really contribute to the growing space economy. But also of course, while keeping this critical infrastructure safe. I think if we can do this, then we have accomplished our mission.
[00:22:29] Hywel Curtis: Fantastic. Thank you. Best of luck in accomplishing that. And that’s a great place to sum up, I think.
Thank you very much, Stefan. That was it was really great talking to you today. I think you shared some great insights on what space situational awareness actually is, why it’s important, how objects are detected, and how satellites and systems move out of the way and when they shouldn’t.
And what satellite operators need to think about from kind of day one of mission development in order to adjust for the environment in which they are going to be, hopefully operating, assuming everything else goes well. And yeah, great to, to hear about the plans the Vyoma has as well.
On behalf of, all our listeners, that’s basically podcast. Just wanted to say thank you very much for being with us here today.
[00:23:10] Stefan: Thank you, Hywel, and thank you for your work as well. I think this is super important to, spread the word and make sure that people understand the risks of satellite operations. Today. Most people don’t understand that there are services that every one of us uses daily are at risk of being lost, for good if we have a catastrophic event in space. Thanks a lot.
[00:23:30] Hywel Curtis: Oh you’re welcome. And, yeah, this is to everybody listening, this is very much an area that benefits from everybody engaging with and being involved in. Please do look into this area and see what you can find out, but what’s important to your industry your missions, your products and services.
And as always, we will share some further information on Vyoma’s work and products and services in the show notes and we can find, also find details of everything on satsearch.com and on the company’s website. And. Just wanted to say thank you very much to our listeners out there for spending time with us today. We’ll be back with you soon on the Space Industry Podcast. Thank you.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Anisoprint is a Luxembourg-based provider of continuous fiber 3D printing solutions.
In this episode we discuss a range of topics relating to additive manufacturing processes for, and in, space. We cover:
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host, Hywel Curtis, and I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space, organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember you can find out more information about the suppliers products and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody and welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined today by Fedor Antonov from Luxembourg-based 3D printing company, Anisoprint.
And today we’re going to discuss manufacturing of space component and the use of techniques such as 3D printing or mainly 3D printing to facilitate new business ideas and new satellite concepts and even further into exploration of deep space, the sorts of materials and things that are needed.
So it’s an aspect of the supply chain that I think a lot of companies have worked on or thought when they’re in the ecosystem and looking to scale up, develop constellations, to improve their own manufacturing. These are one of the manufacturing techniques that they would look at, but also there is applications for this technology in space itself, in orbit, in space stations, potentially on the surface of another planet.
Hi Fedor. Thank you very much for spending time with us today. Is there anything you’d like to say as an introduction to add to what I’ve said?
[00:01:27] Fedor: Yeah. Hi everyone, and thanks, Hywel, for the introduction. Yes, indeed. 3D printing in space and in more in general, like manufacturing in space is one of the biggest topics for the space exploration. We going to boost the space exploration in the next decades, and this is definitely not possible without paying attention to them in space manufacturing capabilities.
And I think the one and the most important reason here is, yeah, the way we do space exploration now is we manufacture things on earth. We manufacture launchers, we manufacture satellites on earth, and then we launch them and deploy them on earth. So this is how we do it to today, and this is quite obvious, but the big problem here is that everything that we launch to orbit from Earth has to withstand the launch loads.
And in most of the cases, the launch loads are much heavier than any operation loads that any space system would face during its lifetime, during its operation lifetime. And it, it means that we design mostly for launch loads. And this means that the systems are over-engineered to withstand this loads.
But if we would exclude the launch loads from the design loads, then everything can be made much lighter and it actually means that there is less mass that we need to deliver to orbit, yeah, and of course, like less manufacturing effort and everything, it means that this topic would change if we can manufacture outside earth, if we can manufacture on orbit, everything that we do would be cheaper, lighter, more efficient and would un unlock like much more capabilities for space exploration.
And obviously 3D printing while getting bigger on earth, it still has to compete with all the technologies which are well settled and well built in the supply chains and product life cycle chains 3D printing is struggling to get into the production market. Yeah. And still most of the applications we have with 3D printing on Earth are either in research and development or manufacturing of tools or like prototype or like functional prototyping. But getting into the still production is really hard. Because you need to change everything.
The whole paradigm for 3D printing to fit into it. But for space, 3D printing has many advantages, and one of the advantages is that it’s not existing. We don’t have space manufacturing, so nothing exists. It makes a lot of sense to, to start building it within the new paradigm and based on the new technologies and new approaches and new materials, which is also really important aspect of that topic.
That’s, I think the main idea behind it is, first of all, manufacturing. But then if we go through the life cycle, then there is service, like servicing, whatever we have on orbit. So there is no, almost no service in the, that we do currently only to a few objects in space. We can do service, but satellites are not really service. They are put down after their time is finished. Yeah. But actually you can repair them. You can produce spare parts and you can do maintenance, uh, on orbit. But for that you obviously also need the manufacturing capabilities. You wouldn’t send the object back to Earth and repair it on earth and then send it back.
It doesn’t make sense if there is a need to be an infrastructure and manufacturing like production of parts and components is the essential part of this infrastructure.
[00:05:25] Hywel: Yeah. Brilliant. And I think there’s a lot of different ways that we can go then in the conversation. And I think you’ve covered things like how this would affect potentially mission design, because as you said, we’ve, we move from a, a whole mission design concept focusing on the launch, what can be launched to what is actually going to be required is really interesting.
Yeah, the, as you say, the in orbit servicing and in-space manufacturing could potentially open up a whole wide range of opportunities for companies.
Maybe we could go a bit into a bit more sort of technical detail on which technologies and applications are the most suitable for, for places where 3D printing can clearly add value, and I guess what problems can the technique solve?
[00:06:05] Fedor: Yeah, that’s one of my favorite questions, and obviously the two things that we must pay like maximum attention when discussing the potential candidates, the potential candidate to technologies for 3D printing in space. First one is how heavy the equipment itself is and what are the infrastructure requirements for the equipment itself.
If you need a certain environment for handling equipment, certain like supply of, uh, consumables and what’s the service that is needed. So this is one. And the second one is of course, energy. So how much energy we need to run the technology to produce parts because yeah, the access to energy is more limited outside Earth.
Here on Earth, We have all kinds of energy sources and we do not really care or we were not really caring How much energy do we spend on manufacturing, but exact actually on earth as well. We have to care of that. And this, from my point of view, this excludes basically metals from all the metal manufacturing, the technology, these two aspects, metals or like metal manufacturing from being suitable for space manufacturing. Cause metal loss are heavy themselves and they require a lot of energy to process, to melt, to shape, to everything because metal loss are more dense. They need more energy to deal with these density, let’s say. And so that’s why metals would, and all the equipment, enhance all the equipment dealing with metal processing kind of heavier and has more requirements for energy demand or energy demand and environment.
And this is even true for 3D printing. I mentioned in the beginning that probably 3D printing as a technology stack and 3D printing is not just one technology. It’s like hundreds of technologies, which are, Which can be like very different. Very different. So nothing in common, but almost nothing in common between them.
And I said that 3D printing would be, 3D printing technologies would be a good candidates for in-orbit manufacturing, but not metal one for the sake of this energy consumption and the material itself. And then most of the metal technologies, of course, they require energy and some of them even require gravity because most advanced metal 3D printing or like metallurgy manufacturing technologies are based on powder. and or like powder bed when you need to have a flat surface of powder inside the certain environment, which need to be where gravity it can affect. These are also the limitations and the challenges of space environment. Yeah. Besides what’s mentioned, yes, there are also several constraints and limitations, uh, for a space environment.
And zero or low gravity is one of them. And some technologies really need gravity, a certain level of gravity to work. And so that’s, and these technologies would be definitely, excluded. So I say that metals probably not the good fit, but then what’s left, then it’s polymer. And the polymer technologies, and especially material extrusion technologies, because like very high level, we can divide 3D printing technologies into the powder bed or extrusion.
So that’s not all of it, but these two types would cover most of different 3D printing, uh, technologies and powder bed, uh, doesn’t work in space. And so we have extrusion, we have material extrusion and polymer extrusion, but the problem with polymers is that polymers are not so robust and you can’t really use polymers to manufacture structural parts or like primary structures of space vehicles.
So you need something really stronger. Like strong and lightweight and based on polymers. And then it gives obvious solution, which is at the same time known in the space industry is composites. So basically composite materials which are widely used already in space for manufacturing space structures on earth and uh, advantages and the properties of the composite materials they like fit very well in all the constraints and limitations that space environment would impose. That kind of gives me a feeling that there is only one good solution is 3D printed with composite materials based on material extrusion. And this is what we are working on Earth as a company.
That’s our main technology, or our only technology that we develop for manufacturing on earth. But this technology eventually can be applied outside of as well. And that’s why we were like really excited about this opportunity for like many years trying to find certain, just how we can get into that topic, how we can explore, how we can showcase this technology for in-orbit manufacturing and we’ve been, Yeah, we’ve made couple attempts, I would say like couple unsuccessful attempts.
Cause mostly it is still the market that doesn’t exist and you can’t guarantee any return on investment in a short term. So you can’t go to like venture capitals to finance this research and to finance this development because for venture capitalists, they have five year horizon on the return on their investments, like typically. So that, and for, for this new like low TRL technologies like in-orbit manufacturing probably it’s still for the public financing yet. It’s what public agencies or like space agencies such as European Space Agency or like NASA should pay attention to and to help companies or ideas to grow and to get supported.
Public funding is sometimes quite hard to get. You need to know how to do it. You need to be experienced in this because they have obviously certain requirements to lower the risks and so on. So we’ve made several attempts and to start activities like real development in this space, and the last one was pretty successful.
We got support from European Space Resources and Innovation Center here in Luxembourg, which is a part of Luxembourg Space Agency Initiative. And Luxembourg is one of the big, is very active in space topics.
Yeah. The listeners of the podcast might have heard of that, that there’s a lot of space activities going on in Luxembourg and it makes sense strategically for the country which is small on earth, and want to do something big somewhere else. And the are like many aspects, many different projects, which we can do as a, As a first step. Yeah. And basically this also goes inline with the general roadmap for space manufacturing. What are the road blocks of enabling space manufacturing.
[00:13:40] Hywel: We can look at, yeah, both in terms of more, more widely the concept of bringing 3D print in space or enabling in orbit to manufacturing in space or, or specifically how bringing in a composite material, 3D printing with composite materials based on material extrusion. What are the technical challenges in the way?
[00:13:59] Fedor: Yeah. So first of all, I think that there are like several tiers on how do you enable manufacturing in space or for space.
So the first step would be obviously to showcase 3D printed parts in real missions, like just the standard parts that you print on earth and the standard way you launch them. And this has been done several times. Already It has been demonstrated by different companies and research groups that some of the 3D printed parts and 3D printed materials can operate efficiently in the in space environment.
That hasn’t been though yet demonstrated with composite materials. All of the use cases that we know are either metals, metal parts printed on earth and then launched into space or even plastic parts like polymer parts. But these polymer parts were either mostly for smaller missions like CubeSats, where because yeah, the smaller your structure is then the loads are smaller and the requirements for the material properties are typically lighter. Yeah. Or it was demonstrated in some like, Non-essential parts.
And for composites, this still hasn’t been done. And this is if we wanna enable manufacturing of composite materials, like real composite materials reinforced with continuous like structural fibers, fiber enforced polymers, because like in general, the definition of composite materials is like very broad and. when I say composites, I mean like structural, continuous fiber enforced polymers. So these are the materials which have the highest specific strength and stiffness among all the materials, all the industrial materials which we’ve invented. Yeah, these are the CFRPs. Yeah. So these are the materials, what I’m talking about.
And these materials hadn’t been yet demonstrate on the real missions, 3D printed this type of 3D printed materials. And this probably would be the first step to demonstrate that it works. The second step would be to demonstrate manufacturing in orbit, but in a dedicated environment. So we’re not talking about for on a space station.
Yeah. So in a environment and conditions that are closer to, to normal conditions on earth. Yeah. With, with probably the exception of gravity. Yes. This environment that exists? Yes, we have ISS still operating. There’s been a lot of discussions on how to commercialize ISS, because probably governments don’t want to pay for it anymore.
And then the commercialization of the International Space Station is a big topic and this is the facilities that exists and you can deploy 3D printers like small 3D printers onboard ISS with like minimum modification and you can, It’s not a big technical challenge to demonstrate 3D printing of composite materials on orbit, even it’s been successfully demonstrated with, with polymers like 3D printing with polymers or with polymers or compounds.
It has been successfully demonstrated. This could be the next step and that would already unlock certain business Opportunities, and this is one of the topics that we’ve been discussing with companies operating on ISS and we have a memorandum of understanding signed with Nanoracks, which is a big operator of the deploy on ISS.
And they, and they can deploy small satellite missions or even something more specialized rather than just the simple cubesats through this mission airlock and its capabilities. And so the opportunity that we’ve been discussing is. If you would have 3D printer on ISS, then you can on demand manufacture satellite frames or like cubesats frames.
And then you can assemble using like certain building blocks, you can assemble different cubesats with different payloads and manufacture, assemble, and deploy them on demand. So it would take like just couple days. Ideally, if someone wants to launch quickly, like some quick mission and especially that’s going to be a good value proposition for research University and to deploy such missions on demand for that, you would need of course to have a stock of payloads, components and raw materials for 3D printing.
So there there should be certain stock available on board of the station and like maximum automation and everything to as the hand labor or the astronauts work, Uh, Work hours for that purpose. But this is a technical question, which can be solved. And besides the on demand manufacturing, there is one big value add is again, with avoiding like launch loads, because launch loads also affect the payload, the components.
So before you actually launch your system from Earth, you have to test it and then launch and pray nothing goes wrong, but when you deploy it from ISS, there are no loads, so you can. Test everything on ISS, and then you assure that everything will work. So there is no risk involved. So you just do the proper testing of all the components.
So you test all the components work, you put them together, you do one quick test, everything works, and then you deploy it and you assure that it will work. So it’s, and again, yeah, it’s going to be easier and lighter structure. So this kind of, it’s already a business case, which is foresee, uh, and it can be done in the short term.
And the advantage which composites would give is that you will eventually need less material on stock. Yeah, just the parts can be made lighter with a, with a less material usage. And they will be still strong, stiff, and robust, robust enough to operate. And this is the second phase, the in orbit manufacturing.
Then the third one would be the outer space manufacturing, or if we wanna have the dedicated manufacturing hub as a separate mission on orbit. But, Manufacturing in outer space gives Another huge advantage is large scale structures, cuz when you launch a mission from Earth, it has to fit under the hood of the launcher and it’s maximum five meters or like four to five meters max, and you can’t launch biggest structures, and this would be still the same thing if you manufacture on ISS. So the structure has to fit somehow into the deploy and into the space station, the facilities. But when you manufacture in outer space, basically you can manufacture structures with often unlimited size. And this is important for building like bigger missions.
And this is important again because we have all these large spaces attracts like telescopes that been launched from Earth and they are deployable, so they have to deploy with a complex kinematics when they are launched after launch one orbit. And this also complicates the design, increases the cost, increases the engineering complexity, increasing like failure risks and test and time on ground.
So that’s why like, Design cycles of these large, uh, structures. They are like in decades before you are able to launch a, a telescope. Yeah. You spend like decades in testing and engineering and then testing again and large structures if you can manufacture them on-Orbit as a single structure with no joints, with no moving mechanisms, then it’s, it’s a much simpler and like more, more robust structure in them.
So that’s another big thing. If you can really manufacture in the outer space somehow. Then, yeah, you can produce large structures, which don’t have to withstand launch loads, which don’t have to deploy using mechanisms and complex kinematics.
And then the fourth level would be manufacturing on other planets or like on the moon or on the Mars by using in-situ available resources for the first three tiers, Yeah, we still, we would still rely on the raw material sent from Earth, but the last step would be to utilize space resources as raw materials for in orbit manufacturing. And this is pretty interesting topic.
This is very interesting topic. And this would probably go beyond my knowledge even in 3D printing, because uh, there has been, A lot of activities on construction, 3D printing, like how do you build bases or housing or houses like on the moon. And this, I think this is yet one of the most advanced topics for 3D printing in space.
And because it’s, it’s also 3D printing, but it’s completely different, uh, technological stack from what we do. And it’s construction 3D print in, it’s a different market segment, but this is what has been demonstrated on earth by using materials that are similar to lunar regolith, like fine sand, which you can found in some deserts on earth.
So you can demonstrate how you can center, sand particles to a solid material you can use to build structures. Yeah, And this could work pretty well for construction, especially for construction of smaller. Buildings, but this material is still not the material which you can use in machinery. Yeah. Nobody just will use clay or concrete in, in machinery.
Yeah. It’s, this material is not having the right properties for that. So what do you do? How do you build the engineering parts, like mechanical parts for machinery using space resources. And yeah, this is a very fascinating topic and this is where we kind of see a solution also with, with fiber reinforced composite materials.
And we’ve been looking into that with our and our partners and there are a couple of research groups working on that topic. One of the group, which has quite a significant work done already is a group from Achen University in Germany, and they’ve developed the setup that can extract fibers from lunar regolith.
So these fibers would be rather similar to glass fibers that we can make on earth. So there’s also like silica based based fibers, and regolith has lots of silica. So you can make a silica glass by processing lunar regolith, and then from a silica glass by melting it and spin in it. You can make glass fibers.
And glass fibers are very good material, so they are not, uh, Strong as carbon fibers, but they’re pretty good in terms of mechanical purposes. And they’re widely used in, in the construction applications on earth and in all kinds of applications. Like for example, like wind turbine blades or boat house, All this large structures are mostly made today by using glass fibers or like the glass fiber for polymers.
So it means that we have these material, these glass fibers on the moon. Yeah. We know how to make fibers on the moon. So now, but to make a composite material, you need fibers and metrics material. So something that bonds fibers together and makes them work together. So this is, Yeah, the composite material essentially has two components.
Uh, reinforcing Component, which gives the properties and then the metrics a component which ma, which makes all the similar reinforcement components work together as a whole. So this is how composites materials work and on earth we have polymers and polymers are very good metrics. They work like very good as. matrix material for composite materials. So this is why fiber enforced polymers or continuous fiber enforced polymers, glass fiber enforced polymers, carbon fiber enforced polymers are extremely efficient materials. But the problem is that we don’t have carbon on the moon. There is no carbon atoms.
There are no carbon atoms, and you can’t make polymers without carbon atoms. available. So basically we can’t have polymers on the moon. Solution, which might work in this case. And this is what we’ve been discussing and this is one of the things that we also wanna demonstrate on Earth as, as the demonstration of a potential candidate for a structural material from space resources is kind of glass fiber enforced glass.
So instead of using a polymer as a binder, you can use an amorphous glass or a a glass in amorphous phase and amorphous silica as binder. And then you have fibers, which are highly oriented, crystalline silica as the Reinforcement. These two materials would obviously have a naturally good bonding, so they would adhere, they would bond pretty well to each other, and in this case, yeah, the amorphous glass could work as a binder, and the glass fiber could work as a reinforcement.
This is still not as good as with polymers because glass has, in terms of mechanical propers and physical behavior, Is not as good. But then, yeah, there is a lot of material science that could be involved How we can improve this material, what additives we can add. Or at least, at least we can only ship some special additives, which would make this material less brittle, more ductile, probably lighter and yeah, but still in this case bigger part of the volume will be from the space resources and such material, We don’t use it on earth because we have polymers. It doesn’t make sense, but this material could still work pretty well as a structural material for Mechanical applications.
And then on every planet, which we can reach to, there will be a different resources available. But in, in everywhere, this approach would work. So you can extract fibers and you can extract amorphous material, and you can find the combination where they would bond together. And then this can be processed with material extrusion or 3D printing, or it can be through 3D printed using the technologies that we are developing on earth for polymer for fiber force polymers.
So this is the third step, and then yes, again, if this infrastructure is growing and developing, then on each of these stages. The proportion of it. Yeah. How much input is it given into the whole space manufacturing industry will, I think, change more towards using space resources and outer space manufacturing.
[00:30:03] Hywel: I think as you finished off there, the market will change as different solutions. Come online and are facilitated now. And you mentioned the technical steps that need to be taken in order to progress the technology.
So, okay, those are things that still need to be overcome and there are companies like yourselves working on those steps, but also, You talked about business cases for the different 3D printing, for example, in different locations, so on the ISS or one of the private space stations in the future doing this or some other kind of environment, and also kind of in orbit itself, out outside inverted comments.
The market is aware of those possibilities as well, is way that people are working on those problems. Do you see the market evolve it and do you have discussions with people you know who could potentially be customers in 10, 15 years time or whatever it is?
[00:30:52] Fedor: Well, that’s a very good question. I think still the majority of the market players, they still don’t pay enough attention to in orbit manufacturing and, uh, opportunities and advantages it gives because they probably think it’s still too futuristic and they probably.
Going to wait a little bit more before there are some cases demonstrated, but then again, that’s the, they will have to catch up after those who did it first.
Yeah. One business case I’ve mentioned is like on demand manufacturing of like specific payloads based on cubesats, but then there is an an important topic of what they. called orbital gas stations or like refueling on orbit and for that, yeah, the infrastructure has to be built. And this is another application where the first steps can be made, like you can manufacture on orbit, fuel tanks. Obviously the tank itself could be inflatable, so you have the, the tanker coming to orbit and then it has to fill.
Smaller fuel tanks, which it can take on board, let’s say. And here you can manufacture the frames for these tanks. Yeah. Even if the tank is inflatable itself, it will need a structural frame. And this is the topic that we’ve been discovering and discussing together with a research group of University of Luxembourg, and they know that there is a demand for such solutions.
And they’ve been in touch with several private companies working in that direction, discussing this opportunity. And, but again, this is, if we’re discussing use cases, but if we look back at these road blocks, uh, still the first step would be for, if a company wants to get engaged and to explore the in orbit manufacturing opportunity for whatever products it’s developed or, or going to develop.
The first thing would be to incorporate through 3D printed parts in the existing products and see how they behave, uh, in a, in real missions, because that would build more trust. And better understanding of the technology stack and its capabilities and the values it’s bringing because it’s probably too much risk to go with a new technology in a new environment.
Everything new so the level of risk is too high. And I think that in this case, companies who wanna be among of pioneers in orbit manufacturing or utilizing in orbit manufacturing to get better products in them, that’s what everyone needs. Yeah, they need to get engaged in 3D printing parts for their existing missions, but paying attention to the fact this technology is like at least like theoretically, Capable of being deployed in space.
Yeah. So that have to be a little more farsighted in what they do now to be able to benefit from being the pioneers of in orbit manufacturing in future. And here I, again, the big companies are not going to be the pioneers, I think because the big companies are too, too rigid and they have too many challenges, which small companies don’t have, and that’s mostly around certification and stuff.
This is an interesting point that whenever a big company wants to implement a new technology or a new material, they have to make sure that this technology and materials are certified, but small companies, they don’t care before they got caught, let’s say. But this is normal situation. This is how, this is the only way that new technologies can emerge. The everyone has to take certain risk because before you take risk, you can’t really identify the challenges like to the full extent. And it doesn’t make sense to identify the challenges completely in advance.
So you, of course you could and you should take care of that. That the most obvious challenges, but most of the challenges, so you can’t even predict. And then you will have to deal with them when they pop up. And that’s why I think that smaller companies are in a better position because they have better access to the new technologies rather than the big companies.
And this would give them a big competitive advantage. So that’s why I think, yeah, we are of course talking about hardware. So what hardware manufacturers, what, What’s the space hardware? And here of course we have launcher vehicles and we have payloads satellites. And in satellites there are lots of structures that can be through the printed and that can be through the printed with composite materials and efficiency can be demonstrated and then this will be much easier to scale that to out of earth when the mers who are engaged, who are committed, and they see the value for us alone as technology providers. Yeah. We need the partners who share the vision and then we can only make it together like step by step.
[00:36:20] Hywel: Yeah. Okay. Brilliant. That makes sense. Yeah. I think obviously what you’re saying is true is great if there are market forces that can drive these things, that, That’s great.
So just to go back quickly to the in-situ resource utilization, you mentioned Luxembourg has quite a strong focus on this. I think it’s really interesting how they as an agency, wherever the direction is coming from, how Luxembourg building this brand and this critical mass of many talent and people involved in the use of space resources.
And this came from the earlier dreams of asteroid mining and what have you, but there are, the market is far more advanced now and there are opportunities there with lots of companies being involved. The research centers, is it the European Space Resources Institute, Innovation center. Yes So yeah, I think it’s really interesting work they’re doing. And yeah, So a lot of this focus on the use of in-situ resources. Where do things actually stand? You mentioned what could potentially be built on the moon with these materials could be great, but what, what missions are upcoming that can take these things forward?
Maybe if we could look further ahead then to actually how 3D printing and in-situ research utilization supports space exploration as well. That’d be interesting.
[00:37:26] Fedor: Yeah, so basically Moon is the nearest target and we have this Artemis mission, which is up and running, and this mission is until the end of this decade.
And it has many activities and many projects within this mission. And ESRIC, Resources Innovation Center is actually one of, one of their main goals is to support ARTEMIS mission, with supporting startups and new ideas that can contribute to our ARTEMIS mission and that finding ideas that can be tested within the ARTEMIS mission, and basically providing access to our projects and mission goals for larger number of stakeholders and what we’ve been engaged with ESRIC is the development of a 3D printer for the lunar environment, for the moon environment. And yeah, this is basically a low gravity environment, so it’s not zero gravity, it’s low gravity, but the difference is not that important. And what we had in mind is that we can have, again, the same approach, so the indoor 3D printer for low gravity.
So essentially it’s not too much different from the, the terrestrial solution now. And then by using raw materials that are sent with the mission from Earth and this, uh, printer operating indoor, it can support the mission with mission critical spare parts. So that was the main application and the main idea.
So if something is broken on the mission and uh, instead of waiting for the next supply from Earth, you can manufacture spare parts exactly on demand. But with using this technology and materials available. And then again, then the next step would be to start using lunar resources instead of shipping materials from Earth.
And this is what I’ve explained, the other solution with glass fibers made out of regolith and yeah, the Next step would be, again, the outdoor 3D printer. So for a manufacturing, larger parts and structures, not just for the spare parts, but for manufacturing machinery, straight on the moon, and yeah, this is for ESRIC.
It’s important to see this part, this space resources part in every project that they are engaging in. So that’s why finding this solution was important for, for the project to be supported by ESRIC. And yeah, the timeline is rather long and there are Different steps and milestones from like proof of concept, which could take a couple years.
Then after proof of concept there like some smaller mission for Evaluation and the proof of concept in real environment, proof of concept. And yeah, I think these activities which we do here in Luxembourg and with ESRIC, they’re mostly around our ARTEMIS because that’s a big program with big public funding.
But this is not the easiest and the simplest thing you can do and it’s rather long term story. While there are simpler way To demonstrate space manufacturing, which are not falling in the, into the asterisk mission or into the ARTEMIS mission, which we are still looking to get engaged to by finding the good partnerships and partners who are interest that, as I say, one project is 3D printing on ISS.
Another project which we were trying to put together with the University of Luxembourg is the, is like a very simple demonstration of in orbit outer space manufacturing, where you can make like a very simple extruder payload, which would fit into a three or six U cubesat and which can simply print long fiber rod and, and use it as an antenna to Transmit signal, and it’s both the proof of concept and the first functional 3D printed component on Earth. So there’s also like powerful marketing move to be the first demonstrated functional component manufactured on orbit in outer space. But yeah, all this opportunity require funding and cooperation, and this is not something that one party could do, and this is where we are looking for different partnerships and programs to put it together.
[00:42:22] Hywel: Brilliant. I think, yeah, we’ve covered pretty much all of the areas that I wanted to focus on today. I think that’s great. Just I guess, One question when we look at this in terms of the the commercial space industry is how do you think suppliers should start to engage with these sort of opportunities?
You mentioned that you don’t want companies to be left behind and nobody wants their kind of business model disrupted. What should the suppliers who are out there today, what should they be thinking about?
[00:42:49] Fedor: I think yeah, one way was what I mentioned. Yeah. To start using Technology which are potentially suitable for space manufacturing.
That would be a kind of a passive commitment to, to the topic. So I just wanna start exploring the opportunity and there is nothing yet available. Yeah. Then to Start exploring opportunity, they should start exploring the potential candidates. And I think this is another argument, It’s just another argument among like many others to start using additive manufacturing and composite materials for, for the production of space rated components.
And then I think what suppliers know better is how the economy going to look of the whole thing. How it’s Converge and in, which moment it’s going to converge. This is the exercise that anyone can make. It’s not Easy though, but what would be the savings? What would be the value created if you manufacture your products on orbit?
If you avoid the launch loads just by avoiding launch loads, what would be the benefit and At which scale of investments, at which scale of production these benefits would have returns on investment. Cause at least I think it’s, it’s not a very difficult engineering exercise, is to design a mission without the launch load assumptions, how much better it would be, how much easier, how much lighter it would be.
And this would probably give a certain level of understanding what would be the benefits of switching to space manufacturing. And I hope that’s going to be pretty exciting to, to understand how much you can save and how much risks you can mitigate if you would have a capability of in orbit manufacturing.
Yeah, so this might just be a funny exercise for any research group in the university engage in like cross disciplinary teams from engineering or like space department and economics department, and then it could be, I think a good article. A good white paper, which could encourage more players to engage.
So I think that, yeah, that’s even as a pure scientific research, I haven’t seen something like that. I haven’t looked for that particularly. I will do it immediately after we finish the recording , cuz that’s just the idea which came up to my mind like just now. So maybe someone did the, something like that, but if not, then it’s worth doing.
And it’s worth sharing and spreading. And this would, I think, yeah, help suppliers to understand the value and to get engaged.
[00:45:58] Hywel: Great. Fantastic. Brilliant. That’s so you shared us with us loads of different insights and different things to think about there. Thank you Fedor.
So one very final question. I think you probably covered most of this, but I wondered if there, is there anything else that in your field that you are most excited about upcoming in the next? You said Horizons are long, so let’s look at five to 10 years maybe. Maybe.
[00:46:20] Fedor: Obviously we have the big issue for, 3D printing as the emergent, the technology stack and as emergent market to find its way into production. It’s still a big challenge and I think that space, whatever, either if we are talking of in space manufacturing or just manufacturing for space is, yeah, it’s the industry of early adopters, it’s always been, and mainly like critical technologies, which we have now for our society are, were first explored and utilized by space companies or for the space missions. I’m sure that it that 3D printing is still pretty much under underestimated by space industry and space Industry has much more capacity to explore.
Especially like newer technologies, and this is where I think is the
Especially like newer technologies, and this is where I think is the opportunity firstly for the 3D printing companies to get more, more use cases to, to focus more on the space market, to offer more solutions for the space market to develop more use cases and in that as well from their side. And this would be a strong foundation for the next steps for manufacturing in space and for actually creating a much, much bigger market for 3D printing outside earth.
And what excites me is, uh, uh, that space has a much better understanding of composite materials. And because these are the materials that’s been used in space for like many decades and space engineers understand composite materials much better and really believe that the future of composite materials industry and space industries are like it will go all together and it will grow and it should grow all together.
And opportunities which composite materials bring for space Structures are still much. Then they’ve been discovered with the previous generation of technologies, and I’m sure that in. Quite a short term and even before we have in space manufacturing at scale, the 3D printing and composite materials for space applications should be a very big thing in the next five years.
[00:48:53] Hywel: Fantastic. That’s a great place to wrap up. Thank you very much, Fedor. It’ll be really interesting to see. Yeah. What happens next in this area, This sort of manufacturing is an enabling technology and you’ve mentioned. The companies that work in space are often early adopters because of the nature of what, what’s required in the area and how the, when these area adopters get, get hold of this enabling technology.
We’ll see what happens. It’s linked to manufacturing is linked in this ways, linked to both the upstream and the downstream, and which we’ve covered as well, the evolution of those areas or drive progress if there were suddenly five Commercial space stations tomorrow Five potential locations that would be interested in hosting printed facilities.
Amazing if the demand changes. If we see a move to different kinds of materials being required for satellites or different form factors, different types of subsystems, components we don’t envision now. That could be 3D printed. You’ve got pressure from the downstream as well. It’d be really interested.
Thank you for very much for sharing all these insights. It’s great to hear of Anisoprint and its work and yeah, best of luck in the different missions and areas you’ve discussed with us today.
[00:49:57] Fedor: Yes, thank you so much for this opportunity. I really enjoyed that discussion. Hope, uh, all the listeners would do as well, so thanks.
[00:50:07] Hywel: Fantastic. We, we also, obviously at all the listeners out there, we’ll include information on how to contact Anisoprint if you’re interested in finding out more about this work or would like to engage with the company. Anyway, we’d like to thank all of you two for spending time with us today here on the Space Industry Podcast.
If you have, if you do have any questions for us or, or Fedor or please do feel free to send those on. Keep an eye out. Also on for the applications and the use cases of additive manufacturing and 3D printing for space and indeed in-space For the future, and thank you very much for listening to the Space Industry Podcast by satsearch.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>It also discusses examples of space missions, technologies, and projects that have utilized black coated foils produced by Acktar Ltd (ACM Coatings GmbH), a paying participant in the satsearch membership program.
Further, the article also provides a brief outlook on how the company envisions the future approach it will take for expanding production as well as research and development (R&D) capabilities. The piece was developed in collaboration with Acktar Ltd (ACM Coatings GmbH).
Space systems are composed of several complex electronic, mechanical, and optical components. Each of these components is required to meet various space qualification standards, such as those provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), prior to their launch and deployment in Earth’s orbit, or beyond.
Black coated foils are used to enhance the performance of optical components while also providing a layer of protection for a variety of hardware in the harsh environment of space; to meet challenges such as:
For example in space telescopes or optical systems, stray light can be generated from both intended and unintended sources. This can limit a telescope’s ability to detect far away signals and faint objects.
The detectors used in such optical instruments respond to the received amount of light. So in a small camera, stray light can cause a minor loss, but in a space telescope it can result in the loss of a massive amount of data potentially worth millions of dollars. It is therefore very important to correct and prevent stray light and minimize the chances of errors in optical instrument data.
Simultaneously, stray light is also responsible for a decrease in light absorbance ability and reduces the linearity of the instrument. Excess stray light in an optical system can also reduce the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which can result in a major degradation in performance; minimizing the amount and/or intensity of stray light striking the plane of an image can increase the SNR and reduce the noise.
A black coated foil can provide a surface that can significantly reduce reflected light by absorption. Therefore, black foils on such instruments not only improve their ability to reduce stray light but can also improve overall surface smoothness and resistance against corrosion.
Acktar has developed a range of specialized coatings and foils designed to enhance space systems in such processes. Before taking a closer look at these technologies, first let’s introduce the company.
Acktar Ltd. is headquartered in Israel with subsidiaries in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Since its formation in 1993, the company has served a wide range of industries with its light-absorbing ‘ultra-black’ coatings. The German subsidiary ACM Coatings GmbH is not only responsible for the European marketing and sales activities but also converts Acktar’s coated foils into final products.
Acktar provides deep black coatings for light-trapping applications such as light baffles, ultraviolet (UV) sensors, passive infrared detectors, light detectors, UV absorbers, and similar components. Its coatings are space-qualified, inorganic, thin, and designed for low outgassing operation. They are also biocompatible and compliant with both the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive and the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation.
The company’s ultra-black coatings for space systems have become widely recognized in the space industry, primarily due to the advantages they can offer for protecting space hardware in harsh environments. For example, Acktar’s project experience includes:
The company has also developed coatings and foils for various ranges of serially produced sub-systems, such as sun sensors and star trackers, for satellite constellations.
The proper functioning of electronic components in space is complex and difficult to maintain due to the bombardment of cosmic radiation; which can lead to both minor errors and major failures. Black coatings ensure components and systems are protected from such external impacts during operation in space.
Along with its various coating products, Acktar’s black foils are used to protect and enhance large areas and for contaminated environments where the light absorbing surface needs to be periodically renewed.
Before taking a closer look at the benefits that such foils can bring to space missions, let’s first review the manufacturing processes Acktar employs.
Acktar’s proprietary vacuum deposition (vacuum coating) technology generates unique coating surface areas designed for with exceptional characteristics. This approach produces results that Acktar have shown to be superior to those achievable by other processes, such as Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation (PEO), in a variety of important commercial applications.
Vacuum deposition is a process in which a thin layer of coating (typically a few microns in thickness) is applied to an object in a vacuum chamber. This is an inorganic, non-toxic, and environmentally-friendly process (with no aggressive chemicals used). It also enables accurate control of surface morphology to ensure the required radiation, optical, and physical characteristics are developed. Find out more here.
The company’s vacuum deposition technologies are unique in the sense that they can be applied to all space-grade components and materials. Acktar’s coatings can also be applied directly onto highly complex, 3-dimensional shapes and parts, which is particularly useful for areas such as cavities and inner surfaces that are used for defining and limiting the optical path of light.
The application of Acktar’s vacuum coatings technologies can lead to major improvements in a wide range of applications including, optical performance, solar energy, aluminum electrolytic capacitors, electronic enclosures, and heat sinks. Below are some of the main characteristics of Acktar’ coatings that lead to these changes:
As discussed above, Acktar’s inorganic coatings are fabricated using its proprietary vacuum deposition technology. Coating thickness mainly depends on the wavelength range of the customer’s mission requirements.
In applications such as Ultraviolet (UV), Visible (VIS), and Near Infrared (NIR), for example, the typical nominal coating thickness is below 5µm. If the project works in the far infrared (wavelengths from 5 to 14µm or beyond), the coating thickness will be below 15µm. The deposition process can be carried out at a wide range of temperatures, depending on the substrate.
A highly specific surface area coating can be created with a tightly controlled morphology to produce very low reflectance levels. By controlling the composition and morphology of the layered microstructure, the fabrication can be tailored to achieve the desired levels of absorption or reflectance over a wide range of wavelengths. The coating performance is also stable across a wide range of temperatures, which is particularly important for space applications.
The effort to produce a coating for customized space components and systems can vary from project-to-project. Because direct coatings are always customer-specific, each development is also treated individually.
Acktar exclusively carries out coating processes with its parent company in Israel. From the time the company receives an order from a customer until the delivery of the finished part, it takes an estimated six to eight weeks.
On the other hand, black coated foils are available in the form of a roll or sheet of material and can be delivered within 3-5 working days. Other forms of foils, such as cuts or die-cuts, are also available off the shelf, and can take 1-2 days more to deliver, depending on the customer’s mission requirements.
Black coated foils enable engineers to implement optical and radiation protection of their hardware without sending parts to Acktar for specialized coating. In addition, the black foil coating is also available either with or without an adhesive backing as sheets, die-cuts or rolls. This variety allows customers to apply the foils themselves to space systems in the most optimal stage of their mission’s development – with guidance from Acktar as needed.
As the number of space missions grows, and as more new innovations and applications are tested in orbit, there is a growing need to ensure high levels of optical performance through effective coatings and foils.
Acktar’s space portfolio already consists of projects such as the Characterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS) mission and the space-based James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Building on this proven track record of providing unique coating products and services to prestigious organizations such as ESA and NASA, Acktar is establishing itself as a well-known brand in this segment of the industry.
Acktar is also constantly expanding its research and development (R&D) and production capabilities to align with the evolving customer needs and market prospects. New missions are testing different optical setups and processes, requiring stray light protection and minimizing reflectance on complicated hardware components and surfaces. Acktar hopes to assist in such projects with new forms of black coated foil and coating products.
In addition, for passive thermal management of entire satellites, as well as for sub-areas and instruments, Acktar has developed new materials based on the company’s roll-to-roll coating technology. A thin film substrate, typically a polyimide such as Kapton, is coated with either Acktar’s deep black coating, which has a high emissivity and a high solar absorption, or with a white coating option, which has a relatively high emissivity but a relatively low solar absorption, in order to improve the passive temperature management of small satellites.
Driven by other developments in the industry, Acktar aims to enhance existing products and develop new lines to meet the changing needs of space engineers.
To find out more about Acktar, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch and you can also get more information in our podcast with Alexander Telle, CEO of ACM Coatings GmbH.
]]>It also discusses the reliability requirements of a CDH system and explores the solutions offered by Alén Space, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program, with whom the article was developed.
A spacecraft on a mission is typically acting as a system designed to acquire data through different sensors to be sent back to the remote user who commands and operates the system. This simple explanation works as a baseline for any spacecraft, whether a satellite in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) or a rover on the surface of Mars.
The remote users are usually the mission operators on the ground who are sending commands and receiving payload data. Therefore, the complete data handling architecture for a mission includes both space and ground segments.
The processing, storage, and handling of the data are all core components of the data handling architecture and mission success. In particular, in the CubeSat industry telemetry and payload data must be handled with care due to the limited memory available and the higher risks typically associated with the mission and hardware form factor (due to, for example, a lack of redundancies, reduced radiation shielding, smaller downlink windows, shorter mission lifetimes, and so on).
Command and Data Handling (CDH) systems in spacecraft are responsible for acquiring, processing, storing, formatting, and downlinking such data to the respective ground segment assets, as well as receiving and executing the commands from the mission operators.
In the next section we discuss the data handling architecture, including the space and ground segment, from the point of view of the entire system.
The Command and Data Handling (CDH) architecture encompass the functions of many systems such as:
The complexity and interdependency of these sub-systems, for handling data onboard spacecraft, can be illustrated in the Space AVionics Open Interface aRchitecture (SAVOIR) Avionics System Reference Architecture shown in the image below:
Source: Terraillon, J.-L. (2016). Savoir: Reusing specifications to favour product lines (source).
The sub-systems listed in 1-6 above are all present onboard the spacecraft and form the space segment of the data handling architecture, described further below.
The on-board CDH architecture connects all of the sub-systems of the satellite, handling all the internal communication using the satellite bus and all external communication with other satellites or ground stations via the appropriate comms systems (e.g. external antennas).
The system architecture must include the TT&C sub-system as a core of the CDH chain, ensuring that all the attitude, housekeeping, and payload (if applicable) data is processed and sent to the right location. Typically, the data handling is controlled by the Telemetry Tracking and Command (TT&C) system or the on-board computer (OBC), and the data storage is handled by different types of memory and locations, depending on the function or importance of the data.
The data can be stored between different sub-systems, so is not limited by the OBC or TT&C memory. The storage architecture can also include different types of memory of varying sizes and functionality, for example, the payload can have more memory than the OBC. The memory architecture should also be set up to avoid bottlenecks with the use of in-orbit processing and compression algorithms and buffers.
Use of standard protocols, such as the CCSDS Space Packet Protocol (CCSDS 133.0-B-2) or ECSS PUS (ECSS-E-ST-70-41C), has increased the interoperability of different sub-systems in recent years. Additionally, these packet telemetry standards have enough flexibility to change the transmission requirements depending on the mission needs. Alén Space, for instance, has developed a Command and Data Handling Solution (CDH) to bring these strengths to the CubeSat sector.
Another important aspect is the maintenance of the software and databases to keep them up-to-date with new commands, software fixes, or even new capabilities. It is critical to ensure safe reboots of the OBC and the persistence in memory of the new updates. Next, let’s turn to the corresponding ground segment CDH considerations.
The ground is the starting point of most commands, as well as the destination of the telemetry and valuable payload data. The ground segment can be an all-in-one ground station or dispersed between a ground station, the control center, and the end customer, within multiple geographical locations and timezones.
The data received by the ground stations must be demodulated and often decompressed by the ground segment architecture. After compulsory validation, the ground segment team can start with telemetry analysis and the delivery of the payload data. Usually, all the telemetry is connected to the Mission Control Software (MCS) in the control center, in which the commands for the mission are generated.
Ground Station of Deimos Engineering and Systems provided by Alén Space.
The ground station of Deimos Engineering and Systems, provided by Alén Space, is an example of a ground segment commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solution available on the commercial market.
The overall success of a mission operation depends on how much quality data can be downloaded from the spacecraft back to Earth during the space asset’s lifetime. As the brain of the spacecraft, the CDH sub-system requires utmost reliability for handling such valuable data.
Operational reliability takes into account all the systems, including the ground stations, protocols, and operational procedures. All the sub-systems across the platform must communicate with each other effectively and during multiple operational modes, including ground testing.
This must guarantee that all the faults are controlled and protections are designed for the three major effects of the space environment; Single Event Upsets (SEUs), Total Ionizing Dose (TID) damage, and latch-ups.
The reliability of the data transportation is critically linked with the sub-systems’ own reliability and the redundancies that are in place to recover from critical events. Additionally, the housekeeping and Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery (FDIR) logics are necessary for recovering from small and unexpected events, depending on the philosophy of the FDIR system and the platform in general. The aim is to maintain the satellite in a safe, and operational, mode, while also ensuring adequate situational awareness for transmitting error logs to the operations team.
When needed, the satellite can recover from an error with incremental steps, until the nominal mode of operation is reached. The recovery actions can be autonomous or on command, depending on the severity of the faults. Likewise, the execution of the commands for the satellite can be sent time-tagged for scheduling or executed live, depending on the mission’s operational procedures.
In the CubeSat space, high-risk approaches have been common due to lower costs, nevertheless, expectations are changing towards flight-proven hardware with more testing and reliability of the critical subsystems. A reliable CDH sub-system is also of greater importance as we progress into launching more deep space missions. Unlike an LEO mission, which can accommodate calculated risks, deep space missions require highly reliable sub-systems which can withstand harsh environments.
In the following section, an example of a deep space mission is presented to give a better understanding of the significance of a reliable CDH system for a mission’s success.
With the recent release of a number of remarkable deep space images, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has already made a significant impact worldwide. So let’s take a look at the sub-system responsible for handling those valuable data, in such a harsh environment, and prepare them for downlinking.
The Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM) is the main payload on the JWST and houses aloof the primary data-gathering instruments.
The ISIM Command and Data Handling subsystem (ICDH), is located in region 3 of the ISIM and is responsible for commanding, telemetry, routing, and processing functions for all of the scientific instruments and the Fine Guidance sensor.
The ICDH coordinates the ISIM and other activities of the spacecraft. It also performs the formatting of captured data for each exposure before transferring it to the Solid State Recorder (SSR) for downlink. The ICDH also regulates the rate at which data can be written to the SSR and is equipped with software to analyze the data in portions for the target.
The JWST SSR has a storage capacity of 65 Gb for science data to be sent to Earth. The downlink of this data, from JWST to the ground, is scheduled every 12 hours for a duration of 4 hours. Find out more in the official JWST user documentation. The ISIM is protected by a 5-layer sunshield from the Sun’s radiation and the electronics are kept in a thermally controlled environment.
Now that we have taken a little detour to the LaGrange point of the solar system, let us come back to the system requirements of a CDH subsystem for a satellite orbiting the Earth.
The satellite market is growing fast and there is a greater demand for space data than ever. With such large amounts of data being transferred back to Earth every minute from orbiting satellites, it is inevitable that the requirements for the system handling them onboard are becoming increasingly complex.
The following list of system-level requirements are a great start point for assessing commercial CDH subsystems for different mission objectives:
For low-cost satellites, radiation-hardened space-qualified electronics may not be an affordable option. Sometimes size constraints can also be an issue in choosing a redundancy design. In such cases, special attention should be paid to ensuring protection against SEUs and latch-ups.
To help better understand these detailed system requirements in design, development, integration, and testing, Alén Space offers an easy-to-integrate data handling COTS solution for the CubeSpace market.
Alén Space is a Spanish satellite bus and sub-system manufacturer with more than 12 years of experience in the development of nanosatellites. The company offers satellite platforms, ranging from 1-12U, CDH systems, a turnkey solution for managing the ground segment, and ready-to-fly payloads for applications including:
The company also offers end-to-end nanosatellite services to support various mission purposes such as scientific research, technology demonstration, aviation (ADS-B and aircraft tracking), maritime (AIS, VHF Data Exchange System (VDES), and ship tracking), and surveillance (SIGINT and spectrum monitoring).
The Alén Space team has worked on several projects with leading space organizations and agencies such as the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), the Brazilian Space Agency (AEB), and the Spanish National Aerospace Agency (INTA).
Some recent key projects undertaken by Alén Space are:
Next let’s take a closer look at Alén Space’s CDH expertise.
Alén Space has developed an integrated data handling solution for their platform and sub-systems, designed to handle all communications needs, from ground to space. The aim of this integration is to shorten the time to market for satellite operators.
The company offers a full range of solutions including Mission Control Software (MCS), the easy to install ground station (GS-Kit), and TRISKEL; an integrated OBC, TT&C, and onboard software (OBSW). TOTEM, an SDR, is also offered by the company for enabling image processing and data transmission, compliant with Digital Video Broadcasting – Satellite – Second Generation (DVB-S2) standards, to the ground terminal.
Alén Space’s data handling chain solution for CubeSats.
By integrating the onboard computer and the TT&C in one module, Alén Space has increased the volume available in the CubeSat while maintaining the flexibility and FDIR of the sub-systems.
TRISKEL is an easy to integrate system, based on the European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) and ESA Packet Utilization Standards (PUS) standards. A Watchdog is included for detecting SEUs and both the OBC and TTC radio interfaces feature independent Cortex-M7 microcontrollers.
The OBC has a real-time clock, a flash program memory of 2 MB, data storage of 1 Gb (NAND), and an external RAM of 8 Mb (MRAM). The internal RAM is 640 kB with 2 MicroSD storage slots. A magnetometer, a gyroscope, temperature and current sensors, and optional internal GNSS module are also available as part of the OBC.
The TRISKEL TT&C sub-system uses Ultrahigh Frequency (UHF) bands and half-duplex communication links with GFSK modulation, with data rates up to 19.2 kbps.
The core functions of the OBSW include event reporting, housekeeping, real-time forward control, onboard telemetry storage, and memory management. Additional services include FDIR for software and hardware, autonomous payload monitoring, and data collection, among a number of others.
Detailed information about the product TRISKEL including block diagrams, general characteristics, absolute maximum ratings, and mechanical layout can be found in the datasheet available here.
Reliability and robustness are basic necessities for any Command and Data Handling system which, as has been discussed in the article, plays a critical role in any spacefaring system.
So select the brain of your satellite with care, considering the size, power, cost, and radiation constraints of your individual mission. Plan the required memory architecture based on the specified downlink schedules and make sure to have a margin planned for data storage and handling in case of a missed pass.
Ensuring that your Command and Data Handling system talks and responds to all other sub-systems in any given best and worst-case scenario is also mandatory for the success of your mission. Hopefully this article will arm you with useful information to help select the most suitable CDH option.
To find out more about Alén Space’s expertise and portfolio, please click here to view their satsearch supplier hub.
]]>EOSOL Group is a global engineering and technical assistance services company. With experience in more than 40 countries around the world, the company operates in the strategic energy, industry, automobile, civil works, telecommunications, space, and defense sectors.
In this episode we discuss the development of ground segment antennas and feeds, and their uses in modern space missions and services. We cover:
You can find out more about EOSOL Group here on their satsearch supplier hub.
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com
Hello everybody. And welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined today by Gonzalo Crespo Aerospace manager at EOSOL group.
EOSOL group is a global engineering and technical assistance services company and the business has experience in more than 40 countries, I believe, around the world, in sectors such as energy or the automotive sector, civil works, telecommunications and obviously defense and space.
The aerospace division of the business was actually set up in 2019 with a team of engineers from across the company with experience in things like satellite communications and space, and is nowadays composed of a range of engineers working on software and electric and mechanical aspects, but focusing primarily on antennas and feeds in a variety of missions and service areas. And that’s what we’re going to talk about with Gonzalo today.
So Gonzalo hi, welcome to the podcast. Thank you very much for being here.
[00:01:29] Gonzalo: Hi everybody. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to share this thing with you and been able to talk about the antennas and ground stations. So it’s great for me. Thank you.
[00:01:40] Hywel Curtis: Fantastic. Now, today, we’re going talk mainly about ground station antennas and feeds.
Now, before we before we get into the specific questions, I wondered if you could give us a little bit of an overview of the different kinds of ground station antenna that people can, access on the market.
[00:01:56] Gonzalo: Yeah, sure. Basically, there are two types of station antennas antenna for reception of radio from astronomical radio source into the space and operate into different frequencies, but depending on what scientific experiments are looking for now, and then the most commercial antennas that are antennas for communication with spacecraft. Can be satellites, launchers, space station, probes, depending on application can be for remote sensing, telemetry, TT&C, data link and broadcasting services.
So there is different, or there are different type of ground station antenna, and there are of course different frequency of operation depending on type of communications and applications. All this communication must be regulated by the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union. Typically each satellite operator also has their own technical standards for ground station and satcom terminals. And so they also must be standard compliant.
When traditionally communicating with satellites, you are using F-VHF frequencies typically yagi antennas or similar, but when you are moving into higher frequencies, such as S-/X-/Ka-bands traditionally reflector antennas are used. Size of reflector can vary depending on the frequency of operation and also the gain requirements.
And this is a key factor for the ground station definition. And depending on that, there, there can be stations varying from three meters up to 13 meters, or even more if, for example, for deep space communication.
Recently with the increase of NewSpace and mainly the increase of missions in LEO and MEO constellations, the installation of new ground station is of great importance, but frequencies and sizes are changing and moving to a smaller antennas.
So we have more antennas, but the smaller ones typically, and today think we are going focus on ground stations. Use it for communications and operation of LEO, MEO and GEO satellites, which are the most common ones and especially focus about the RF part of ground stations, which is what EOSOL specializing, and I think, yeah, we can give an overview of all of this.
[00:04:20] Hywel Curtis: Thank you for the overview, firstly on the different aspects of the market and hopefully is a great introduction to people, but yeah, if you could give us in brief, what the architecture of a ground station is, and then how the where the satellite antenna or the ground station antenna fits in so that people understand what the different parts of these systems are that we are hopefully going to discuss further.
[00:04:39] Gonzalo: Well, satellite stations play a critical role in the satellite network, as it needs to take care of recording all the information coming from space, very weak and noisy signals, recover them and post processing for, to keep extract signals and do it for the system.
To do so this, typical architecture of a ground station is the next, is the antenna (a reflector) who receive/transmit the signal, then feed chain composed by the passive part, typically Horn, waveguides, tracking monopulse, OMT, diplexers) where the signal travels, the active part (LNA, power amplifier) to adequate and regenerate the signal and finally Up-Converters and Down-Converters to convert the RF signal to IF signal. These are more the main part of the, then there is the modem to manage the receive or transmit the info and connect directly to the computer or hardware to connect. The signal can also be transmitted by fiber optic or, point to point microwave link in case a computer or hardware is in remote from antenna.
Typical we have a ground station that is mass point to a target. We have the antenna control unit that is a mechanical hardware in charge to, move the antenna in order to point to a specified target. Now with new development, first electronic pointed antennas are starting to become real, but solution still sometime away. And in any case for some application, it’ll still be better to use the traditional system composed by reflector from the system.
This is what a traditional ground station is composed by, in short, a ground station is a communications system that allows sending and receiving information and the adequacy of the signal to allow communication with satellites and spacecrafts. That’s it.
That one thing, from all this part, EOSOL Aerospace is specialized, is in the development of the reflector and the RF feeds which is the first part of the signal that when it arrives at the ground station, or the last one when it leaves.
[00:07:17] Hywel Curtis: Excellent. So it’s really those entry and exit points for the system. Um, yeah. Thank you for over this. Its fascinating to see. Cause you know, we talk so much about, or at least in parts of the press, you know, how much about the innovation is going into what’s, in space, what’s on the satellite itself.
But obviously each of those new capabilities, whether it’s an enhancement to existing performance or new new kinds of data and for, and, and operations, they, it has to be matched by innovation on the ground segment that can, that can handle the data and deal with the data. So it’s interesting to, to hear about all the different parts of it. Thank you now. And on that, I mean, NewSpace missions have got lots of differences compared to traditional space missions. And you mentioned some of the traditional architecture.
This is the, the newer, um, the mechanical pointing, antennas and stuff like that. What does it mean from a ground station’s perspective when you compare the requirements that NewSpace missions have against traditional space missions?
[00:08:13] Gonzalo: In traditional missions, the, the mission itself, have to contemplate and undertake deployment of both space segment and ground segment.
This involves deploying the control station to communicate with the, with the satellite. And traditionally, is the operator who is responsible for both part the, of the infrastructure. It’s clear that with NewSpace or better said new LEO-MEO constellations defines a new paradigm. And also in terms of communication and control, in this new scenario, there are different options.
The operator of the constellation can decide to own also the it’s on ground segment and deploy several antennas all around the world, or they can trust in a third party typically at teleport to complete this mission. So then they can save costs and at the same time they can mitigate risk. Now. So these are the two options. It either case, it is clear that the, for the control and communications of the new constellations that are being deployed with hundreds of satellites, its constellation its necessary to deploy new antennas on the ground or around the world to have hundred percent coverage in every moment with every satellite which is difficult.
In addition, in order to achieve profitable business model, it’s necessary to adjust costs. And this requires standardization of processes, including the use of spectrum, allowing new companies teleports to offer their services to different players is mandatory to reduce costs and make these, new, business model profitable.
[00:09:54] Hywel Curtis: Right. Brilliant. Yeah. I mean, that makes sense. That’s great. And, obviously that, that system is enabling smaller, new, you know, NewSpace companies to specialize because as you say, they don’t have to build the, the relevant ground segment. They can access it from a third party. So that’s, that’s great now.
And, and in such missions that we’re seeing in, in NewSpace, whether they’re, you know, research or, or, the development of services, there’s a lot movement towards higher frequencies as you’d expect same as terrestrial applications, which is becoming more and more hungry for data. Now, what sort of innovations are occurring on, in, on ground stations to keep up with the changing in requirements of the, of the industry of the space segment?
[00:10:34] Gonzalo: Yeah, for sure. It is clear that whenever the technology allows it, we look to go higher in frequency, because everything gets smaller and also you can manage more amount of data of information. So it’s, it’s very important and everybody looks to go higher frequencies when it’s possible, but the same time the developments and new developments become more challenging.
At those frequencies, because manufacturing of components are more complex. Everything is smaller. So it has pros and cons and at the same, you’re allowed to get everything more compact and also the antenna size. and we are seeing reduction in size, for example, in ground stations. But, well, also as you say, increasing the frequency what we get is to have higher absolute bandwidths and therefore greater upload and download data capacity, which is very important and interesting. And another reason to increase the frequency is the congestion of the spectrum at the lower bands because this is becoming really big.
Currently the highest band used for communication with satellites, also for the end-user link, is the Ka band. It is becoming demonstration. But it’s also beginning to be congested and therefore the use of Q/V band and also optical links are already been explored and will be the future focusing on rotating element, that innovations that taken place are.
Firstly, as I mentioned by going up in frequency, everything become more compact and this allows to reduce dimensions. So going for example, from antenna, typical of seven to 13 meters, in diameter, the new ones that LEO-MEO satellites can be ranging from to five meters. And we’re now for example, collaborating with our clients who are ground station antenna manufacturers or integrators helping them in their designs at RF level, while they focus on the mechanics or the complete system, providing with accurate models that allows them to develop faster, their new products. So this is something.
In addition in traditional solutions, that we could say, ground stations mounting reflector antennas, new manufacturing techniques are allowing also to develop new components and also to reduce the number of parts, for example, advanced manufacturing techniques, as we are already undertaking in some of our projects. For example, we have currently won a project from the European Space Agency for the development of an innovative Ka-band TM01 mode extractor designed to provide self-pointing capabilities to compact SATCOM terminals or Ground Stations. So this is a example of allowing do everything more, more compact and integrating everything in Ka-band as traditionally been done in, for example, X-band or S-band.
if we go to new developments that are now underway or will arrive in the coming years the main innovations, we can expect are making use of Q/V band as I already said, for the new control stations. There are already some examples of this with some demonstrators such as the Alphasat Aldo Paraboni satellite developed by the European Space Agency or more recently the Eutelsat Konnect satellite which incorporate Q/V band solutions.
Second, the use both flat and horn phase arrays antennas that allow multiple beams to connect to different satellites at the same time for constellations, this is very interesting. Now in this line, we are also working on the development of both in Ka-band and Q/V-band.
And finally the optical links that will allow massive data download and that can be very interesting for most demanding missions in terms of data. For example those optical satellites that handle a large amount of information and that need to be downloaded as soon as possible.
This will be also possible in the, in the coming years. So these are the main, advances, we expect in the, in the sector now, in the coming years.
[00:15:25] Hywel Curtis: Brilliant. Thank you. That’s , that’s great. Um, a great overview. So like I said, it is tallying with a lot of what we are seeing in the, the space sector the space segment side of things in order to, um, in order to deal with the, the data requirements. So that’s great.
Now you touched earlier on the, the fact that the geographical coverage of ground stations is, is an important factor for emissions and how, you know, we compared NewSpace to traditional space missions, but ground stations are located in a limited number of sites around the world. And there are new ones opening up, but still obviously the limitations are there.
What kind of flexibility our ground station is able to provide today, to to accommodate, like the needs of different operators and their missions, especially given the fact that they may operate in different frequencies. And as you mentioned, there are bands that are becoming congested. And I think more specifically, how does that translate into the changes that need to be made in the elements such as what you provide the, the feeds, the antennas, themselves, those sorts of things?
[00:16:23] Gonzalo: There are certain locations on the planet that are optimal for satellite tracking communication. In any case thanks to frequency regulation, all satellites or constellations must operate on specific frequencies, which helps to the deployment of the necessary infrastructure. For example is not necessary to deploy the whole new antenna per mission.
It’s true that there will be parts such as the, that maybe mission-specific, but these costs are a small part of the overall infrastructure investment. A large part of the station is compatible for several missions. This makes teleport relevant said before, allowing the overall cost of, to be reduced this part of infrastructure can be shared differents different operators and can be operated by third party, which offering this service.
So this can allow to mitigate reduced part of investment for the deployment of constellation, for example, for the part we are interested, which is the antenna, is an asset that it can be used by different missions, since the RF chain (including the reflector) is common to all of them.
Once you have the feed defined it or signed it for certain specific frequency band and just changing part of the, the RF chain or the model you can use the same infrastructure.
[00:17:55] Hywel Curtis: So there is flexibility. There’s plenty of flexibility there. Now, obviously, I mean, there are plenty of existing ground stations that have been around for a long time.
They’ve, um, many legacy stations they’ve been around as long as space missions have been undertaken, what sort of upgrades could such legacy stations, if we consider those, what sort of upgrades could they, could they do to stay relevant or even futureproof themselves to, to deal with some of the innovations that you’ve mentioned are on the way.
[00:18:24] Gonzalo: Yeah. Yeah. What we have seen is that many customers are looking to upgrade the existing antennas rather to, install new ones so they can remain operational. For example, one thing we see and we are doing in different projects is to adapt the, the feed and the RF chain to new frequencies, while maintaining the, the optics of antenna, mainly the reflector, which is a very expensive part of the, of the hardware.
This means that while maintaining one of expensive part of the ground station, you can still use the whole ground station, to work in new band, for example, from systems that traditionally operated in S-band pass to multi-frequency S-X systems. And in other cases, what we also see the improvement of existing systems, by incorporating new or improving improve its functionalities such as the inclusion of tracking monopulse solutions to allow the correct pointing of the antennas. We also have to do this type of things for some clients in the past.
We like this kind of project very much because they fit perfectly with our capabilities. This is where we can support our customers by offering them solutions tailored to their needs on the basis of a given antenna that must continue operative.
Just a couple of examples of projects we have recently accomplished: first one client requested us to perform an upgrade of a 13m ground station they have in its portfolio, operating in S band to operate in dual S-X bands but maintaining the optics. This has been done designing a specific dual band feed (including monopulse tracking for pointing purposes).
Second example, We have also provided support to certain teleport operators providing them consultancy services at antenna level to help them to decide between install a brand new ground station or retrofit a old one only in the RF chains, allowing him to save money.
So, yeah, We have great expertise designing reflectors and feed chains, not only for ground stations but for SATCOM terminals, scientific and space applications. And this gives us a great overview of problems, how different systems must operate and also the understanding of what our clients need, and this allows us to provide them with the right solution.
[00:21:03] Hywel Curtis: It’s usually going to be better for, for clients to, um, upgrade what they have and adapt what they have to the, the needs of new mission. And specifically as you’ve said, if this involves adapting the feed chain or leaving in place the operational the most expensive parts, the, the reflector of the optics of the antennas, then. Yeah, that’s going to be beneficial for them. So that’s great.
We we’ve mentioned some of the, um, the, the trends that we see in the industry and how these are impacting the work that you, you guys are doing. And the ground stations are having to deal with sort of things like the miniaturization of hardware, but also, which has been going on for a long time, but also these emerging ideas or, or that um, solutions people are testing like software defined technologies or the edge processing of data in, in space or, um, or on the ground, I guess.
Um, these are, you know, pretty prominent themes in upstream satellite development. Is this something you’re also seeing in the ground segment that these changes translating through to, to new, um, requirements or new discussions with your clients?
[00:22:05] Gonzalo: Yeah, for sure. This is not a part where we are really involved. We’re aware of that and technological advance, but also reaching the, the, the control centers and all this is already incorporated allowing, for example, to operate satellites remotely from anywhere in the world and as happens in other sector, traditionally, you think in a, in a working in the same room, not to operate the satellite, but not anymore is, is mandatory. You can operate your satellite anywhere, remotely. Thanks to digitalisation and standardisation, a ground station can operate multiple satellites Multiple satellites, even from different constellations at the same time in remote areas or remotely.
And for example, there are companies that without having the necessary infrastructure in terms of antennas, offer services of full, constellation operation.
And this is possible thanks to the digitalisation, new, more open business models and the existence of independent teleport all over the world, that offer their services and connectivity capacity allows these, new business model. So yeah, for sure.
Brilliant. Yeah. You’ve mentioned, um, standardization previously and digitalization.
[00:23:32] Hywel Curtis: Yeah, really key, key drivers of some of these changes in the industry. So that’s great. Thanks. Just finally, I asked version this question to most of our guests.
I wondered, what other trends do you see happening in, in your field in ground station equipment? You know, in general, in the next sort of five years, What are you, at EOSOL group, what are you most excited about? What are you looking forward to?
[00:23:54] Gonzalo: In the short term, we do not expect major technological developments, but we do expect developments in terms of the business model , with teleports and companies offering antennas as a service becoming increasingly relevant in the operation of certain missions and becoming important partners for, for operators.
In the middle long term, we do expect new ground station architectures and, as far as we are concerned, new antenna and radiating element architectures, with multiple options , reflectors, phase arrays and optical links, that will coexist and that each one will have certain advantage, depending on each mission or each constellation. We do not think that traditional ground station will disappear.
We do not expect optical to cover everything. So all the, the all the options will co-exist. And as for spectrum regulation and spectrum use, what we expect is that as has happened in the past, as technology permits higher and higher frequency will be sought, that will allow the management of more information and also decongestion of the spectrum.
In our case, we are committed to continuing to develop antennas and feed systems that meet the demands of our customers. The needs we currently see and expect to continue to see are Multi-frequency systems especially covering the S-band, X-band and increasingly Ka-band, Q/V Band, increasingly compact systems, but with the same or better performance, which is challenging also.
And finally, um, as I said, farther on the lead to higher frequencies use of phase array antennas also for ground station and increasingly the use of optical links is possible, and it is clear that as it has been the case in recent years, the space sector will continue to change rapidly with new entry players, new ideas. And we at EOSOL Aerospace expect to be really to address all these new challenges, in terms of antennas that are coming up.
And of course, we’ll continue to offer our customers as state of the art antennas and feed solutions. Not only in ground station, but also for scientific space and defense applications.
[00:26:18] Hywel Curtis: Fantastic. Thank you very much.
That’s um, that’s a great place to, to wrap up the conversation. So yeah, I think, um, you will have taught our listeners today, a great deal about the operation of ground stations and the, and antennas, on them and how this, area is changing as well.
It’s great to see these advances in flexibility, but with a focus on the commercial aspects of them. So upgrade and existing, you know, technologies and, and equipment we are required and making things more versatile to adapt to new business models, I think is it’s really interesting area.
And, um, yeah, best of luck from, from us and everything that you’re doing. And thank you for sharing all that, those insights on the podcast today.
[00:26:53] Gonzalo: Thanks to you, thanks to satsearch cause you guys are doing a great job.
[00:26:59] Hywel Curtis: Oh, thank you very much. And to all our listeners out there. Thank you very much for spending time with us on the space industry podcast today.
If you’d like to find out more about EOSOL group and the, the company’s work and the capabilities in addressing a lot of the, the problems and the opportunities that we’ve discussed in the podcast today, we’ll have, plenty of links to the show notes and find out more, at the company’s website on the satsearch platform.
And, um, and on the platform too, we can also help you with any, any queries you may have regarding technical documentation information, introduction to the company, those sorts of things. And, um, yeah, just wanted to thank you again for, for your time and attention. And we look forward to speaking with you again soon.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Thrusters and in-space propulsion units are often described as solutions to many of the issues that small satellites can potentially face in orbit.
But what are the actual possibilities, and limitations, of such systems?
And what does it really take to integrate and use the technologies available on the market today?
In this webinar we take a deep dive into the use cases, engineering considerations, and real-world mission scenarios from 4 thruster manufacturers currently active in the global space marketplace.
The presenters in this webinar were all experienced manufacturers of in-space propulsion systems for satellites and are all paying members of the satsearch membership program.
The individual slide decks for the presentations are freely available on each company’s supplier hub linked to below:
The following systems are all manufactured by the satsearch members who presented in the webinar and were each referenced in the talks, or are related to the products discussed:
In this piece, produced in collaboration with MissionOps software developer Epsilon3, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program, we take a closer look at what a good mission operations framework and system requires.
You can read the first part of the guide here, discussing what MissionOps is, providing examples showing why it is so important, and sharing the common challenges that are faced when a new mission is designed.
Mission procedures and protocols need to be clearly written down beforehand in order for engineers and operators from different teams to have the information they need to do their job. This is particularly important in the case of errors or emergencies.
All documentation should be clear, with as little room for ambiguity or confusion as possible, and it should be kept up to date. The updating process itself should be carefully tracked and be verifiable by all relevant users.
Documents also need to be clearly organized and accessible for all of those that may need them, including personnel who could be added to the team later. The procedure for granting access to relevant documents needs to be well-established, simple, and managed by more than one person (in case the original administrator is unavailable when a new hire begins work for example).
It helps to have a named owner assigned for each document, and at least one back-up owner in case they are unavailable. The document owner should be responsible for keeping it up to date, ensuring it is accurate and accessible, and backing it up on the assigned schedule.
All relevant team members should also be able to easily find out the owner of each document at any time in case of questions or comments. Good documentation practices are based on logical and sensible processes. Think carefully about who needs access to what information, at what time, and in what format.
In the early stages of a mission it may seem excessive to spend significant time developing strict processes on document management, and ensuring that existing materials are properly organized and set up for effective use. But any weaknesses in the system will compound and this work has the potential to save far more time, effort, and money in the case of an avoidable failure further down the line.
However, good documents are only part of the picture. The tools used in how those documents are used and discussed, along with other mission assets, is also vital.
Whether developing a new flatsat or operating a rover on Mars, every team requires a framework for managing MissionOps that meets the demands of modern space missions and the expectations of people used to interacting with fast, intuitive, and high-quality software on a daily basis.
This is not just about the command and telemetry system, but about the whole tech stack involved, including command and control (C2), data storage, GUIs, procedures and timelines.. All of the different frameworks, tools, libraries, software, and programming languages required need to work effectively together in an efficient mission operations system that adds value to every project.
The electronic procedure software solution developed by Epsilon3 is designed to meet this need.
Epsilon3 is a US-based provider of mission and engineering operations software. The team consists of engineering and design professionals from firms such as Northrop Grumman, Google, and SpaceX, with experience that includes first-hand operational management of sending American astronauts to the ISS.
The Epsilon3 platform digitizes, integrates, automates, and manages different kinds of operations in a single digital environment, built with the specific nuances of space missions in mind.
The Epsilon3 team is aiming to develop the industry standard of operational software with their web-based procedure tracking and communications platform. It is designed to support the entire project lifecycle by creating, running, executing, and track all procedures for:
The Epsilon3 system is designed to enable more seamless communication between operators, engineers, technicians, and the test bed or a spacecraft in orbit for command and telemetry purposes.
All of the plots and reports generated are available to everyone accessing the system. There are no artificial barriers or information silos erected, but ownership of different aspects of processes and procedures can be assigned and transferred with ease.
The software also integrates with tools such as Jira to enable insights and lessons to be extracted from issues. This closes the loop on a specific issue automatically, and is one of the many advantages that a purpose-built digital environment can bring to space missions.
There are a number of advantages that utilizing an integrated procedure management software platform can bring to a mission, such as:
Using the right tools for mission control operations not only saves time, effort, and money, but also enables users to collect more data and create more value. If a space asset is out of commission for any length of time there is a potentially large cost to the owners to fix an issue, along with lost revenue for data that can’t be collected.
Efficient MissionOps are about de-risking missions and doing everything possible to ensure success. In space there are so many environmental variables that we can’t control, but we can be prepared for them, understand their impacts, and build plans to mitigate their effects.
Regardless of the documentation approaches and MissionOps platform in use, it is important to comprehensively train all operators and back-up personnel on the processes and tasks relevant to their work.
Each mission and organization will have established training approaches and programs, but here are a few pieces of advice based on Epsilon3’s experience in a wide variety of programs, from high-profile crewed missions to smaller technology demonstrations:
‘Train like you fly’ – do complete walkthroughs and then runthroughs of missions – make sure that everyone participating has the exact setup, software, data, decision trees, and protocols for the mission. They need to know exactly how to record and track what they are doing, and multiple people need to know how to access this information.
Such sessions need to mirror the live operations as closely as possible. Think about how you can replicate the exact environment, timings, systems, and other elements of the actual flight.
Consider all contingency plans – write down all possible things that could go wrong and come up with a plan B and C for each of them, both individually and in compound (e.g. if several things went wrong at the same time). Select and test out those contingencies most likely to be used first, and most often.
Train in scenario-based responses – train for specific instances with things going right and things going wrong, both in space (e.g. hit by debris, lose contact etc.) and on the ground (e.g. an operator gets ill, you get hacked, there’s a power outage at the ground station etc.)
Develop vocabulary around such scenarios so they can be more easily understood, discussed, and recalled when needed.
Test decision-making in high-stress situations – make sure that people can act effectively under stress and that they use the right resources for support when needed. Also assess whether the systems, software, protocols etc. hold up under stress. Fix any roadblocks and increase resources if needed.
Repeat such tests, at varying levels of intensity, and by switching people around. Ensure you debrief and learn from each experience to improve operations where needed.
In this section are a variety of other useful guidelines for operational teams, based on the experiences of Epsilon3 personnel, that will help you build a better MissionOps system:
Protocols encoded in mission documentation need to cover all aspects of the mission output, which will include a complete understanding of data privacy, security, and encryption.
Security is a critical issue for space mission operations. Integrated operational software collects all mission critical information in one place and so the security standards need to be at the highest level possible.
Epsilon3, for example, ensures security in a number of different ways. The software has 256-bit AES encryption at rest and SSL/TLS encryption in-transit. It also protects against data loss with recurring encrypted backups.
Aside from encryption, the system also offers flexible deployment through the Amazon Web Services (AWS) GovCloud for International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) compliant data storage or with your own on-premises servers.
Roles-based access control can be set up for restricting permissions to data across the organization and multi-factor authentication is also available to secure access.
Epsilon3 also periodically undergoes System and Organization Controls (SOC) examinations to ensure its systems have effective control over the security, availability, and confidentiality of the online platforms. An SOC type 2 report is available upon request.
Security issues in MissionOps needed to be approached in the same manner as other engineering and operational considerations. Clear, simple, and well-established procedures need to be in place under the responsibility of relevant personnel, and all of the mission team should be aware (or should be able to easily find out) what the protocols are.
A space mission is complex enough without adding massive overheads when managing communications, documents, and people. A good MissionOps plan will reduce such overhead and make all aspects of the operation more efficient and seamless for the user.
All of your software systems and teams need to talk to one another in a consistent and traceable fashion, with common tools and approaches that remove the need for low-level decision-making.
Whether in low-pressure day-to-day activities or in critical emergencies, operators shouldn’t have to answer questions like
These questions should be answered already, so that people can get off-console or focus on more high-value tasks.
Engineering tools, operational logs, project management systems, team communications platforms, file backups, and data storage – these all need to be interoperable and accessible by the right people at the right time.
Epsilon3 brings such capabilities to the industry. The company has seen from experience that electronic procedures and MissionOps software can add enormous value to all levels of the space sector and are now bringing these solutions to the ecosystem around the world.
To find out more about Epsilon3, please view their supplier hub here on the satsearch platform.
]]>The growth of the commercial space industry around the world means that every year there are more missions, run by both new and established teams, that require effective operational management in order to succeed.
In this piece, produced in collaboration with MissionOps software developer Epsilon3, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program, we take a deep dive into how to create an operational structure designed to de-risk your mission and help ensure success.
Please note that this is part one of a two-part article – you can find part two here.
Space mission operations, often referred to as MissionOps, are the collection of tools, processes, procedures, resources, and approaches that govern how to plan, manage, control, and coordinate the space- and ground-based assets needed to fulfill mission objectives, in specified timelines.
In the diagram below you can see an overview of a typical MissionOps concept. In this setup the Mission Operation Centre (MOC) represents the core coordinating entity responsible for:
Image source: acsce.edu
An effective MissionOps setup covers activities prior to launch as well as those performed while the asset is in space. Pre-launch mission operation activities will include:
Launch mission operations will involve the various required testing, qualification, and integration processes required by the launch provider and vehicle (as well as the satellite dispenser, if being used). These are planned out along with the logistics involved in transporting and setting up the assets.
All operational protocols and procedures required to set up the mechanical and electrical ground support equipment, including ground- and space-based payload processing resources, also form part of MissionOps at this stage.
These include communication, documentation, and procedure reviews of all processes and responsibilities. Standard documentation practices involve developing and maintaining a complete and highly usable collection of spacecraft and ground system user guides, both standard and contingency operational plans, training and configuration management plans, work plan schedules, flight rules and operational logs.
This article series will arm you with a range of ideas, considerations, and knowledge needed to develop such a system. But before diving into this guidance, let’s first review a few different examples of missions operations in action, to better understand the concept.
Ultimately, every space mission will have some form of MissionOps, no matter what scale it will be operating at, or how many people are involved. For obvious reasons, the larger and more ambitious the mission, the more extensive the MissionOps framework and resources will be.
Here are two examples of large-scale missions with a high-level overview of parts of their operations, illustrating just a few of the many MissionOps concepts that a team needs to cover:
Hubble’s mission operations [PDF] consist of a Mission Operations Room (MOR) and an Operations Support Room (OSR), based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).
Before the implementation of automated operations, a team of operators were required to monitor the console at the MOR around the clock. Today, console operations are staffed only eight hours a day, five days a week.
In case of any anomaly detected by the spacecraft or ground system, the appropriate members of the operations team are alerted immediately through a reliable text messaging system.
If the established anomaly is clear and well-understood, and a specific predetermined response can be identified in the MissionOps framework, the automated system will typically initiate the response and/or alert the operator as needed.
This is part of the system that has enabled the Hubble team to move away from a constant staff presence for monitoring – reducing the burden on the coordination of personnel, status updating, and report logging, as well as the potential for human error.
Any spacecraft carrying humans has an entirely different level of risk and safety considerations for mission operations compared to autonomous/robotic systems, along with the added complexity of life support, communications, and medical resources on-board.
The best example of this is the famous flying laboratory in space; the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS has hundreds of pages of detailed procedures exclusively drafted for the activities of crew members, in order to ensure their safety and comfort.
In the case of the ISS, there is the added complexity that all MissionOps documents and communication materials have to be accessible using systems in various different countries and in several languages.
Clarity in operations is therefore a fundamental requirement, particularly in an emergency. As an example, the warning message below was received on January 14, 2015, at 02:49 Central Standard Time, along with a red alarm, on the front wall display at ISS Mission Control at Houston, Texas, US:
“TOXIC ATMOSPHERE Node 2 LTL IFHX NH3 Leak Detected.”
The warning message is an example of a mission-critical situation where there is a need for clear procedures to be in place. Such procedures need to be codified and understood by multiple mission operators and should be designed to convey important messages with all necessary (and no superfluous) data so that countermeasures can be implemented in time.
During the assembly missions of ISS, a team of flight controllers worked around the clock to plan for the consecutive missions and support the transport of resources, crew members and their Extravehicular Activity (EVA) operations.
It takes years to plan for such a mission, involving the development of detailed timelines, flight rules and procedures. Once such MissionOps materials are created teams are then trained extensively on handling various mission critical situations.
Other examples of important areas of MissionOps for human spaceflight missions are:
Medical and protective operations – such as clothing monitoring and maintenance, crew health monitoring, routine medical procedures, and specific emergency medical procedures.
Extravehicular Activity (EVA) operations – such as the space walks of astronauts and cosmonauts, real-time support operations for EVA, and the design, components, and operation of the internal spacesuit and additional EVA suit.
In human missions a serious error could quickly become a tragedy, but proper mission planning has, thankfully, limited such instances in space exploration to just a few well-known sad events.
As there have been many more non-crewed space missions, there have been more instances of catastrophic errors. In the next section we review three brief examples of these that further show the importance of high quality MissionOps.
Operator or engineer miscommunication and a lack of proper documentation have led to a variety of costly mistakes in space mission operations. Here are a few examples of missions that suffered failures due to human error rather than design error.
Vega in 2020
In 2020 the Vega rocket was launched from the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana. Just after eight minutes from launch, the rocket shot off course and eventually crashed, losing the two Earth Observation (EO) satellites on-board.
Investigations uncovered that the cause of the mission failure was inverted cables installed by mistake in the upper stage engine of the Vega rocket. These caused a reverse thrust response to the commands and led to tumbling of the upper stage after liftoff.
A more rigorous installation recording and review process may have led to this error being uncovered prior to launch.
NOAA-N’ in 2003
In 2003 one of the technicians removed 24 bolts holding NASA’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s NOAA-N’ EO satellite, but failed to adequately document the operation.
The satellite was later moved by a different team and was accidentally dropped on the floor, causing damage to the system, because of the missing bolts.
Again, proper records of such operations, and an established process for accessing and reviewing them, could have avoided this issue.
Source: NASA (Link)
Mars Climate Orbiter, 1988
In 1988, contact with the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter, designed to study Mars from its orbit, was famously lost and it was concluded that the system disintegrated upon arrival in the atmosphere of Mars.
The failure was found to have been caused by a miscommunication in the use of units in the navigation system. One of the teams used the metric system while the other used the imperial system, and this discrepancy had not been effectively communicated.
An accurate conversion between these units was therefore not made and the mission suffered a catastrophic error as a result.
These examples show how seemingly small errors can occur, leading to major failures, even in missions with a large number of experienced personnel, redundancies, established processes, and failsafes.
Next we take a closer look at how such issues in mission operations can occur.
There is a lot more depth and diversity to the challenges that occur in mission operations than simple miscommunication and poor documentation of course.
Operational procedures used in modern space missions face a variety of issues due to complexities of the technologies, processes, and application areas, as well as the enormously demanding environment of space. Here is a list of some of the common challenges:
These issues essentially result from inefficiencies, a lack of resources, or unsuitable processes relating to people, systems, and approaches to using them. Relying heavily on older tools in particular can lead to a high probability of errors, missing details, and miscommunications when data is moved around and iterated on.
Personnel management is also an important aspect of MissionOps. There is a growing need for faster and more seamless on-boarding of new staff in the modern industry. Today’s missions and services are placing increasing demands on teams, and specialists are hard to replace.
Mission teams are also increasingly using automation for various operating and reporting procedures, which can certainly enhance efficiency. However teams still need to understand those processes that are automated and will have to perform some manual actions.
In every operation there is a balance between automation and manual activities – and both need to be mapped and understood by the team in order for them to be optimized.
The documentation, training, and processes put into place should be designed to enable new people to slot into operations as seamlessly as possible.
Such staff turnover is usually more of an issue for smaller teams. In bigger teams, it is more likely that there will be other people familiar with the operations and who have the expertise to replace an operator, even if only temporarily. But small mission teams and companies will likely need an outside hire, meaning that good documents and processes are vital.
As you can see, space mission operations are both critically important and complex, time-consuming processes. In the second part of this guide we take a closer look at documentation, electronic communication and protocol management, and operator training, in order to provide advice on the development of effective MissionOps.
In the meantime, to find out more about Epsilon3’s work please view their supplier hub on satsearch here.
]]>Texas Instruments is a well-known global manufacturer of semiconductors, integrated circuits, and other electronic components.
The company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, in the US, and also has a European HQ in Germany, with a number of other offices and facilities around the world. TI also has a strong interest in space.
In this podcast Michael and Adrian delve into how to enhance the performance of phased array antennas in satellite communications (satcom) applications by optimizing beamforming using gigahertz-clocking tree solutions. We cover:
Links and resources mentioned in the podcast
Episode summary
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined today by Michael Seidl, Systems Engineer with a focus on space applications, and Adrian Helwig, Analog field application engineer, both from Texas Instruments.
Now Texas Instruments or TI as it’s often known is an electronics manufacturer that you’ve probably heard of. And today we’re gonna be talking about phased array antennas in satellite communications, and specifically about how to optimize beamforming when using such systems. Firstly, I’d just like to say hello to you both to Michael and Adrian. Thank you very much for being here today.
[00:01:02] Michael: Hello.
[00:01:05] Adrian: Glad to be here.
[00:01:06] Hywel: Great. Thank you. Okay. So let’s get into this topic. This is a very interesting topic, quite technical, but I think has quite a lot of applications and bearing on modern satellite communications applications. So clocking is receiving more and more attention in RF applications today. Can you explain why this topic is possibly more important today than it has been in the past? To, to Michael.
[00:01:28] Michael: Clocking has indeed become very important. This is mainly to the effect that the speed of data converters has reached extremely high rates of meanwhile, greater than 10 Giga samples per second, which is great as it enables designers to directly sample the RF signals without the need for any downmixing to an intermediate frequency anymore.
But sampling rates of greater than 10 Giga samples per second, translate into very short sampling periods of less than a hundred picoseconds. It is obvious that any clock jitter offers a few picoseconds or more does already degrade the system performance quite a bit.
[00:02:11] Adrian: Exactly. Another way to look at this is the SNR performance as a function of clock jitter. It’s dependent on the input frequency of the signal. So in other words, for a given amount of jitter SNR degrades more with a higher frequency signal than with a lower one. So we really see that for higher frequency systems. Low clock jitter becomes more and more important.
[00:02:41] Hywel: Okay. I see. So as we’re seeing more and more use of higher frequencies in the industry, then we need that low clock jitter to enable the applications to achieve the sensitivity they need.
But it’s not just higher frequencies that make clocking so important. Also the use of phased array antennas, as I mentioned, increases the importance of clocking. As far as I understand it. So could you give us a brief introduction to the use of phased array antennas in space applications, and specifically like what problems do they solve and what benefits they offer over alternatives?
[00:03:12] Michael: Correct phased array antennas are the second important trends. Phased array antennas offer electronic beam forming and steering capabilities that can bring a host of possibilities for emerging applications such as satellite broadband so that they remove the limitation of physically moving the antenna.
And they allow to adjust the beam to follow the highest concentration of users. Phase array Antennas are also referred to ESAs Electronically Steered Antennas. As there are no moving parts, ESAs provide much higher agility for steering the antenna beam.
[00:03:48] Hywel: Great. Which is a really important challenge because obviously achieving sensitivity of in attitude and in agile satellites requires a lot of a lot of additional hardware and control of the system.
So that’s interesting and I thank you for mentioning the satellite broadband application. It really makes it clear why these systems are in use. It sounds like there’s still a number of challenges that would exist in such systems. And yeah, I guess Adrian, this is your field. I wonder if you could explain some of the typical challenges designers facing when developing phased array antennas.
[00:04:19] Adrian: The latest phased array systems are dealing with lots of elements. There may be dozens of elements in some systems and up to 100s or more in other cases. The higher the number of elements, the more directive the beam.
Each antenna element has an RF transceiver transmitting or receiving the signal. The biggest challenge in these systems is to maintain proper phase relationship between all of the elements for the beamformer to operate as intended. The phased array system adjusts the phase at each element to steer the beam to the desired direction.
[00:05:08] Michael: And you can do this in a couple of ways in a traditional analog beam forming system, you can use just one, split the signal to multiple elements and adjust the phase in an analog fashion at each element. That will be a lot of analog phase shifters which could be difficult to control and calibrate.
So the newer systems transition to a digital beamformer or hybrid beamformer where each element or a group of elements is supported by an independent receiver. This gives better control over the phase adjustment to each element since it’s done in the digital realm.
In these systems it is now the data converters that must properly be synchronized to maintain the proper phase relationship between elements and therefore clocking for those data converters is now very critical.
[00:06:06] Hywel: Okay. I understand. So yes, the move to a digital beam former can hopefully make this entire process of controlling to be more, more efficient and more controllable with requiring less systems. But why is clocking so important in these processes? And I guess how exactly does it work?
[00:06:24] Adrian: yes. So we really want to ensure that the skew between the data converters’ clocks must be minimized to ensure that all the devices are properly synchronized. Clocking skew at the data converter level translates to phase variation at the elements which impacts the directivity of the beam.
And in addition, you want those clock sources to have very low phase noise or clock jitter as we had discussed in the beginning.
So we need clock devices that maintain excellent low clock jitter performance at high frequency while minimizing skew are vital for the next generation of beamformers.
[00:07:18] Hywel: Got it. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. So I guess, looking, thinking more broadly about the applications, RF designers are usually trying to pack in as many elements as possible that can operate at high frequencies, but with agile beam steering capabilities, but at the same time, they’re trying to reduce the PCB footprint and power consumption.
The SWAP-C budgets still vital and as always achieve the best signal chain performance. And I think when we are talking about satellite broadband, for example, the performance is gonna be vital because of the nature of the application. And as this is becoming more and more of a commercial use while this, the nature of the market that determines the success.
Could you share maybe some insights maybe to Michael about how clocking solutions can help achieve high performance and maintain the kind of typed synchronization across all the channels with as little development effort as possible required.
[00:08:11] Michael: We just discussed how the new systems are generally increasing the number of channels to get higher-performing systems.
And with that trend, you have to provide more integration to keep the systems compact and manageable while lowering also the power consumption so that the whole system doesn’t just melt down from thermal overload. New RF sampling transceiver devices are on the market now that integrate multiple channels onto one device and support RF frequency bands up to 12 GHz directly.
High-frequency RF synthesizers provide the clock signal for the RF sampling data converters. The transceivers need a high-frequency clock with very good phase noise, as we said before and the systems today will be clocking up to 12 GHz.
Future systems will push that to 20 GHz and beyond as technology moves on. Clocking devices that provide good phase performance and are configurable provide the designer a lot of flexibility to select the clocking rate that best suits the system and the ability to modify it for different bands or applications.
[00:09:26] Adrian: Maybe to add to this, the clocking devices not only need inherently low part-to-part skew variation, they need the ability to adjust the clock phase.
In a large array system there will be phase skew between elements caused by device tolerance variations, temperature variations, and interconnect length variations, for example. It is important to have the clock device adjust its phase to compensate for those variations in order to maintain tight synchronization across all of the channels.
And now if you fail to do this, you will have to transmit or receive more power to compensate for a less directive beam.
[00:10:16] Hywel: Right, absolutely, which is obviously a situation we wanna avoid. So that’s great. Thank you. Are there any other clocking elements that are typically used in a phased array, antenna systems that engineers need to know about?
[00:10:29] Michael: Yes, there are some other critical clocking parts typically used in the system.
A clock jitter cleaner synchronizes the synthesizer’s reference frequency to a system reference like 10 MHz. These devices provide synchronized outputs to support the synthesizer reference, FPGA clocks, and serializer system reference clocks.
When dealing with large array systems, often a low phase noise clock distribution chip is needed to disseminate the low jitter clock to multiple devices without introducing any degradation of its own. A good clock distribution device minimizes the number of RF synthesizers needed.
And all of these clocking devices work together to form a complete clocking solution that maintain optimum performance for the phased array system.
[00:11:25] Adrian: That’s well explained, Michael, thanks. In summary, you are looking for clock devices with low jitter, low skew variation, and programmable to mitigate variations in other parts of the system.
[00:11:41] Hywel: Excellent. Low jitter, low skew variation and high programmability or programmable to yeah, give you great control efficiently. So that makes sense. Now I understand that there is some kind of established standards for high-speed data captured designs that use F PGAs. And you mentioned the importance of using FPGA clocks and how they can help the synchronization of the system.
I’m aware, for example, of JESD204, which I understand is becoming more popular for terrestrial high-speed applications. How suitable is this standard because of its, because it is established and being used, how suitable is it or equivalent standards to be used in satellites as opposed to on the ground?
[00:12:21] Adrian: Yes. So actually for ultra-high-speed data sampling, there is not really an alternative to JESD204. We are really living in a very data-hungry world and we must transfer multiple Gigabit per second in a single modulated data stream.
So a new trend to cover this is RF sampling. This trend supports very flexible form of modulation but it needs high bandwidth between the FPGAs and the data converters. This is where JESD204 comes into play. It supports serial connections with embedded clocks.
And now with JESD204C, we can easily reach 10 to 32 Gbit per second on each lane between FPGA and converter. A similar principle is known by PCI express in the PC world. So, multiple of these lanes could be combined to form even higher speed connections if needed.
[00:13:34] Hywel: I see. I see. Okay. So JESD204 helps support the serial connections with embedded clocks. I understand, enables higher ultra-high speed data sampling, but how exactly does JESD204 support space applications. Maybe if we could translate it to the applications themselves, that would be great. And Michael, perhaps you could answer.
[00:13:53] Michael: Yea Good question, let’s look now how the standard supports space applications. Starting with JESD204B the standard contains synchronization methods which are very relevant for space. Let me explain now why.
First, we must take a quick look at some of the typical space problems. Besides the well-known thermal issues, we have mainly one big problem and that is radiation. If a high-energy particle is hitting our well-designed and crafted circuit it could displace some electrons and by that cause some false switching.
That is not a big deal. False data from false switching is typically corrected by some error correction. However, there is one severe condition from which recovery is not so easy. It is called latch-up. This is when an integrated device, any IC, suddenly causes kind of a “soft” short circuit on its power rails.
The only safe way to resolve this issue is by cutting the power from the affected part for a short moment. This power cycle ends the latch-up and lets everything work fine again.
[00:15:01] Adrian: Here comes the catch. A complete system shutdown interrupts all thousands of data streams instantly. And it takes quite some time until all is up and running again.
We want something with less impact like for example a partial solution. It would be cool to just restart the component which failed because it goes rather quick compared to a full system shutdown.
[00:15:28] Michael: Yes, exactly, this is where JESD204B helps us with its synchronization methods like a SYSREF signal. It re-establishes system clock phases and it also helps quickly recover communication on the lanes between converter and FPGA.
This makes it possible to power cycle exactly the one affected device while keeping the remainder of the system alive. The partial system can maintain functionality during the event so the impact is minimal and restore full usability in very short time.
This is more like switching off and on a light bulb compared to a complete reboot of a PC.
[00:16:09] Hywel: That’s great. That’s yeah, that’s very understandable. Thank you as always the harsh environment of space and it requires us to do some crazy things on the engineer inside to uncover, to account for problems that we don’t face in the ground. But that’s great. Thank you. I wonder if you’d give us some, an example or some examples of space-related applications or any case studies that would really require this use of high-performance, tightly synchronized clock into each of the channels using gigahertz, clocking tree solutions.
[00:16:37] Adrian: Yes, no problem, Hywel, so probably the most prominent applications are the recently launched LEO constellations to bring broadband access to any region of the world. In these constellations, the phased array antennas bring value to both ends of the communication channels terminated inside the satellites: to the user link, and also to the feeder link, which connects the satellite with the operator’s ground stations.
[00:17:06] Hywel: Okay. How does this work? How does beamforming help in each of these or in this use case? How does beam forming help?
[00:17:14] Michael: Yes, let me start with the user link. the user link establishes the connection between the individual subscribers and the satellite. With the ability of electrically steering multiple beams each satellite can divide the area it serves and provide each of these sub-areas their own frequency band.
Now, the high agility is needed as the satellites in the Low Earth Orbit are flying by with quite some speed over ground. This means the beams sent to Earth must move with the inverse of the ground speed to keep an optimal connection. And let me add to this, the user link’s endpoint may not necessarily be on ground. It can also be on an airplane to provide broadband access to flight passengers.
[00:17:58] Adrian: Exactly, the second link, the feeder-link builds the connection between the satellite and the ground stations which are connected to operator’s terrestrial network. Also for this link the beam must steer inverse to the satellite’s movement over ground to keep the best possible field strengths between the two antennas. The moment the satellite moves close to the horizon it will lose that connection and the beam must quickly turn to the next base station on its way.
[00:18:35] Hywel: Okay. Got it. Michael, I wonder if you could elaborate on any other applications besides the satellite broadband?
[00:18:49] Michael: Yeah, of course. There are many more applications, of course, that benefit from phased array antennas. One to highlight is of course, the earth observation missions. A very prominent example for this would be the Rose-L mission as part of ESA’s latest additions to the Copernicus earth observation program. Rose-L carries a synthetic aperture radar with a phased array antenna operating at roughly 1.3GHz.
[00:19:17] Adrian: We can even add a third application field we could mention here, the radar observation systems. The multi-beam capability enables these systems to follow multiple objects, such as airplanes, or other satellites, at the same time. In future such applications could also be used for collision avoidance to mitigate the increasing risk for satellites from space debris.
[00:19:45] Hywel: Interesting. Yeah, obviously a, an area of huge interest in today’s industry. So thank you, Adrian. That leads into my next question. Really. You mentioned the potential future applications. So I wondered how you saw this idea of, using gigahertz clocking tree solutions in phase array and antennas, how you saw this evolving in space applications over the next, I don’t know, like five years or so. Adrian, if you want to continue?
[00:20:17] Adrian: Yeah, that’s very interesting. There are indeed several trends that will make high-performing clocking trees even more important.
We see RF sampling up-to X-band (8-12 GHz) being already a reality as of today. As technology advances RF-sampling will also be possible at even higher frequencies and we do see a strong trend towards even higher utilization of the higher bands such as the Ku, K and Ka bands.
Obviously, this will always come with the need for clocking at such frequencies, and as mentioned in the beginning of our conversation, the higher the frequency, the more stringent the requirements on the clock signal in terms of phase noise and skew.
[00:21:02] Michael: Let me add to this. The second major trend is the growing demand of phased array antennas that enable electronically steered RF beams with high agility and strong spatial selectivity as we discussed.
Interestingly the spacing between antenna elements is inversely proportional to the frequency phased array antennas operate at. For example, if you double the frequency you must reduce the spacing by half, in other words, you will have four times the number of elements in the same area.
As a result, we will see the need for even more data converters per antenna system that will need to be supplied with a high-quality and perfectly synchronized clock.
This will also create a need for even higher integration for smaller footprints and lower power consumption.
In summary the trend goes clearly to higher frequencies, hence stricter performance requirements in terms of phase noise and skew and towards an increasing number of end-points that must be synchronized.
[00:22:04] Hywel: Interesting. Yeah. And obviously we’re looking at. Satellite systems with a specific physical footprint budget that needs to be filled. Then these considerations very important to the RF designers, to the, how it integrates with the rest of the satellite system, how these things are powered and controlled ultimately by the, by the satellite computer system. So that’s great.
This is a really interesting topic, as I said, this is very technical, but the potential that is bringing to applications that I think you’ve explained really clearly with things like the satellite broadband area are great. So I guess finally, if any, if people are really interested particularly satellite RF designers who were really looking to incorporate some of these systems and ideas and technologies into their own systems. Do you have any pointers on resources or information where they could follow up this topic?
[00:22:53] Adrian: Yes Yes, TI has a wealth of material on this topic at ti.com. First of all, I would strongly suggest to take a look at TI’s leading clocking products such as the LMX2615-SP, which is also a Space grade 40-MHz to 15-GHz wideband synthesizer with phase synchronization and JESD204B support, or LMK04832-SP, our space grade ultra low-noise, also with JESD204B compliant clock jitter cleaner, and several others you can find on ti.com.
All these come with their respective EVM and a great wealth of software support, including the new online-tool CLOCK-TREE-ARCHITECT. This is help generating a clock tree solution that meets your requirements.
[00:23:58] Michael: Further, I would recommend designers to take a look at the material on TI’s space applications web page, ti.com/space, where you can find plenty of application materials and reference designs including test and measurement results. These help getting a quick impression on the performance potential or to get a head start into development with example schematics and layouts to refer to.
So for example you will find here a complete high-speed data acquisition system based on TI’s ADC12DJ3200QMLV-SP which is 12-bit, 6.4-GSPS, RF-sampling ADC. The design also includes a full space-grade power tree and clocking.
[00:24:51] Adrian: Finally, I would like to encourage designers to take advantage of the very popular precision lab training series provided on training.ti.com. There are several short trainings on high-speed clocking and high-speed data conversion systems. These short videos provide great insights on how the semiconductor products work and how the characterization parameters are defined and why they are important.
The precision lab trainings are actually very popular! The target audience for these is very broad. We see newcomers that appreciate to get started on the topic quickly, or experienced engineers that want to refresh their memories from school or are just interested to get a deeper look into the semiconductor products they work with. Even for those who have worked on RF technology for decades it is sometimes good to take a step back and see what design challenges could meanwhile be resolved with an integrated circuit where several years ago only discrete solutions were thinkable.
[00:26:15] Hywel: Absolutely. I think the industry’s moving so fast that even the most experience RF designers maybe have not had to think too specifically about how they’re gonna enable satellite broadband connection on airplanes or multi-element radar tracking of space debris in LEO. That’s That and these sort of applications are now possible.
So I think that refresh your knowledge and trainings like this is great. And just to say to the listeners, we link to all of these resources that I mentioned in the show notes. So you don’t have to worry too much about remembering those acronyms and we can link through to the ti.com tools and resources we’ve found here.
So that’s fantastic. Thank you. I think that’s a really great place to wrap up. So our listeners will have learned a great deal today about the use of phased array antennas the processes that need to be carried out to optimize beamforming and the importance of clocking solutions at all stages.
And I think it’s great to understand how these technologies are changing aspects of the industry, how they could also make a difference in the applications of tomorrow. And importantly how the kind of fundamental physics and engineering that goes behind, what decisions have to be made by engineers when developing space-based their solutions to this.
And indeed as you’ve pointed out the importance of beamformin on the terrestrial side, on the end user side. I’d like to thank you both very much for spending time with us today on The Space Industry podcast and sharing these insights and knowledge. Thank you.
[00:27:35] Michael: Our pleasure.
[00:27:37] Adrian: Thank you very much. Thank you.
[00:27:38] Hywel: And to all of our listeners out there, I’d also like to thank you for spending time with this on the space industry podcast. You could find out more about text instruments, of course, at ti.com as well as on the pages on satsearch that we have for the company. And as I mentioned, we’ll link to the resources that have been referenced in the show notes.
And if you have any further questions for our speakers in, or any questions on procurement and on the portfolio of Texas Instruments, we will be more than happy to help you get answers to those. So thank you very much and have a great day.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Agility can be defined as the capability of a satellite to change its own orientation rapidly. It enables Earth Observation (EO) systems to collect and downlink a greater volume of imagery, hence generating more revenue.
In this live demo, Julien Tallineau, CEO, and Jan Smolders, Commercial Director, of VEOWARE SPACE explain how optical and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite operators are benefiting from in-orbit agility, with some actually doubling the revenue they can generate every single day!
VEOWARE SPACE is a UK and Belgium based manufacturer of satellite agility components and sub-systems including control moment gyroscopes (CMG), reaction wheels, and attitude control systems (ACS).
The company has ambitions to equip all new satellites with the right agility capabilities, so that operators can boost productivity and maximize revenue generation.
This increase in complexity is placing a greater burden on flight software validation and verification (V&V) activities. According to different research studies, around 20% of CubeSats experience death on arrival (failure from the very first day of the mission) and 33% of failures have unknown sources. This highlights the importance of V&V and extended integration testing before launch.
To address these issues, Poland-based KP Labs has developed a modular on-board computer software SDK (software development kit) called Oryx, which is designed to easily test the flight software from the very early stage of mission development when there are no physical components present.
It can be used to implement a variety of satellite on-board management tasks such as:
In this webinar, Oryx Software Lead Engineer, Marcin Drobik, discusses the importance of effective flight software for satellites and shares advice on how to implement modern protocols and tools into your mission.
Find out more about KP Labs here on their satsearch supplier hub, and sign up for the weekly satsearch newsletter to hear about all future events.
]]>Space Kidz India is a Chennai, India, based company that develops satellite and high-altitude balloon missions, technology demonstrations, educational programs, and a range of other initiatives in the space industry.
In the podcast we discuss:
Find out more about Space Kidz India here on the company’s website or connect with the company on social media such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook.
What does a buyer look for?
Flight heritage vs price
About Space Kidz India
Space Kidz India, an aerospace organisation based in India, is a satellite and component manufacturer. They are also building sounding rockets for meeting sub-orbital launch vehicle demands and re-entry capsules.
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com
Hello everybody. And welcome to today’s episode. Now, today is a little bit different to our episodes that we run speaking to individual suppliers in the industry. Today I’m joined by Rifath Shaarook from Space Kidz India.
And Rifath is going give us a little bit of his experiences and some insights into the procurement and the space industry on the purchase side, on the buyer side. But firstly, I think it would be great to set the scene by, Rifath, if you could give us a little bit of a background about SpaceKidz India and hello, and welcome to the podcast too, of course.
[00:01:04] Rifath: Hello everyone. Thank you so much for the opportunity. This is absolutely, beautiful to be here. I just love it. I’m a big fan of satsearch. It has helped me a lot during our searching for the components. Thank you for that thank you. I’ll start with a brief intro about Space Kidz India, and what we are doing here.
Space Kidz India is an aerospace organization, located in India in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. So we started back in 2010 as an ambassador for NASA space camps. So we take children from here to NASA and train them in different aerosapce related field. And that is how we came to know about cubesats and nanosatellites back in 2010.
It was like 12 years ago. At the time, it, things were very different. We started from there. So we wanted to get into space industry, particularly nanosatellites. So we started with launching high altitude balloons for testing our components and everything back in 2015.
And from there so far, we have launched 18 balloonsat missions, two suborbital satellites to test our buses. One in collaboration with NASA as part of a student challenge. Currently we have two satellites in orbit, one is an amateur radio satellite, and another one is a IOT communication satellite.
So we are a full skill satellite development company. We manufacture all the components and subsystems for nanosatellites locally here in India and supply to all the research and education based customers. And now we are expanding into new fields. Like we are working on a reentry capsule on the sounding rocket. So things are getting exciting.
[00:02:37] Hywel: Wow. Fascinating. There’s quite a range of work there. How many are you? How big is the team?
[00:02:43] Rifath: We are around 12 people work full time and we have another 12 contract workers who work when there is a requirement.
[00:02:52] Hywel: Oh, great. So I was going to ask a little bit about missions you’re involved in, but I think you’ve just given us an overview there. Maybe if you could just. Explain a little bit about how those missions have worked from on the procurement side of things.
How have you gone about sourcing the systems and tools you need and indeed the expertise that you’ve required in Space Kidz India, especially in the early years.
[00:03:11] Rifath: Particularly in the early years it was very difficult. There were only few companies like ISIS and Blue Canyon Technologies who are, supplying ADCS and we have to separately go to their website, check everything, get their datasheet. Oh, it’s tough in the early days I’m talking about 2014, 2015, like that.
And one thing, what we do here at Space Kidz India, we actually don’t buy the subsystems. We don’t buy communication system or we don’t buy structures from third parties. We are actually one of the manufacturers we manufacture the system. What we buy is raw materials. For example, we buy microcontrollers or we buy stepper motors for building the attitude control systems.
We buy raw materials for building the structures. So it’s quite different because it is not just we need to interact with the space industry. We also need to interact with normal, consumer electronics industry for example, Texas instruments or Digikey, like that kind of supplier. So we can get the raw material and get things going on. Yeah. That’s what we basically do.
[00:04:12] Hywel: When you are looking for the sort of suppliers like the companies you’ve just mentioned, when you’re looking to, for a new supplier, or a new kind of mission, or you maybe you need to change for whatever reason. What is it that you are looking for in the supplier company in order to create a partnership?
[00:04:27] Rifath: Whomever we work, with engineering support is the first thing we look at, like how much we can collaborate with them. And if in space, that a lot of things can go wrong. And during integration, that will be a lot of troubles because it is multiple systems, right? each system is manufactured by different people at different countries and everything has to work together.
So then only we can deliver the properly working satellite to the end customer. So during this integration, the system has to talk with each other. So first thing we look forward is good engineering support. So in case if you’re buying a sun system, for example, recently be purchased an attitude control system with the support of satsearch. We found the supplier using search and we bought the ADCS and it’s amazing. They were able to provide us with all the support. So onboard computer is manufactured by us. It’s our custom system in-house system, so we have to integrate it. So that is the first thing we’ll look forward to.
And the second one is the flexibility on customization. And also the timelines for example, here at Space Kidz India, our turnaround time are very quick, for example, in 2019, we built and launched a CubeSat within 10 days. And yeah, and last year we’ve fabricated a satellite within three months. So sometimes there will be missions which require a lot of quick turnaround times.
It’s not like usual, not every mission requires this, but in some missions, if you’re able to develop a good partnership with the supplier who can support us in the long term with our custom requirements and suppliers, as soon as possible, that would be an amazing thing to work with.
[00:06:10] Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. And when it comes to the engineering support, do you think there are ways that suppliers could explain what they do or promote what they do on that side of things better? Should they be giving you more resources upfront or is it about integrating the systems, testing, integrating into the systems more clearly, are there ways you advise them to improve?
[00:06:30] Rifath: That’s really an amazing question, right? Because while looking at attitude control systems, because attitude control system, or like recently we are looking for some propulsion system. There are lots of options, and it is hard to interact with everyone, write emails to everyone, get the data sheet and, then evaluate all those things.
It would be great if I understand the companies have a lot of proprietary technologies and it may require NDA to be signed off, but it would be really amazing if they can give as much as information as possible upfront, for example, maybe in satsearch website or whatever the website they’re using is they can upload it, all the things online and it would be great. We can just go through the data sheet. We can see who would be the right fit so we can just contact them directly instead of contacting everyone, it’ll save time, both for us and for them, that would be really amazing.
And what I would Also think is there are a lot of companies like in China, new companies are coming in China and from Japan new companies are coming, if they can also join the platform like satsearch or like any other platform existing, a global potential can be tapped in.
For example here in Chennai itself I’ll tell you an example. We are from Chennai and from 300 kilometers from here, we have another GPS manufacturing company. We’ve been trying to contact them for few months, but we weren’t able to get a reply because that company is a very big company. We have to contact the right person to get the right response. But we weren’t able to do that. Recently, they joined a bunch of companies from India, like data patterns, accord systems, they all joined satsearch and we just sent a request from satsearch. So it directly went to the right person. And today we got the response.
So if companies can mention whom to be contacted for what aspect, if it is a onboard computer whom should be contacted, if they can give a right way to contact, it would be easier for us. And a lot of time and energy can be saved.
[00:08:32] Hywel: Obviously at the moment, there’s a particular challenges globally with the supply chain. And you’ve mentioned that your procuring components and electronic components to integrated circuits and things, and it’s just pretty pretty tough times out there for that sort of thing.
If we kinda, park that issue because, fingers crossed, it’s a short term blip and there are certain things in the world, which we don’t have to talk about, which could hopefully be resolved for the good of industry, at least everywhere.
If we park that situation in a typical operating conditions, do suppliers typically meet the lead times that they promised based on your experience?
[00:09:07] Rifath: Based on our experience before pandemic, most of the time we were able to, there were not delays more than a week or so, because mostly we work with local supplier, local vendors.
So we, get the components on time, a major trouble where we get is the import and customs clearance. That is where things get shut and the customs offices, they don’t understand what we are exactly trying to do. And the moment we say these components are for satellite or space, they get panic and they’ll inform the government agencies.
Most of the time it is during the import, the problem will happen at least in India, that we have seized a lot of time. And one time we even had to leave one of our payload, which we flew in US. It was coming back. The sample was coming back and we weren’t able to clear the customs at the end. We didn’t receive it. We just left it.
We just left it because it was so expensive to get the clearance. So we just did it. So that is where things go wrong. Most of the time, at least here in India. And right now our government is working towards, promoting a NewSpace policy to make this easier for us.
But apart from that someplace like Digikey, or other supplies were materials like our semiconductors microcontrollers and all those stuff. We didn’t face much problem before the pandemic. But after the pandemic, it’s completely going crazy and it’s so painful, but before pandemic, it was not that much serious.
[00:10:34] Hywel: It’s more about the customs issues and the imports then, and in those situations, other suppliers able to support you, is it a, do you feel as if the suppliers are doing the best they can and it’s just down to some customs officials some way.
[00:10:45] Rifath: Yeah, most of the time we won’t be able to interact with the suppliers like GK or element 14. They’re a very big platform. So we won’t be able to have continuous conversation with them. It’s all over what is the information we are giving the address and everything. So that is the one. But if you’re talking in terms of suppliers, the manufacturers, like we are seeing in satsearch like ISIS or Endurosat, those times they try to support as much as possible from their side, whatever the address we are giving and whatever the shipping requirement we are having on all those things.
It is not all about just the satellite alone, satellite components alone. Sometimes the requirements are regarding the test equipments, for example, spectrum analyzers or signal generators. So like that, which are not directly connected to satellite industry, but it is very crucial for testing your subsystem, checking out your satellite and dispatching it for the delivery.
In that perspective suppliers are doing their best. Recently, we got a signal generator for testing one of our satellites and it was delivered under 24 hours. Under 24 hours. Yeah. Not to India, but to one of our US, one of my friends there and he just took it here within two days. We got it there. So they’re trying to do their best.
Sometimes, we also need to give correct input codes, correct input clauses, and everything. If you make mistakes from our side. And if finally it’s a mess, it’s we have to blame our side.
[00:12:14] Hywel: That’s great to hear that, the suppliers are helping you whenever they can. And yeah, I think everybody recognizes that, as we’ve said, the challenges in the supply chain are felt by everybody. It’s not, doesn’t matter how, where you are, what scale you are. They’re being felt by everybody. So at least there’s that level of understanding. And obviously you mentioned a bit about the missions that you’ve that you’ve done.
And there have been innovation in those missions. So you’ve tried to push the envelope in certain ways. When it comes to flying components at any level, if you wanna, go down the parts of the subsystem, are you likely to fly a component that meets your technical specifications for a satellite, but that doesn’t necessarily have flight heritage? This is I think an interesting one in the industry.
[00:12:56] Rifath: At least from, our organization’s personal perspective. We love to fly components and subsystem, which doesn’t have any flight heritage. We actually have dedicated missions, like once in a year or couple of years, just to fly components, which does not flown before to space and qualify them.
So we can use that in the future missions because we are at the end of the day, we are not the end customer. We are not sending satellite, getting the data and selling it. We are not getting business out of the data. We are a satellite manufacturer and the more innovation we can make in hardware, more money, we can save for our customers.
So it’s our responsibility to test new components and qualify them so we can provide, best service to our customers. So most of the times our satellites, it is not customer satellites. Every year Space Kidz India ourselves, we have our own missions, personal technology demonstrator missions in which we fly new components.
And we love to do that because we get good deal because it’s a new component. So prices are cheap. And it’s a win-win situation. We can provide them with the data so they can evaluate how their system is performing. At the same time, we can also learn new things about how we can integrate these things in the future.
So we absolutely love to do that. And we are actually going to do that in an upcoming mission as well. We are flying a new eight attitude control system.
[00:14:23] Hywel: All right. Brilliant. Where, when is that?
[00:14:25] Rifath: It’s actually scheduled for launch on August 15th. Right now, the integration is going on.
[00:14:31] Hywel: Okay. Fantastic. Oh best of luck.
[00:14:33] Rifath: Thank you. Thank you so much.
[00:14:35] Hywel: And then you mentioned that with your own systems and the own subsystems that the price is effective, like the flying of the price, and you are all about being able to generate value at the end of it. So obviously price is a consideration, one of the considerations in space, but there’s space is a unique business model in the sense that the environment dictates so much of what goes on and price is there for only one factor.
But assuming there, there was, an established flight heritage or performance for a product that you needed. Would you consider switching to a new supplier, a new vendor for any of the products due to a reduction in price, or would other factors be more important to you in such a situation?
[00:15:16] Rifath: It, it totally depends upon the situation. For example, in a mission where we are having a camera in this. Okay. The camera, we cannot take risk because it is one of the primary payload. So we cannot put a new hardware. So we are using a flight-qualified our own model, or it is a custom fabricated one, but we are not flying a new one.
We went with, where reliability matters. So in that kind of scenarios, we will prefer flight proven hardware, but, in case it’s more of an experimentation or like our technology demonstrator missions, where there is a prizes reduced, what we will do is first we’ll get the engineering model and we will do an internal evaluation with the team that how good the equipment is.
And we will go through that documentation and we’ll check, how they have done so far. And if it satisfies our engineering team. And then we will give it a try. Maybe we can first fly it in a, high altitude balloon mission. And we will be doing thermal vaccum testing. And if all those things get satisfied, we will absolutely love to go with the newly developed models.
But if it is a flight critical one, for example the deployers will never take risk. The releasing mechanisms, the deployers mainly recently we had an opportunity to use a deployer from a new manufacturer, but we have to say no because it was never used and we cannot risk to jeopardize the entire mission.
It’s a very crucial one where we went with the more reliable flight-proven system. If it is just a small mechanism, like an antenna release mechanism, even in this mission, what we are doing is our primary antenna is held by a flight proven system, but we are just having another dummy antenna with another like secondary transmitter, which is held by a new system, we are developing. So even if that fails, it’s not a problem for us, but once we are able to prove it in space, that it is actually working from next time, we will switch to our own system, which will save us a lot of money. So it’s a complex engineering process and, design process we have to go through for each and every component.
Yeah. Case by case it changes.
[00:17:28] Hywel: Yeah. You’ve given, some really useful information. I think for suppliers, as I mentioned, this is what I was really interested in talking with you. You mentioned engineering support, the importance of communications, maintaining those communication upfront sharing of testing data and documents and everything.
Do you have any other kind of general advice that you would give to suppliers on the, in the industry today who would like to sell, to a Space Kidz India or to companies like yourself in the future?
[00:17:54] Rifath: Yeah, actually right now comparing to the scenarios, which were like since we are here for like around the past 10 years, comparing to the earlier days right now, things have changed a lot. Before you can’t even get the data sheet online.
And we have to mail the responses to be slow, but now things got really better because NewSpace has been trending one and everyone wants to get into space industry. Suppliers, they got really good at communicating with the customers. So I think right now we are doing almost good.
But what I would say is sometimes, suppliers can include 3D models. And we can see whether it would fit our recommends, data sheets, detailed data sheet is a very important thing. So every supplier, if they can provide detailed data sheets in the product page, which can be openly downloaded. That would be an amazing thing. That’s what I would say.
And manufacturers mostly while looking at, even in satsearch or, any other platform, only the countries like US and countries are like someplace from Europe, only they are supplying all the details openly and it’s available publicly, but I have worked a lot with people from Ukraine.
I have worked a lot with people from Russia, from China. I have worked with them and I know what are the amazing technologies they’re having in terms of CubeSats in terms of solar cells, onboard electronics and everything, but they’re not openly available. So if those people can also come into it, the prices will become competitive.
The more competition, the prices will get lower and it’ll benefit people like us. So that would be amazing.
[00:19:32] Hywel: You’re completely honest about your motivation for that to happening, but yeah, that’s. Horizon tide lifts all boats. And so you’d hope that the industry itself would benefit from changes in. And as you say, it’s not about the ability to communicate.
It’s about the mindset deciding to communicate because when it’s needed in a, in an individual transaction setting, the information is all there. It’s just a case of let’s go one step further and do it in the marketing.
[00:19:57] Rifath: And also one more thing I would like to add is it’s a standard practice for, all the companies to sign NDA right before providing further details.
And some companies use portals like DocuSign to, just sign the things. And sometimes, they’ll manually send the thing you have to fill up and sign it. So if all the companies can come up with a platform or something where NDAs and agreements can be just a single. Like we have apple money, apple card, and all right, you can just tap it. Everything will get executed.
Because see, as a subsupplier we work with tens of different companies and executing tens of different NDAs invoices is a tiring thing. So if they can come up with a platform where agreements can be signed in a single tap, even satsearch can provide such platform where, you can authenticate the NDAs and invoices on behalf of customers.
It’ll be very easy for us. And it would also reduce the load on our legal team.
[00:20:48] Hywel: Great. No, that makes sense. So you’re not against sign in the NDA, it’s just the time it takes to do it, is a bit of a limited factor of what you yeah. That’s important. That’s important for companies to know. I think so.
[00:20:59] Rifath: Yeah, because for company is just like they are one company, they working with multiple customers. But for customers perspective. We are working with lot of people like them and we have to sign tons of NDAs and, different agreements.
[00:21:11] Hywel: Yeah. Yeah. I see. So on the supplier side, all their NDAs are the same, but for you, you’ve got all different formats and yeah.
Brilliant. Thank you very much. It’s been really great information. I think just as a final question to wrap up, I wondered if you could just share a bit more about the plans, the future plans for Space Kidz India and what sort of types of new technologies around the horizon. What are you considering as your missions and services are mature in the years to come.
[00:21:32] Rifath: Right now, we are into manufacturing of satellites nano satellites weighing less than 25 kg. And in the coming mission, we are going to qualify our own custom bus. That is one thing, but our future missions where we are mostly concentrating is on two things. One is sounding rockets. We are developing sounding rockets because we want to increase the rate of launch vehicles, suborbital launch vehicles available because most of the companies are now focusing on, orbital vehicles.
We work primarily with students and research institutes, and it’s really hard to get quick turnaround time and launch cadence in suborbital vehicles. So we are working on that and we are also working with different suborbital launch providers to provide a common platform where our payloads can be launched to space quickly. That is the first one.
And the second one is we are working on a re-entry vehicle, like a space capsule, which can go to space and come back. We are personally working on some experiments which need that. So these two are the major missions we are working right now.
[00:22:34] Hywel: Fantastic. Yeah, both very ambitious undertaking this. So best of luck with in both of those areas.
[00:22:39] Rifath: The more ambitious the project is, it’ll be more thrilling and more thrill, it’s more fun to work with.
[00:22:45] Hywel: Absolutely. Oh, fantastic. Thank you. And if anybody out is interested in in your work, should they find you at spacekidzindia.in?
[00:22:50] Rifath: Yes. They can log onto our website and they can reach out to us. We’ll be happy to support that.
[00:22:55] Hywel: Great. And that’s kidz with a Zed, everybody, or a Z. If you’re in the US. Thank you very much with, that was fascinating. I really appreciate you giving us all your insights and your personal experiences of procurement in the industry, I think is really useful information. So thank you from satsearch, from our entire community.
[00:23:11] Rifath: Thank you. Thank you so much to you on the entire satsearch community. And it really makes things easier. And I hope that it’d be more platforms for different things in space industry coming.
[00:23:20] Hywel: Thank you again, and to all our listeners out there, thank you very much for spending time with us today. As I mentioned, you can find out more about spacekidz India’s work at spacekidzindia.in. We’ll also have some links in the show notes and everything. Thank you for spending time with this space industry podcast today.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>In this article we give a brief overview of what SDRs are, discuss how to choose an SDR for a space mission, review some of the current developments in the space-based SDR market, and share details on a range of systems on the global market.
If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
An SDR is a radio communication platform that enables higher processing power using software in an embedded system. The embedded system features software functions and protocols that essentially replace various hardware components in traditional products.
SDRs have traditionally been used in a wide variety of terrestrial applications. But with the rising demand for high processing power on-board satellites and space systems, SDRs have gradually gained momentum in the space industry.
The upstream satellite market has undergone major changes since the inception of high-throughput satellites (HTS) in the past decade.
Although many of the Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellite operators have traditionally utilized HTS systems, Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit (NGSO) satellite operators are now beginning to implement them more extensively, particularly as Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) applications are driving new growth in the industry.
One of the most important factors in HTS systems is the high processing power required for enhanced transmission and signal reception, in the form of data and bandwidth requirements. SDR platforms provide significant acceleration for systems such as HTS, ultimately increasing the processing power of the satellites.
From ground-space communication systems, to satellite-satellite communication and on-orbit servicing, SDRs have a wide range of applications in the space industry. For example, considering the growing requirements for higher processing power, both Earth Observation (EO) and communication satellites are increasingly utilizing SDR technologies.
In the next section we take a closer look at some of the important elements of an SDR system.
A full SDR platform mainly consists of a System-on-Chip (SoC) and a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) module. An SoC is primarily used as an integrated circuit to hold components together, while the FPGA is a configurable module designed to help program electrical functions according to mission requirements.
Xilinx is one of the most well-known SoC providers and their products, such as the Zynq UltraScale+, are widely used in the space industry. Other companies providing SoC/FPGA products and services in the space industry include Microsemi, Analog Devices, and NanoXplore.
(To find out more about FPGAs in space, please take a look at our overview of FPGA-based OBCs and payload processors on the market and our podcast with satsearch member Xiphos on advancing the use of FPGA-based OBCs in space.)
Modern space systems can require significant processing resources. To meet this requirement in an efficient manner, SoCs enable satellite manufacturers to reduce the overall hardware expense and access higher processing power in a less complex manner.
Based on this technological foundation, there are various projects underway around the world to expand the performance and versatility of SDRs, as discussed in the next section.
A variety of research and development activities have enhanced and facilitated the increased use of SDRs in space systems.
Companies such as EmTroniX for example, along with the European Space Agency (ESA), are currently developing innovative SDR platforms to meet emerging applications.
Projects are also underway to further reduce the size and operating power of SDR systems, through the use of more powerful electronics, innovative materials, and more advanced system setups.
As mentioned, the majority of software defined radios for space on the market today mainly utilize SoC and FPGA technology.
In coming years, as space research and development continue to accelerate, we can potentially expect more customizable solutions in the SDR sector.
For example, a customizable SoC and FPGA could give more flexibility to customers, so they can choose product configurations better suited to their mission requirements.
Alongside the typical considerations of availability, heritage, lead time, and, of course, Size, Weight, Power and Cost (SWaP-C), here are some specific performance criteria that need to be considered when selecting an SDR system:
There are many other factors that may be important in the selection of a software defined radio system or module for a specific mission or service. Open communication with suppliers will help to ensure the best option for your needs is selected – and this is something we can help with if required!
In the section below you can see an overview of a variety of SDR systems available on the global market. This list contains both complete SDR solutions and individual SDR modules.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the SDR products, or you can submit a generic request for a system to meet your mission needs by simply sharing your required system specifications with us (for free!)
Oxford Space Systems (OSS) a UK-based specialist in the manufacture of deployable antennas and structures across a variety of CubeSat and smallsat mission profiles. In the podcast we cover:
Take a look at Oxford Space Systems’ current vacancies at this link.
Summary notes
OSS’ procedures for developing a new deployable antenna product:
The proposal phase:
Building a new antenna model with the RF team:
Assessing stowage volume for the deployable antenna with OSS design:
The next stage is to mature the design by testing its functioning during the launch and in orbit. Physical size plays a role in the time taken to finish this step.
Prototyping, testing, and final delivery:
Other interesting team aspects of OSS:
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
[00:00:41] Hywel: Oxford Space Systems is a UK based manufacturer of deployable, antennas and related technology. And today we’re going to talk about the sort of skills and the processes and the technologies that are involved in taking a design of a deployable antenna through the manufacturing life cycle and ultimately into space and operated in.
This is a really interesting topic because it does involve, as I say, a large number of people at different stages in the process and a number of overlapping areas of scale. And we’re going to get into a lot of those today and talk about how this work is carried out at Oxford Space Systems. So I have a questions to ask of each member of the team who’s joined us on the call today, and rather than give an introduction to all of those.
Now we’re just going to ask each of them to just say briefly what they do at Oxford Space Systems when they’re given the answer to their question. Yeah. Without further ado, let’s get into the topic of deployable antennas. My first question is to Vince.
[00:01:37] How does a new project at OSS typically get started? Maybe give us an overview of what sort of problems you’re looking to solve, or, and how does maybe business development and proposal activity work at the company in order to get these projects initiated?
[00:01:50] Vince: Yes. Sure. My name is Vincent Fraux. I’m one of the co-founders of Oxford Space Systems and I’m also a mechanical system specialist.
[00:01:58] Yeah. So to answer your question, there’s a number of ways that an opportunity you can upon your project can arise. So it could be someone having an idea. And then we find some R&D funding to develop that idea or answered to a, sort of a research proposal from European space agency, for example. But in most cases, what happens is there’s a prospective customer coming to us, a customer that has an idea for a mission that requires some deployment system.
[00:02:27] For example, an antenna. So for example, they need a large antenna for the system to do Internet of Things or Synthetic Aperture Radar mission. And they need these antennas to be deployable to fit on their on their smaller satellite platform. So they come to us and they basically with some requirements for the system that they want us to develop.
[00:02:46] And their question at this point is, is it feasible? How much would it cost? And how long will it take, and that’s really the approach they have so they come to us and ask us questions. What we do from this point is we look at the requirements that are provided and we assess, is it a system that’s we’ve already made? Is it we need to modify a system that we already have, or is it going to be a completely new concept? So we look at these and we do some sort of analysis and concept design to establish a prototype for this product. So we do some sort of initial design let’s say, and then we go back to the customer and we propose our top-level design.
[00:03:28] Inevitably, it’s not going to fit exactly their requirements. Usually, the requirements they provide initially are quite stringent. And so we start a negotiation with them of a trade off of requirements. When we say what’s more important for you. It’s a small bus or that fits into a small volume or you’re really after the performance and the mass is not the issue. Do you have a timeline that you need to respect? Do you need to set a launch date?
So we discussed those requirements with them and work with them to find the best solution in terms of minimizing the complexity, minimizing the volume mass stiffness. So we look at all these requirements and work with them to find the best solution that suits.
[00:04:10] And from this point, once we’ve agreed some sort of baseline architecture, we put a plan together, a development plan, we establish how many sort of physical models will have to get to the right solution before we have a flight ready model. And so we scheduled all that, all the activities. And once we’ve done that we can put a full proposal.
[00:04:32] So we put a proposal that details what sort of architecture we are thinking about along each, we’ll take, what’s is going to be the cost. And from that point, they shouldn’t be any surprise from, in terms of the proposal to the customer. Cause we’ve worked with them to get to that point. And once the proposal is ready, we submitted to the customer and then we enter the contract negotiation. And then soon after we can start the project.
[00:04:57] Hywel: Fantastic. I’m really glad you mentioned the fact that there are trade offs involved in this. Every supplier I speak to on this podcast and our events, everything emphasizes the importance of trade, understanding the trade offs in space. The environment is as restrictive as you could possibly imagine.
[00:05:13] And every project has its own key performance criteria, its own, the non-negotiables and the parts of it need to be negotiable to fulfill the requirements. Brilliant. As following on from that the RF analysis, the RF performance of the antenna is obviously of vital importance to the entire application, mission or service.
[00:05:31] So to be it, my next question, how do you run the RF analysis on a new antenna and what input from the customer do you require at this stage.
[00:05:40] Beyit Barakali: Hello, first of all, this is Beyit Barakali from Oxford Space Systems and I’m an RF engineer. So to answer your question initially, on the RF side of things, we would require a set of inputs, as Vince mentioned from the customers, including the application that the antenna’s going to be designed for and specific RF parameters in order to set up the model.
[00:05:59] So basically these parameters do include operational band of frequency, power handling, desired gain, beamwidth site pop levels, return loss, and many others like this. So the positioning of the antenna on the spacecraft and the surroundings would be a key on determining the limitations on the size of the antenna. So along the path of the building in a new antenna model includes a lot of iterations with the mechanical team as well, to work out the best possible functioning version of antenna.
[00:06:30] So on the RF size, different approaches can be followed in order to design antenna model from scratch and these include theoretical backgrounds you should have with research and also calculations to build up the models and to drive some parameters as well as there are some useful electromagnetic wave simulators with great user interference as well, which do provide instant characteristics of the model that you design in 2D and 3D patterns and enables you to evaluate an antenna model in a much faster pace.
So for different antennas, we use various software programs, to be more computationally effective because we do have products from a hundred of millimeters up to fine meters dimensions. So what we do is be considered using multiple software tools on the design and analysis stages to achieve an optimum model within the timeline or the project with a confidence of achieving a good correlation between the basic design and manufactured antenna.
[00:07:35] Hywel: So just a quick follow, did the customers you work with, do they typically understand all the RF parameters that you mentioned, or is there a bit of customer education that’s involved in helping them understand the difference between polarization and cross polarization level, as an example?
[00:07:49] Beyit Barakali: So basically the customers do have a knowledge about the RF side of things as well. So it’s basically, as Vince said, it’s like negotiating on these parameters.
[00:08:00] Hywel: Okay. That makes sense. And then obviously you, then at the stage where the actual designing of the new antenna can be discussed. So the next question is to Lucas, how do you go about designing a new antenna? Where does this sort of process begin, based on what we’ve discussed so far?
[00:08:16] Lucas: Hi, I’m Lucas Baptista. I am a design engineer at the Oxford Space Systems based on the proposal phase. And also based on the work that the RF team developed with the customer. We basically care about the two things at the very beginning.
[00:08:32] So first is the final size of the antenna, which was defined by the RF team together with the customer. And then the second thing that we care about most is the initial size of the antenna. So what’s the volume and what’s the maximum weight that we need to design for. So based on those two parameters, and of course there will be other parameters to be considered on the next phases.
So we put together a team to brainstorm, to follow their initial architecture. And so we can design all the structures and mechanisms to make it possible. The antenna to go from the storage stage to the deployed stage after it was a launch it. And to do that, we use 3d software, like for example, SolidWorks to design all the parts. Put all the parts together. Check everything fits.
And also as a we said, we also have models and tests during all the way. And we have many iterations with the RF team because we need to be sure that we will achieve what was agreed between the RF team and the customer, or at least to be as close as possible to what was agreed. Sometimes trade-offs needs to be done. And so we need to always agree with those things.
[00:09:55] Hywel: Brilliant. And as you mentioned, there’s a lot of aspects of the mechanism where such trade-offs could come into play, in order to design the best possible result in terms of the RF performance. So that’s really interested in my next question is follow up question really is to Manisha here. I was wondering, are there any other mechanical aspects that need consideration at this stage.
[00:10:16] Manisha: Hi, I’m Manisha, I’m senior mechanical engineer at Oxford Space Systems. So to answer your question, yes, there are many considerations. Once we have the concept that meets our RF and physical constraint requirement, we still have to carry out assessments to ensure that the hardware is functional.
It’s suitable for launch, and it’s in orbit operational. So to do this. We have various analysis tools, which we use to mature the design of the mechanism, the structures, and the thermal side of it. And the end by verifying these by tests.
[00:10:52] Hywel: How long could such analysis and testing take?
[00:10:55] Manisha: Long. I think it depends on the product itself. So for a small product, I think turnaround is very quick because there are less elements that link to one another. But when, as the project is bigger, as you can see that. We have three meter five meter antenna, where each could be a lengthier process.
[00:11:15] Hywel: Yeah, the physical size being so important to the performance of everything. So that’s fantastic. Thank you.
I think this question is back to Vince. So we’ve gone through the design, the RF analysis, and then the mechanical development and analysis and tested.
Once these stages are broadly complete understanding, that as has been emphasized, this is an iterative process with back and forth with the customer, but once those stages are broadly complete, how do you go about testing the new antenna to, and to prepare for launch?
[00:11:44] Is there anything further that you would do to make sure that sort of the customer needs and requirements are now met with the system that’s been developed so far?
[00:11:52] Vince: Yeah. So as mentioned a few times along the process of the design, we have a few models, some prototypes that we call bret bolts, or we have engineering models depending on the level of resemblance to the flight model. We name those models with different names. But let’s say engineering models, for example. So it’s a model that is roughly a representative of what we could fly, but maybe with a few simplification, just to prove the concepts, to assess some some very specific parameters. And that helps us finish the design in a way.
[00:12:27] But once the design is finished, we then produce a qualification model. So that’s physical model. Which is in all aspects, the same as the model we are planning to fly, but the purpose of this model is only to be tested. It’s never going to fly. And this is just to verify all the requirements or the parameters and was for a test campaign to reassure the customer that the product is going to be ready and it’s going to work in space.
[00:12:55] And because this model is only for the purpose of testing, it’s not going to fly. We luxury in a way to over test it in a way. So what we do is we increase the duration of the testing and the levels of the testing to make sure we can quantify the product with a lot of margin. So that’s when we do the flight model, we are not, very tight with the margins and things.
[00:13:19] And so the typical test we do is a deployment as deployed as expected. We do vibration to simulate the launch environment shock. We put it in vacuum and run some thermal cycling to see if it, the performance is not affected or affected by vacuum and with different temperatures. We do some RF tests to verify antenna performance.
[00:13:43] So a lot of different tests, we do, they are all plans to verify specific parameters and to see the system working. And so once we’ve passed that qualification campaign. We are then ready to produce the flight model so that the final model that is going to be delivered to the customer to, to be put on the rocket and launch into space and on this model what we do is we still need to verify that this model works, but we run what we call acceptance test campaign, which is very similar to the test campaign we run on qualification model with reduced duration and reduced level of testing so that we don’t over test the unit so that we don’t destroy it before it flies, basically, because that would be very unfortunate. So we just do some sort of reduced testing just to say, yeah, it’s performs as we expect, is most similar to the qualification unit and it’s now ready to fight.
[00:14:40] So that’s how we go about it. And it’s usually, it might seem like a bit of a heavy process, but it’s usually agreed at the bid stage, as mentioned before. During the bid, we go all this sort of sequence of models and testing that we are going to do on the units. And it’s all agreed with the customer in advance and all factored into development time and cost. So it’s all planned out from the start.
[00:15:06] Hywel: Brilliant. Yeah. I think people understand I hope your customers understand that the nature of deployables are that the testing needs to be as rigorous as possible, simply because of the fact that they move in space.
[00:15:17] Vince: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. There’ll be a in the vacuum and that different temperature is is something that we can predict to some extent, but that always needs to be tested because there’s limitation onto what we can predict.
[00:15:29] Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. And I’m assuming therefore, the nature of the multi-level testing and the delivery of different models at different stages just means that you get to work really closely with your clients and understand a lot about their business and their needs, because you have to have a lot of a back and forth on communication.
[00:15:46] Vince: Yes, absolutely. They would be part of every test review and things like that. And they have to accept all the up to review and yeah, accept the test results. And if they are any doubts as to the performance of any system, then we do extra testing and correlation exercise and things like that to make sure we’ve covered all angles.
[00:16:07] Hywel: Brilliant. Great. Thank you. Let’s us a really good overview. As I said, I think in an area that I find really interesting in the use of deployable antennas is the materials that are created is that used to create them because these are very innovative products and the they’re required to be put under a lot of, as you’ve just mentioned for under a lot of stresses and strains in terms of both the RF, the thermal performance, the operation in a vacuum.
[00:16:32] And this is after obviously surviving launch and then operating for however long they’re required in the mission. So the actual materials used, materials that are able to move and redeploy and everything in space is very important. So the next question is there for, to make it. Which, and this I know. And so I’d like to ask about your role in the process on the material sides but I was informed that you actually don’t have a background in the space sector and are originally from the fashion industry. So if you could give us an overview of how you ended up working in space, I think that would be fascinating if you don’t mind.
[00:17:06] Majken H.: Yes. Sure. So my name is Majken H. and I am the knitting technician at OSS. And the reason I came up here is messy, I guess I studied textile and fashion design back in Denmark. That’s where I’m from. But ever since I was a little kid, I always had this little love for science as well.
Way before by a university. I actually used to write essays about colonization on Mars and I read way too many science fiction books and stuff. And I always had this small idea that I wanted to be a scientist or engineer or something. But growing up, I had to realize where my strengths lay and what I wasn’t good at. And I realized I wasn’t going to be the next Albert Einstein or Elon Musk or any one of those.
[00:17:54] So I kept working on more the artistic side of textile design, which was my passion. So I started hand knitting when I was seven years old. Growing up, I then started on the machine. And when I came to university, I then started teaching digital knitting. And it was this encounter with this big, magical machine that I realized knitting could be used for pretty much anything. And that’s how I ended up here knitting gold for space.
[00:18:23] Hywel: Fascinating. Bringing in some of the famous Danish designed thinking to to the space sector. Yeah, absolutely brilliant. So could you explain your role in the process and, in the context of what we’ve discussed so far is the process of developing the antenna and why your skills, your particular skills are required?
[00:18:42] Majken H.: Yes. Sure. So in terms of my skills, when I first applied, I wasn’t sure how I could be of use here. So I was pretty surprised when I managed to actually decided to hire me, excited, of course, but it was after a couple of weeks here and I got settled in and it got into everything that actually realized on quote my own potential, you would say, so working with design, which is my background, I had another way of looking at things. And when I would show people the different missing architectures that we need for our mesh antenna, they would be like, oh, what’s that? Why is that important? And that’s where I realized also, when you hear the everybody talking, everyone’s they’re expert in their fields.
[00:19:31] And that’s so important because I wouldn’t be able to create an antenna by myself. And I wouldn’t know what RF was about and everything. So we need each other to figure it out, to make the product. And I think that’s why it’s such a great idea to hire outside the lines because you get to learn a lot and, but you also get to teach others.
[00:19:54] Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. I think as the space sector in general, across the world is opening up. There are opportunities for people with the skills, with the interests, with the potential from outside of the traditional aerospace engineering or whatever it is, background., Physicists and mathematicians. And there, there are spaces for you in these companies and you can bring your skills, you can bring your energy and enthusiasm and ideas.
[00:20:19] And like you say, a different way of looking at things to these exciting growing industries. Do people work in the cutting edge of technology on earth and off-earth, of course. That’s really interesting to hear your story. Thank you very much. This. That’s interesting. So continuing on the topic of the different sets of skills required to develop the the deployable antennas at Oxford Space Systems, you mentioned RF analysis and the mechanical aspects of it. And now knitting of the materials itself used in the antennas.
[00:20:49] Another area that’s fascinating is the use of origami. And this question is directed to Ken. Ken, could you just introduce and explain how and why origami is used in engineering in these systems.
[00:21:03] Ken: Good afternoon. Hi, this is Ken Kitsu speaking. I am a mechanical engineer, part of the R&D group in Oxford Space Systems.
[00:21:11] And going back to your question, why an origami is used in engineering and more particularly in space engineering, I will start with the later one. So how origami is using space? When it comes to space, structures of bigger is actually better. The bigger area you have, the more sun your solar cell can get. The more power your solar panel can collect. The more powerful your antenna can be, or your telescope as well. And somehow all of these large space structures need to be packed into the tip of the rocket, then survive launch, and once they reach their final destination, it can be an orbit around the earth or on another planet, or even a deep space.
[00:21:50] They need to unpack, they need to unfold to deploy shape. And during the last decades, origami has been used to create patterns to form these structures in a very compact and elegant fashion. So that’s how origami is used in space engineering, but also origami is used in other fields, we can find origami in a robotics electronics, even in biomedicine, origami has recently been used to fold heart stems.
So these heart stems need to be very tiny to travel through the blood vessels. And once they get to the destination, which is a blocked artery, they need to expand and unblock the artery and even another application I really find interesting is the use of origami in airbags. Origami is recently been used to fold airbags, so they inflate way faster than conventional ones so they can give more chances to the people in the car in a case of an accident.
[00:22:45] Hywel: Fascinating, really interesting, wasn’t aware of either of those applications. That’s great. That’s really interesting background. And I know we have another origami engineer on the podcast as well. Louisiana, could you explain how origami concepts are applied specifically to antenna deployment and folding?
[00:23:00] Aloisia: Hello, I am Aloisia, the R&D mechanical engineer. Yes. So for answering to your question, origami is applied in a few products other assess, and there is a particular product where origami fits very well has incident and has a flat surface it to be folded and deployed, which is the most standard and understood way of origami, as called as rigid origami.
In this project origami has the potential to revolutionize the space imaging technique. To allow a smaller satellites to use it since it could be stored in a very small volume.
[00:23:40] Hywel: Interesting. And I guess following on from the conversation with Majken, how did you guys, if this is to both of you, I guess , how did you decide to study origami engineering in the first place? So did you have an idea that you would use this in space in the space.
[00:23:56] Ken: For my case. I didn’t know anything about using origami engineering since five years ago or so. So when I was going to do my master’s in the United States, I had to choose a research topic. And then I found there was a professor actually doing origami deployable space tractors.
For me, it was fascinating, the idea of combining origami and engineering, me being half Japanese, I’ve been introduced to origami, seen as a kid from my family in Japan, but I will never could imagine that origami and engineering could be combined. It’s like combining art and engineering from it’s fascinating. And the other thing that I really like about this particular field is that it’s been a reason and I believe it has lots of things to be yet.
[00:24:36] Aloisia: When I was a kid, it was playing with paper doing a strange origami, but I’ve never saw that actually could be somehow an engineering. So yeah, I started to research about origami engineering when I was designing a ballistic parachutes. How so Ken was mentioning before, like they are quiet treated this kind of parts to be folded, especially when you have to deal with the alert area. So you have to pack a lot. Example, we now very tiny bag.
So I was understanding if there was a, an efficient way to do but later for my master’s thesis of the senator and tested a rigid origami solar panel, which could self deploy for the in the moon environment, thanks to a robotic manipulator and with a rigid mechanism.
[00:25:30] And during my previous job experience of the senator and tested self-reconfigurable solar cell. But this time the mechanism was addressing the combination of the solar wind and smart materials. And so the more was there researching about this topic, the more we find the interesting applications in space, especially in the space sector where we always have, do we use large structure once in orbit, but then we have a very small volume and mass during the satellites transportation. So we have to solve this transportation issue.
[00:26:11] Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. As Ken mentioned. Oh, that’s great. Thank you. It’s very interesting that both of you had similar experiences in that you were attracted to some different aspects of engineering. And then this is almost as if the link with origami itself, if it’s not too poetic, unfolded there for both of you as a, as the more that you got involved.
And then you were able to bring those skills into space into the areas of the space sector that OSS is working in, which is great. Now to go back to Vince lot of the technical aspects of deployable antenna development, and it’s very clear that a range of different skill sets, vastly different skill sets I needed.
[00:26:49] So my next question is how do you at OSS go about organizing your teams and ensuring that communication is effective across these disciplines in these projects. You mentioned how important that is to keep the communication going with your customers. But internally, this is also vital because you all work on, different people work on different areas.
[00:27:08] Vince: Yes, indeed. That’s a very good question. And communication is of course very important. So the way we all go nice that’s a OSS is we’ve got different teams. So we’ve got product teams. So teams that are focused on a specific type of product. So we’ve got different product teams and we’ve got R&D team, manufacturing and assembly team.
[00:27:29] Once when we start a project, we put together, project team. So we take all the individual people with the skills that are needed to, to realize the project. And this project team is going to work together along the duration of the project and meets regularly and make sure they exchange ideas. And we keep the project team updated along the realization of the projects. And aside from that, we’ve got also an operation team and a technical excellence team.
That’s having another site on what’s happening in the projects in terms of management and in terms of technical aspects. So to make sure that what is being done is fed back to the other teams. So that’s we don’t reinvent the wheel every time we do a project, so across project communication, Making sure that, if there are bits of technology that are needed, that we didn’t maybe realize that first that’s the idea R and D department.
[00:28:26] So we’ve got fairly complex organization in terms of, are we around the projects and it’s all around making sure the communication within the teams, but also outside of the team are maintain at all time. We also have a lot of processes that we implement in terms of making sure that we have consistency in the way we produce documents and the way we take decisions, things like that. So that’s, we make sure that all the siblings are involved in the decision-making and that’s the documents are clear always for in the same sort of format. So that’s, anyone can very easily navigates through it through the documents and find the right information, things like that.
[00:29:09] On the wider OSS organization, we also have also meetings, that are organization wise and they are quite regular and some of them are formal, some of them are a bit more informal. It’s sort about sharing updates, sharing what’s happening in different part of the business and keeping everybody always updated on what’s happening so that question can be asked and ideas can be generated, things like that. Indeed, that’s a very good question that the communication is very important and that’s the prime focus on running the company effectively. Making sure the communication.
[00:29:47] Hywel: It sounds therefore that means there are opportunities for the people in your company on both because you’re focusing both on product side and on projects side, which means you, you’re not sure what could come in, next year.
[00:30:00] Vince: Absolutely. Yes. And we do a lot of projects but eventually what we are trying to do is create products. So that customers can come and ask for product instead of having a new project and managing that transition between project and product takes a lot of internal organization.
[00:30:20] Hywel: Just to continue on that train of thought. It’s going to require you to have really good people, assess to work on these projects and we’ve spoken to them today. In terms of bringing them into the environment I questioned for Manisha. I think what is it that you look for in new people to ensure that they can work well in the environment and on the projects and products that we’ve discussed today?
[00:30:40] Manisha: Yeah. So as you’ve seen that, what makes OSS great is the people that we have, and that’s why getting the right type of people into our businesses is very important. So we always obviously look for people who are passionate about space, as passionate about what we do. But we also look for people who are aligned with our values, which are respect, integrity, support, efficiency, and effectiveness to abbreviate, that is RISE. We look for people who are innovative, adaptable, able to respond to the changing needs of the business.
As Vince had elaborated, we get a lot of requests. So yeah, we need to have creative minds in our company so they can come up with ideas very quickly. We also look for people who are collaborative team players, so can work across the teams.
[00:31:32] So we have project team R and D team, manufacturing, team technical excellence team. So we want to make sure that they talk to one another. And we also ensure that we have a diversity so that we can have innovative ideas and we can solve most complex problems.
[00:31:50] Hywel: Brilliant. And as you mentioned, interestingly diversity in OSS doesn’t mean just the, just the normal diversity that you would expect. It also means diversity in terms of the industries that people have been based in origami and fascia, which is a very interesting element of this. So that’s great. Thank you.
And then just to wrap up, finally, you guys, been really interesting conversation, I think we’ve learned there. The listeners will have learned a lot about how antennas are developed and what goes into a deployable antennas and what goes into a carrying forth, a project like this, and indeed on your side, what it takes to work on a project like this and what opportunities this bring.
[00:32:25] Can I just ask what is next for Oxford Space Systems? What do we do in 2022? You know what what’s next for the company and what are you most excited about seeing in the space industry in general, in the years to come; can I ask that of Aloisia?
[00:32:39] Aloisia: Okay. Yes. Oxford Space Systems is developing and gaining flight heritage for your, of a normative deployable and tennis. Any of those today, emergence of application services that are not even yet on the market. The company is now scaling up production capability to facilitate to transition, to, batch production for satellite constellations. And we are exciting about seeing our company to grow over the next few years. In fact, keep an eye on the vacancy page and yeahto deliver our vision in orbit.
[00:33:17] Hywel: Brilliant. I think that’s a great place to wrap up over here and I just ask if anybody has any final comments.
[00:33:23] Vince: I would say thank you for having us. It was a great discussion. Very great questions you’ve asked and we tried give the right answers.
[00:33:31] Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. As I’ve mentioned, I think it was great to learn about what Oxford Space Systems does, how projects are carried out and how the work is performed in the company. To our listeners out there, if you would like to find out more about Oxford Space Systems, we’ll have links to the company pages on satsearch et cetera, on in the show notes and also on the vacancies page, because there sounds like there are lots of opportunities at the company for people to work, with people, to build them their careers, wherever the careers may have originated. And it’d be really interesting, how the company develops and what happens next and thank you again to everybody for attending today and for being on this podcast, we really appreciate it.
[00:34:12] Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>It discusses the uses of big data collected in space, particularly for sustainability-related applications, and explores how Cloudflight, a participant of the satsearch membership program, helps organizations to maximize the value and efficiency of such solutions through advanced data processing.
The article was developed in collaboration with Cloudflight.
Although the demand for big data from space is growing rapidly across different industries, only a limited number of businesses have the capability to efficiently process it in order to ease this burden and create more profitable and sustainable services.
Substantial technical expertise and domain knowledge, combined with well-established tools and processes, are required to process and extract actionable insights from space data effectively. This challenge is particularly acute at scale.
For example, if the user would like to analyze historical data, there are challenges in the varying temporal and spatial resolutions recorded, and significant variability in coverage over time due to rapid technological advancements. This means that all sources of historical data cannot be treated in the same way and delivery platforms need to be adept at combining disparate streams.
Another technical challenge is to process different types of data from varying payloads and satellite sources, such as applications employing both optical and radar sensors. In particular, processing and interpreting radar data can require a high level of technical expertise due to the complexities involved in parsing accurate signals.
Although higher resolution Earth Observation (EO) satellite data are more readily available in today’s marketplace, they can be expensive to utilize when large areas of land or sea need to be analyzed, requiring higher processing capacity. In addition, the supporting infrastructure for processing operations, such as secure data management systems, storage, encryption, and back-up facilities, add additional complexity, risks, and, ultimately, costs, to any service.
Processing of big data from space can also help in reducing the burden on ground-level monitoring infrastructure (for example, high-quality and readily available maritime tracking data could reduce reliance on coastal radar). It can also be used to improve theoretical modeling and data assimilation processes in order to develop more accurate assessment and prediction models.
These developments mean that there is an increasing need for easy-to-use integrated platforms that allow users with limited technical capabilities to utilize high volume data from space efficiently, and to derive actionable insights with minimal support. Such platforms can also enable the combination of large EO datasets with other data, such as economic indicators, agricultural statistics, health information, or other available socioeconomic records.
In such processes, data providers play an important role in maximizing the benefits of information collected in space. Some of the key features and functions that data providers and processors add to the value chain are:
Next let’s take a closer look at how such data collection and management solutions are being employed in environmental projects.
Satellite-based EO data, which is also often generically referred to as space data, has proven to provide an array of benefits to humanity. From weather pattern predictions to emergency management, space data is helping communities, organizations, companies, and governments to improve decision-making processes and implement better actionable measures.
Traditionally, passive satellite imagery has been popular since the inception of EO satellites. But with rapid technology developments in both upstream and downstream markets, active satellite imagery collection has become more popular, particularly due to the growing demand in sustainability applications.
The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) – a consortium of organizations from around the world – has identified 54 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) that relate to the health of the environment. The ECVs consist of individual variables, or linked groups of variables, and cover the land, sea, and air.
Many of these variables can be tracked, at least in part, by space-based assets, and such data streams are playing increasingly important roles in climate change modeling and mitigation strategies. This is also adding to the data processing burden that satellite operators are facing.
In such applications resolution is one of the most important metrics and it is commonly categorized into radiometric, spatial, spectral, and temporal. Spatial resolution is primarily used for assessing the tracking and monitoring of objects, while spectral resolution is important in environmental surveillance applications such as measuring temperatures or gathering certain forms of agricultural information.
Similarly, temporal resolution refers to the quality of observational insights of the same area captured at different time intervals, while radiometric resolution mainly refers to differentiating scales of a color – e.g. comparing pixels in grey-scale images.
All four types of resolution are important in a wide range of sustainability applications such as electric grid monitoring, climate change, asset monitoring, pollution mapping, land management, and measuring sea surface temperatures.
In particular, spatial resolution relates directly to image value in the market. For example, EO imagery with 15 centimeter resolution will be more valuable than 10 meter imagery for asset monitoring. Low resolution imagery, e.g. between 10 and 30 meters, can be used for more local applications such as land management or providing community insights on conservation of the environment.
High resolution imagery is in demand in both commercial and government markets, and as more organizations and nations are aligning with the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is increasingly being used in the green energy market and related sustainability applications.
The growing availability of high-resolution data is also driving the development of entirely new products and tools that can monitor, track, and provide appropriate insights in environmental applications. These solutions are being further enhanced through the use of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) to create powerful, next generation systems.
All of this growth in demand for EO data, particularly for sustainability-related applications, is leading to a corresponding increase in demand for higher volume processing capabilities.
We have previously written about the growing data burden on-board satellites, in particular highlighting four drivers that are affecting operations;
The fourth point is, arguably, the most important factor when considering the data processing burden across the entire satellite value chain.
Satellite and payload manufacturers have been successfully designing and building a variety of more advanced payloads every year and proving their functions and profitability in space.
For example, multi-functional and agile satellites are becoming more common in the industry, such as versatile systems capable of re-positioning an EO camera to take multiple images in a single pass. This results in the collection of more data, more often, and with higher volumes of usable imagery, as opposed to inaccurate or obscured pictures.
In addition, on-board computers (OBCs) and satellite on-board data processors are becoming more sophisticated. Modern satellite OBCs are now able to manage, process, and store more data than older models, and the latest on-board data processing (OBDP) systems are capable of getting rid of useless or corrupted files far more easily, so there is a higher volume of quality data to downlink and process. On-board processors are also able to compress that data so a greater volume can be downlinked in each package.
To find out more about the wider opportunities that digital technologies are bringing to the NewSpace industry, take a look at Cloudflight’s white paper on the topic here.
Manufacturers’ continued successes in advancing the design, manufacture, testing, and flying of cutting-edge satellites in space indicates that there will be a continued increase in the volume of quality data generated. Satellite communications systems and associated ground stations have also become more advanced and efficient, increasing the volume of quality data that can be transferred to the ground for processing.
In addition, the business use cases of satellites are also evolving, with emerging models such as satellite-as-a-service and data-as-a service gaining traction. These can also result in an increase in the volume of useful data generated.
As mentioned, satellite data used in industry includes imagery across different spectral wavelengths and with variations in resolution, fidelity, accessibility, and size. And as the availability of space data has increased, applications have also expanded, and business models have emerged in monitoring areas such as land, marine, atmosphere, climate change, disaster management, security, and more.
For example, satellite data approaches that were only used for weather forecasting in previous years are now also employed for Earth surface monitoring applications such as identifying invasive plants, measuring vegetation yields, and tracking naval vessels.
Users also have access to open satellite data from providers such as Landsat and Copernicus. These can be integrated and utilized with data from other sources to create new use cases. While satellites and their launches are a common focus in the space industry, particularly from the outside, there is often less public awareness of the value of exploiting such existing space data in this way.
In summary, due to growing demand, a wide range of applications can be developed if companies have the capacity to efficiently exploit the information held in the terabytes of new and historical data that can be accessed today.
And in order to do so, cloud- and on-site-based data processing services have been evolving and scaling up to meet the growing needs of the space industry. In the next section we take a look at the benefits that such solutions can bring to space applications.
The ability to more efficiently process large amounts of data enhances the sustainability of any company or process. Simply put, the less time and energy that is required to crunch the data and extract the insights or value needed, the fewer emissions are ultimately generated.
This also has an obvious financial impact. The unit economics of any space service include the cost of processing across the data pipeline, so reducing such costs improves the profitability of each business case.
For example, Cloudflight worked with well-known satellite operator Spire on projects that exploit data collected from the company’s constellation of over 100 multi-purposes satellites. Cloudflight has helped to scale Spire’s data processing resources and implement new processes in order to lower ongoing operating costs. Similarly, Cloudflight had accelerated the GRASP algorithm for ESA to make it applicable globally and for full mission timeframes.
Alongside lowering operational costs and enabling new products and services, advanced data processing also speeds up time-to-market. An experienced provider is able to help satellite operators create a market-ready service faster by leaning on experience to develop commercial-level data, and scaling the operation when needed.
Cloudflight has developed deep expertise in the processing of space-borne data in a variety of market segments. Before we review some of this work, first let’s introduce the company more fully.
Cloudflight is one of the most well-established full-service providers for digital innovation and solutions in Europe, operating across a number of industrial sectors, including the space industry. Cloudflight has over 20 years’ of experience in digital technologies and has successfully carried out more than 1,000 projects around the world.
In recent years AI, machine learning (ML), and cloud-based services have become an integral part of several industries. While a significant number of companies are already providing digital solutions and services in these areas for terrestrial applications, the space industry has also started integrating more digital technologies; both in operational and processing capabilities.
The space industry’s growing demand for ease in operations, high volume data management, and operating efficiencies for network management systems, has resulted in this gradual adoption of AI, cloud computing, and advanced data processing capabilities.
Leveraging such emerging technologies is also enhancing product output in verticals such as Earth Observation (EO); where data processing, management, and end product development processes can be simplified and improved. In addition, the evolution of new AI capabilities has helped some space businesses to scale operations and develop innovative new products.
In all of these processes, Cloudflight is helping companies explore new territory (sometimes literally!) in the space sector, using cloud-based digital solutions to enhance processing capabilities.
EO in particular is one of the space verticals in which higher volume data processing, management, and distribution are still yet to meet their full potential; particularly in terms of consumer affordability. And as NewSpace technologies have progressed, EO applications are increasingly exposed to the consumer market, leading to more companies participating in downstream product development processes.
Next let’s take a close look at Cloudflight’s work in space.
Cloudflight has a long history of using space data and providing services around it, whether it is active and passive Earth Observation data (optical, radar, lidar), satellite communication, or the collection of Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) data discussed earlier.
One example of scientific cooperation is the development of the GRASP algorithm for the detection of aerosol particles and surface reflectance, together with the University of Lille and GRASP SAS, to have a better understanding of the effects of aerosols on global climate development. The teams continuously collaborate on optimizing the algorithm as well as on new projects with newer and more accurate data, often even with new satellites or instruments.
Data collection and insight generation have increasingly gained momentum in the EO field. Rapid growth in the software industry and the incoming wave of innovative technologies, such as ML and other AI techniques, are also driving cross-industrial adoption, and stakeholders in the space industry have also started utilizing these technologies on a larger scale.
Cloudflight’s work in the fields of space science and technology is expanding, and downstream industries are increasingly utilizing its services to strengthen their product lines and services. The company also carries out platform development to provide satellite operators with a commercially-viable system to deliver end-user data that is designed to be secure, robust and efficient.
For new teams, this process typically begins with an assessment of a service concept using historical data, discussed next.
Today’s space industry is moving at a faster pace than ever. And although the barriers for entry have significantly lowered in recent years, particularly with respect to launch and component costs, customer expectations have also grown, meaning the value of any commercial service needs to be proven as quickly as possible.
One established route that new entrants to the market are taking is to model business cases and service concepts with historical data. Publicly available data is often a good starting point, but there can be limits on this in terms of quality, completeness, availability, data definition information, and other factors.
Cloudflight can help operators with access to additional archives of data with which new ideas can be tested or validated and establish contacts to a strong R&D network. This information can significantly de-risk and reduce time-to-market for a team developing a new product or service.
Alongside facilitating access to such data, Cloudflight also has broad expertise in supporting companies to develop their algorithms and make them production-ready. These services include algorithm optimization, benchmarking, the generation of data models, High Performance Computing (HPC), and other activities required to help their customers develop products.
It is important for any business, whether new or established, to be versatile in today’s market. Next-generation software, payloads, OBCs, and other satellite sub-systems are enabling a new wave of multi-purpose systems in space.
It is now possible to repurpose and reposition even some hardware to meet new business requirements, and utilize software-defined satellite concepts to adapt to changing conditions on-orbit.
Such versatile functions require agile data processing capabilities that can change and upgrade rapidly. This is a core aspect of Cloudflight’s services, which the company has developed over a long history of different industry projects.
Finally, one of the key drivers of a successful space-based data service is the strength of the operator’s partnership with the processing provider. Next, let’s take a look at how satellite operators can work closely with space data processing service providers, such as Cloudflight, in order to create more sustainable and profitable services.
Selecting and acquiring the right processing solution for a satellite data service is a different procurement task to simply purchasing off-the-shelf hardware components. In contrast to spending an endless amount on the adaptation of standard tools and libraries, Cloudflight follows an agile approach, together with prospective clients, to design and develop bespoke solutions tailored to their specific needs, resources, end-users, and strategic goals.
This begins with an initial meeting to flesh out the challenges and opportunities, which can be held under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) if required, and determine the most applicable use cases where a new custom solution is required or more efficient data processing can play a key role.
When working on the data processing pipeline, there are several things that satellite operators can prepare as entry points, which will also be beneficial to the entire operation, such as:
Cloudflight’s established and proven client on-boarding processes are designed to get a project up and running quickly, often within a week. The company is organized in virtual teams across Europe to provide high levels of flexibility and have shown in many projects that remote work is as good as on-site collaboration.
This way, they can provide their partners with the best resources needed to solve a challenge.
Working closely together with the satellite operator’s teams results in efficient communication and a mutual exchange of know-how so that even if the cooperation ends, the knowledge about how things work – and importantly what didn’t work – is also available at the operator’s side and not lost.
Ultimately, in the modern market the value of a satellite service is determined by the value of the data the company can provide to end-users. The speed, quality, and efficiency of the processing of that data is a key driver of this value and improving it can lead to a consistently more profitable and more sustainable service.
Cloudflight has invested heavily in developing a team that they believe has the skills and experience to meet any challenge in the space domain.
As a larger data processing company they have the stability and processes to provide value in services at any scale while remaining versatile enough to adapt to changing market conditions.
To find out more about how Cloudflight can help your company build a more sustainable and successful space service, please visit their satsearch supplier hub here.
]]>Deployables Cubed (DCUBED) is a Munich-based NewSpace company specializing in the development of deployable components and sub-systems for small satellites. In the podcast we cover:
About DCUBED’s technology
About PowerCube
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
[00:00:00] Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com
Hello there. And welcome to the episode today. I’m joined by Thomas and Antonio from German company Deployables Cubed. Deployables Cubed creates actuators and deployable mechanisms and other similar technologies for a wide range of missions in a wide range of different form factors in an application area.
So today we’re going to talk a little bit about the use of deployable solar arrays, specifically for CubeSats. Thomas, Antonio, thank you very much for being here today. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
[00:01:07] Thomas: Yeah, and we have very excited to also be in the podcast again, and it’s a very, a perfect time for us because we just passed the MRR, the manufacturer’s readiness review of our big solar array, and now gearing up for the testing and then preparing the flight mission. So a perfect timing.
[00:01:27] Antonio: Yes. Thank you very much.
[00:01:30] Hywel: Great. Thank you. Yeah, we can get into hopefully some of those details. Firstly, I think you’d like to set the scene and ask what sort of bottlenecks do CubeSat that teams face that make, make a case for using a high power deployable solar array solution. And maybe what an overview of what sorts of missions and teams do you see adopting such technology for their own uses?
[00:01:50] Thomas: Yeah, the thing is with the NewSpace transition, as I mentioned also in the other podcasts is that, yeah, we are getting into building more and more satellites that have a standardized size and therefore they can be launched cheaply built cheaply within just a couple of weeks.
But when we are going up into space, we normally need a bigger structure. And one of these key areas is to have enough power for standard computers to run these advanced missions. One nice example is that’s why we also are working on PowerCube is the need for power in communication. So building up IoT applications in space, but also a space to space and space to ground communications requires quite a lot of energy and therefore we need deployable solar arrays because the area that we have available on the CubeSat is not sufficient anymore.
Other applications we clearly see in electrical propulsion, because we see more and more thrust is coming out that require quite some kilowatts of power and that they can run continuously. We need big solar arrays to generate power.
[00:03:09] Hywel: Okay. Interesting. Yeah, that makes sense. Obviously, a piece of technology that is as complex as this in the space environment will have required you to bring together a few different areas of innovation essentially.
I wonder Antonio if you could give us an overview of what those areas are that are making, high power deployable solar array a viable option for the sorts of missions that you’ve just mentioned.
[00:03:33] Antonio: Yeah, sure. So when we started working on our high power solar array development PowerCube, We quickly realized that a conventional architectures would not working for us because normally when you have a standard off the shelf solar arrays for CubeSats.
You end up with a foldable panels that are hinged together. But that only gives you about 20, maybe 50 watts of power. But then we were aiming for 100 Watts and we realized we really had to rethink entirely the way to build it because otherwise it would have been too big. And too difficult to maneuver for this for the satellite.
So we had a first of all to use quite advanced it deployable architectures. So instead of having this foldable panels in one dimension, we are using now origami structures and using origami, we can basically create an approximately square area and we can sew it in a cube. And in addition to that, we also needed advanced materials.
So in particular, our solar array is self supported by a carbon fiber reinforced structure where we are using a dual matrix composite. So basically say type of structure that we can build all at once. So there are no mechanical articulations and it’s very rigid where the solar cells are mounted.
And it’s also very flexible along the folding pattern regarding, and basically by combining these two these two components. Origami architectures are one side and advanced the composites we achieve a very high packaging efficiency for our structure, which enables up to 100 Watts, or even more power on a simple 2U CubeSats.
[00:05:10] Hywel: Brilliant. So advanced materials and an innovative method of storing and deploying them, really interesting. And you mentioned the power rate in there being a lot higher than what is typically is often produced by the solar panels in a CubeSat.
But with that amount of power being produced, that needs to be managed in the small volume of a CubeSat 1U, 3U, or 12U, or whatever it is. Do you foresee any challenges in particularly in thermal management that needs to be solved alongside the development of the arrays themselves.
[00:05:39] Antonio: Yeah. Of course the thermal management becomes really critical when you start developing high power satellites. And if you think about it, even if CubeSats of relatively limited power, the power density that you get, it’s a lot more than big communication satellites, which means you are generating you’re dissipating a lot of more power for the same volume. So the way we are tackling this problem on PowerCube is to thermally decouple it from the satellites. So basically the heat that we generate doesn’t get conveyed to the subsystems. But at the same time, of course, it’s going to be a problem for the for the CubeSat users and especially normally they have a very power hungry payload.
It could be, for example, an electric thruster, it could be an LED or a laser for communications or just a PCB. And in that case, you would, they will generate a lot of power that needs to be dissipated. And for this reason, we started recently working on a passive deployable radiator. Which is not going to be part of PowerCube, but it will be an add-on that could be placed exactly where the customer needs it. And it’s going to be a passive design that you can simply deploy next to the power generating component and helps you radiate either way.
[00:06:53] Hywel: Dealing with the power and the thermal issues are as important as the amount of power you can generate, of course. And we see trending topics in the industry where sub-system manufacturers or the satellite integrators are looking at both areas there. They want to use more innovative payload, as you said, power hungry payloads. And in order to do that, they need to
(a) create an architecture that’s efficient so that they can reduce the power consumption that maybe they’ve had previously and (b) able to produce more power.
So that’s great, but obviously this is the space sector. The heritage, the space heritage of the component of the system is always going to be very important.
Thomas, you mentioned some of this in the beginning, but Antonio, what’s the roadmap for getting the space heritage for PowerCube and what kind of assuming, everything goes well, bringing it to market. What kind of customization options are you going to be able to offer within that space heritage envelope?
[00:07:44] Antonio: Yeah. As Thomas mentioned before we recently passed the MRR. So right now we are building our engineering model that we go through all the environmental testing campaign later this summer, just to to demonstrate that it’s going to work as intended in the right environment. And after that we have an IOD mission planned in 2023.
It’s a mission with Cal-Poly in California. And they are basically developing a three-year satellite for a space solar power demonstration. So basically they have this three year satellite and they have a very powerful LED.
And they want to demonstrate energy transfer from space to earth using light. And of course, for that, that we need our solar array and they are also developing all the payloads. We also have a propulsion system on board. So we were awarded a NASA launch for this project. So we basically already have a launch. And this plan, as I mentioned before for the end of 2023 So we’re really excited about that. And we are really looking forward to our demo.
[00:08:44] Thomas: Yeah. And I think I also want to jump in here. Because one of the things that we want to do quite early on is to get customers involved that use this technology because only if we make it based on customer requirements, we can be insured there’s also a market for it. We did it with our actuators, with our selfie stick and now with a PowerCube as well. So here’s also a call out to anyone that’s still interested in flying this technology or needing it just get in touch with us. Great.
[00:09:21] Hywel: Thank you. Yeah. And then just to ask about, just as I mentioned about the customization options that you are intended to offer. Obviously within, as I say, within the confines of their space heritage, you’re able to acquire, but also as Thomas mentioned, based on customer requirements
[00:09:35] Antonio: so we have a couple of options in mind. So first of all, the solar array is meant to be scaled. Which means that we can adjust the power that we generate to the customer’s needs.
And that, of course, I will say, make any smaller, it’s very easy but we can also grow, I would say up to 20% and more powerful. In addition to that we are developing maximum power point tracking PCB as an add-on to our system. So basically using this, you can basically manage the performance of your solar array to the need of your payload, which means basically always getting maximum power from the solar array.
So these will not be part of the main product because sometimes MPPT is, are on the electrical power system on the satellite. But we think it’s very useful to provide it as an add-on if needed. And in addition to that we are also thinking about doing some ways to access the top of the satellite for mounted sensors.
Because as you can expect, we have this pretty big solid solar array that is covering entirely the sun. And sometimes people may want sun sensors or other sensors on the top face, and we want to provide a way for people to easily do that. So this will be, I will say the main customization options that we have in mind at the moment, but of course, like we’re always open to feedback from the customers to see what is really interesting for them. And if we can actually accommodate additional features.
[00:10:56] Hywel: Brilliant. Yeah. There, the position of the sun sensors obviously, this is a key challenge. So that’s a great that you’re thinking about that. And you mentioned the scalability of the system there, but with the PowerCube is stored, I believe in a one U for form factor.
How do you foresee it being used in larger CubeSats such as 12U or 16U systems, particularly we’re thinking, balancing out moments of inertia and other such considerations that need to be balanced when, where payloads are typically stored?
[00:11:24] Antonio: So the form factor of PowerCube is naturally, like when you because it’s a symmetric structure, so it really needs square configuration.
Now, if you look at the bigger satellite our suggestion will be always to Mount it at the center of the back face so that you don’t get cause moment of intertia. Which means that basically during the accommodation of the payloads, you basically have to put the PCBs on the two sides which is also partially what is done by people already for similar systems and these best that allows you to balance the moment of inertia.
Also you have to keep in mind that you have this large deployed area, which means that, especially if you’re flying in low earth orbit. You basically to get quite a bit of drag. And so it makes sense to have the solar array on the back face of the satellites. So it gets naturally perpendicular to the velocity vector along your orbit. So it stablizes it and also in a way acts as a deorbiting device.
[00:12:20] Hywel: I think that was most of the technical questions there. Just maybe a final question to Thomas first, obviously, Antonio, feel free to, to share your thoughts. Tell us, what are you most excited about seeing happen in the industry in the next few years?
I think DCUBED has been involved in a number of quite interesting missions. And there’s a lot that you guys are working on because of the nature of the technology you create this quite widely applicable potentially. And yeah. What’s next for DCUBED itself?
[00:12:48] Thomas: Yeah. I think it’s the best time to be in the space industry right now, since the the moon era in the sixties, because right now we see so much development all over the world and what has been planned over last year’s is now coming to it’s fruitful launch. Because when you see how many companies are alone here in Germany, in Europe that are developing launches that are having the possibility of bringing satellites cheaply into orbit.
It will open up so many opportunities for in-orbit demonstration for really exciting missions, who’d be in low earth orbit going to the moon or going to mass or a deep space. And that’s the exciting thing of being a component and subsystem supplier like the DcubeD, because we are actually on, can be part of these exciting mission.
So we’re not building constellation where we are just staying in the low earth orbit, but we are supporting the companies that are doing that. They are building up their IoT constellations, their earth observation constellations, but then we are also a part of missions that are dropping a Rover on the surface of the moon, to prepare for the next man and the first woman on the moon.
But then we are also having projects where we go into deep space where looking at asteroids there’s much more coming in the next years because a lot of companies out there which are looking at more out there business cases, And directly for us next to the moon mission and the deep space mission, we are very excited for actually launching our selfie stick again in October and also then launching a PowerCube next year.
And then also doing some more radiator development. And trying to get on a much more missions. Our goal at the end is to be, to have our products on every space mission to go everywhere where a human race is going into space.
[00:14:59] Hywel: Fantastic. That’s great. Yeah. As you say, I think the analogy with the micrologist technologies is really interesting. That’s a key enabling part of the industry. And I think the sort of work that you guys are doing by enabling small satellites to have increased power and by giving them more functionality through deployable systems.
And yeah, obviously you’ve mentioned the wide applicability of the technologies that you create to all sorts of different types of missions are also enabling factors in themselves. So best of luck with all these missions and although the progress at the COVID. And thank you very much for sharing today, your insights on the topics that we discussed.
[00:15:35] Thomas: Yeah. Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity. It also created pressure and I cannot wait for the next time with the new developments that we are doing.
[00:15:44] Antonio: Thanks a lot.
[00:15:45] Hywel: Absolutely great! Thank you, Thomas. Thank you Antonio. And to all our listeners out there. Thank you very much for spending time with us today on the Space Industry podcast.
And then if you’d like to find out more about, DcubeD and all the work they’re doing then please look out for them on the internet. We’ll also share links to some of these satsearch pages and content on in the show notes. As Thomas mentioned, please do get in touch.
If you have any potential use cases or ideas to discuss how the use of greater power solar array technologies could be implemented in your own services or missions. And we will speak to you very soon on the Space Industry podcast.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>This article is an introduction to a number of power efficiency design concepts and ideas by integrated circuit (IC) manufacturer Texas Instruments (TI), a participant in the satsearch membership program, and was produced in collaboration with the company.
The demand for IC components for space applications is growing in both traditional and NewSpace markets. Although the required manufacturing volumes of IC components for space use may “only” be in the region of thousands per year (approximately), compared to the hundreds of millions of units developed for terrestrial use, ICs play such a wide variety of mission-critical tasks that greater attention is now being paid to their development and implementation in space hardware.
In addition, many of the newer innovations in space come with unique demands in terms of electronic power, integration, and control. This is also placing greater emphasis on the use of high-quality electronic components in orbit.
In order to be used in space, electronic components have to be tested against how various aspects of their performance can be affected by radiation.
In particular, the vulnerability of components to the total ionizing dose (TID) and single-event effects (SEE) are tested. The established quality levels used to classify components for space applications are as follows:
For more information on the Space EP quality level, and details of how such components perform in the space environment, please see our article on Space Enhanced Plastic.
Alongside understanding component quality levels, the size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) of any system remain key design considerations for space electronics.
This article focuses on power optimization, which is traditionally achieved by improving the efficiency of all utilized sub-systems within the power tree, and essentially making power consumption a fundamental requirement for any component’s selection.
However, an additional approach, and one that can provide electronic engineers with greater component choice, is to minimize power consumption by implementing smart design architectures.
In the sections below are a number of ideas on how to optimize power consumption for a data acquisition system, without compromising signal performance goals such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), linearity, bandwidth, or stability.
Power supply noise can potentially compromise the integrity of the signal in a signal chain. The PSRR is an important measurement parameter used to understand the power supply sensitivity of an Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC). The PSRR indicates the stability of the output signal from an ADC when subjected to a variation in the input voltage.
A better PSRR indicates the ability of the ADC component to more easily suppress the noise in the input power supply. Using the PSRR of an ADC, the maximum allowable ripple amplitude can be calculated with the following formula:
VPP_Source is the maximum ripple that can be present on the analog supply pin (AVDD). For further information, TI’s E2E design support resource has detailed information regarding measurement of the PSR in an ADC and calculation of the allowed supply ripple.
TI’s ADS1278-SP has a PSRR of approximately 80dB and is capable of handling a ripple of several mV at the input power supply. In these cases, low dropout regulators (LDOs), which are typically used to regulate the output voltage, can be removed from the design.
The LDO loss typically accounts for several 100s of mW that can be saved by using an ADC that has better PSRR characteristics.
Recommendation: utilize an Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) with a high power supply rejection ratio (PSRR). This will ensure that power supply noise, caused by variations in supply voltages, is minimized, protecting the integrity of the signal.
The signal resolution during the conversion from the analog to digital form is significantly affected by the presence of signal noise.
FDAs are used to reduce the common mode noise. The FDA is an extremely flexible device that provides a purely differential output signal centered on a settable output common-mode level. The FDA and ADC are widely used in the circuitry of power-intensive data acquisition systems, so it is important they are optimized where possible.
Minimizing supply voltages as much as possible will increase the power efficiency.
For example, the supply voltage of TI’s radiation-hardened 850 MHz FDA, the LMH5485-SP, can be reduced down to a minimum voltage of 2.7V, in the case where the target effective number of bits (ENOBs) provide significant margin over the ADC resolution. For example, there are typically 18 ENOBs expected for the 5V 24-bit-ADC ADS1278-SP.
Not every application needs such a high resolution, but by reducing the input signal’s amplitude designers can optimize the FDA supply voltage down to the level where their ENOB target will still be reached.
The LMH5485-SP also has a low quiescent current, further minimizing the system’s power consumption.
Recommendation: use a fully differential amplifier (FDA) better suited to improving power efficiency in the space environment. Ideally, this should have:
Amplifiers approaching rail supply voltages will behave non-linearly and can result in distortion to the signal. A negative voltage can be added to avoid the operational amplifier entering into the non-linear area.
While this is easier in commercial applications through the addition of buck converters or negative LDOs, it is more difficult in space due to the limited power budget and choice of components. Therefore, a rail-to-rail operational amplifier is recommended.
An Op Amp with rail-to-rail output stages is capable of generating output signals up to the supply rail. A maximum output signal swing can be achieved in a system with low single-supply voltage using the rail-to-rail output stage of an operational amplifier.
The common-mode input range is increased with the use of a rail-to-rail input stage for the Op Amp; however, it is not required in every application.
An example of an Op Amp with rail-to-rail functionality, that is suitable for space applications, is the Texas Instruments LMP7704-SP. This component is a low-input bias, rail-to-rail input-output (RRIO) component with a wide supply range. The RRIO Op Amp has a supply operation as low as +2.7V and a typical input bias current of ±500 fA.
The lower the bias current of an amplifier, the lower the voltage drop across the source resistance, and hence the lower the input current noise. The LMP7704-SP is an example of an amplifier that is capable of maintaining a linear behavior with respect to the ideal output voltage, due to its low input bias current, even with a signal source that has high output impedance.
Typically, most operational amplifiers used in space missions (and related applications) are made using Bipolar Junction Transistor (BJT) technology, and are usually radiation-resistant. However, BJT components have higher input bias currents than Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) components, which can reduce system accuracy.
TI’s LMP7704-SP is a CMOS-based product developed to withstand single-event effects (SEE) experienced in space – designed to bring the benefits of more power-efficient CMOS technology while still protecting against radiation.
“The LMP7704-SP is unique in the market due to the CMOS architecture. Radiation-hardened Bipolar amplifiers historically have had better radiation tolerance they also have a higher input bias current. The ultra-low Ib of the LMP7704-SP is an advantage for our customers to be able to connect them to a wide variety of sensors.” – Evan Sawyer, systems engineer, precision amplifier products at Texas Instruments.
Recommendation: use an operational amplifier (Op Amp) better suited to improving power efficiency in the space environment. Ideally, this should have:
The increase in typical load currents in today’s satellite power architectures require more advanced modulation and control. Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) is a technique used for power control and regulation from the power source to load.
For example, the TI TPS7H5001-SP PWM controller supports non-isolated (e.g. buck and boost) and isolated (flyback, forward, active clamp, push-pull, and half/full-bridge) topologies. The TPS7H5001-SP PWM controller has a configurable switching frequency from 100 kHz to 2 MHz, an external synchronization using an SYNC pin, and synchronous rectification outputs.
Synchronous rectification (SR), or active rectification, is used to eliminate the voltage drop across the diodes and to increase the power efficiency. SR also improves power density, efficiency, manufacturability, thermal performance, and reliability, ultimately decreasing the overall cost of power supply systems.
Although SR is an industrial standard for a variety of terrestrial commercial applications, it is increasingly regarded as an important consideration for space applications due to the stringent power budgets available.
The PWM controller allows usage of an external gate driver to support silicon (Si) metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) and Gallium Nitride (GaN) field-effect transistors (FETs). GaN FETs are quickly being implemented in space-grade power systems and can enable improved power density. GaN allows for much faster switching resulting in higher frequency and smaller magnetics.
The PWM controller TPS7H500x family are designed to provide high-efficiency DC/DC conversion across the entire satellite power architecture – from high-voltage solar-panels to distribution voltages and low-voltage point-of-load power, with and without isolation.
Recommendation: utilize a PWM controller with an active rectification feature, preferably supporting the latest GaN FETs as well as Si MOSFETs.
Optimizing electronic circuit power architectures in order to develop a more efficient, and cost-effective, electronic system is an important task for an engineer looking to maximize their SWAP-C budget.
In this article we have presented a number of clear recommendations on how this can be achieved. In summary these are;
To find out more about Texas Instruments’ portfolio of electronic components and systems, please view their supplier hub here.
]]>ReOrbit is a Finland-based manufacturer of reusable space systems and in this conversation we discuss a range of topics relating to innovation in NewSpace. In the podcast we cover:
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to today’s episode. Today I’m joined by Ignacio Chechile from ReOrbit Space.
ReOrbit is a Finnish manufacturer of reusable space systems. And today we’re going to talk a little bit about the meaning of NewSpace and how different spacecrafts architectures and the concept of software defined satellites are leading to new opportunities and creating a new discussions and new avenues of progress in the industry.
So Ignacio great to have you here today. Thank you very much for being with us.
Ignacio: Hey yes. Thank you for inviting me. Great to be here.
Hywel: Great. Now your work at ReOrbit I think it’s a really interesting area of the industry. When I say the industry, I think we usually mean NewSpace and a NewSpace is often talked about as a movement to where the cost of access to space is being reduced through some form of innovation, often funded by the private sector.
For you personally, and, speaking on behalf of ReOrbit what does NewSpace mean? Take it into account what you’ve seen happening in the industry recently.
Ignacio: In my opinion, NewSpace is it’s a very broad concept. Of course. There is like a lot of different people doing many different things in a NewSpace, what it’s called NewSpace and what is NewSpace to me, remember, I’m seeing this from the satellite manufacturer perspective.
I’m narrowing it down, through that perspective. NewSpace. In a way, something that I discovered around, like the 2010s, when I realized that it was possible to do space without the NASA logo, like stuck to the missions, without the space agencies, logos, like all over the place, meaning that private people could do space without the big guns paying attention or sponsoring.
And that was to me, the first kind of big changer, the big, like game changer when I came into then. It was clear that it was possible to do space without having like hundreds of millions of dollars in budget, that was also a game changer. Now clearly the big enabler for this to happen was launch costs coming down.
And that was possible by means of the rideshares. The rideshares becoming available, to be possible to flight tourists, to be possible, not to own a full rocket for you, but just, ride a rocket with others that brought the cost down like dramatically that open the door for like many small actors coming and, doing cool stuff and with small spacecraft. And that was the game changer to me.
And that’s what NewSpace means to me in the beginning. That’s how the door opened.
Now NewSpace then became developed in time and it became a bit of constellation, earth observation, change the texture, many technologies that are possible because of the ride share. So the launch costs, like decreasing and I have to say, we need to thank that traditional space for that because the traditional space was the one creating the ride share for the NewSpace to know, be able to fly tourists. So in a way it’s a bit ironic that NewSpace exists in my opinion, because of classic space, we’re making it possible by means of ride share.
But its still the case, because, I mean companies and, startups cannot pay for a full rocket. So still the ride shares are like very much the enabler, so that’s NewSpace, if I see it from my perspective, that’s NewSpace to me.
Hywel: Great. Yeah. That there is an important thing to note that’s NewSpace’s is in debt to the traditional space domain.
Ignacio: We should not forget about that, right? Because somehow NewSpace can have this. Sometimes, there’s a bit of a, or cocky attitude and maybe it’s a little bit of it is thanks to, to classic space.
And that’s fine. We don’t have to, look back a lot to that, but we need to remember.
Hywel: When we are looking back at the traditional space domain compared to things in the NewSpace sector, Specifically in the area of spacecraft architectures, what do you see are the biggest areas of divergence between the two areas? Why do they exist?
Ignacio: That is a huge difference in classic space, spacecraft architectures are extremely what it’s called, like federated. Meaning, one computer that’s one thing. There’s a one to one mapping between the functional architecture and the physical architecture. And it makes sense. It also related to how the company is, or that the space agencies are formulated back in the day, right? Like full teams of people doing one thing. Now I do the control power systems, comms. You name it right.
NewSpace. On the other hand, it came to break a little bit that mapping between the function architecture and the physical architecture. What I’m trying to say here is that one computer that’s not exactly mapped to one function anymore, or that, that is the trend, let’s say. You can have, for example, your attitude control algorithms running in one computer, alone and exclusively, or you can have it, along with many other functions, on, on some, computer as well, and running along with the power system and the thermal software control.
And that to me is it’s a big change. Now classic space, again, these are those of over engineering over there. That there’s good reason for that. Over-engineering come from, high stakes, serious missions that if lost, will create a lot of problems for many people, now that over-engineering is costly and of course NewSpace cannot afford it.
And in a way, NewSpace also came to cut the signal from the noise, let’s say in a way that there was a lot of over-engineering that because of not being possible to be afforded, then NewSpace discarded. And of course it came with some risks, but those risks were taken, I would say, in a bland way, not just like blindly and it gave way to leaner architectures where, as I said again, Computers can be doing more than one function, which also reduces math and reduces complexity of operation, and many other reasons.
Another difference is that, for example, the way you operate and your NewSpace satellite, compared to how you operate the traditional satellite, it sorts of very different. In, in classic space, every bit that you send to the satellite means something. There’s a zero overhead policy. It makes sense because the limited budgets and because of this and the bandwidth that there’s a lot of, reasons behind that. But NewSpace it’s more like treating satellites as, computers connected over a network like a laptop, it’s like a server over a network or across a network. And that brings a lot of facilities. It also brings some problems and some challenges because it becomes a sys admin problem.
It’s like a system administration issue more than our satellite operations issue, but it really streamlines the operation of a remote system like a satellite. As I said, maybe to summarize this question on one hand, traditional space, highly federated, highly specialized equipment. On the other hand, NewSpace architectures where the roles of computers can be, it can have like different functions and it can also change with time because you can reconfigure the computers after you launch it and say, okay, now you are not doing anymore.
You are now you are taking care of the, the power system software or something like that. So that is the, that’s how I see these two things, right? Of course the division, sometimes it’s blur. But if you ask me, what is the colours of these two sides, classic versus NewSpace in terms of architecture. This is how I see it.
Hywel: Brilliant. Yeah. So it’s about an increase in versatility. There are drivers for that, as you say, there, the technological ability to actually develop it, but also on the demand side, satellite data requirements are changing and the market will change. And if satellite systems are able to adapt to that faster, then the opportunities will increase.
Great. That’s really interesting. Thank you now. And towards the end of the edge of the innovation envelope in this area is the work that you are doing at ReOrbit on software defined satellites. What does the concept of a software defined satellite mean in NewSpace?
Ignacio: I hope you have some time because I get a bit passionate!
Hywel: Of course.
Ignacio: There is one ugly truth that I have seen in many different missions and in companies, that I’ve been working with them and there is an ugly truth that finally someone has to say open and loud. In satellites and in space, software rules. I know a lot of great mechanical engineers.
I know a lot of great, thermal engineers and a lot of, electronic engineers. Yeah. They are great people, but in a space mission projects, the software guys are the guys with and why, because it’s related to the previous question as well. When you have an architecture that you can reconfigure and you can, define the different roles as the mission evolves and all that, it is all enabled by software. There, there’s no way you can change bolt from one place to another place easily in space, but you can change software. Software is your asset software is what can, allow you to say, no, you’re not doing this anymore. You’re doing that. You can change the functional, you can change the roles.
You can change how data flows in, what direction, how it’s stored. Software is the real assets and companies ignoring this, they end up creating architectures like that as well. Coming back to the previous question, I repeat is that they create architectures that are ignoring this fact, that software is a real asset and they should on their own feet because then they launched satellites that are very rigidly, like configured to do one thing.
Since I joined ReOrbit with a year and a half ago, we’ve been brainstorming a lot about the software defined concept because there is a lot of, it’s a big bus for us. People just use it like very loose. Oh yes. software defined this, software defined that, what it means for us software defined is that when you have a remote system, you need to operate a remote system.
It can be a satellite but it could also be a, a nuclear plant or it could be a, a power plant or similar, right? When you have a remote system that needs to be operated, you are interacting with the software. That’s what you talk to. That’s what, talks back is the software.
Then when your architecture is a little bit decouple, then you always talk to one actor in this architecture, this remote architecture, you talk to the, the onboard computer engineer. And then the computer goes like through different immuno pains and issues to, go and talk to some other, slave computers to send commands back and forth is a bit of a mess. So what we’re working on here is that, okay. A satellite, it’s a collection of computers and we are not going to change that.
You will still have like several computers. Now we are saying that these computers, they share a bit of a common, it’s like a common, memory space, even though the memory is not really physical because they don’t have, they don’t share the same the memory chips, but they share a satellite. They are all flying on the same object. And as such, they need to share data and they need to be aware of data from other computers in the satellite. So we created a bit of virtual memory space and we say, okay, now all the computers are aware from each other.
And they all the computers, if they need from, data from some other computer, they just ask for it because they know that, Hey, this number that I need is owned by my, my fellow computer connected through my CAN bus or my space wire bus. So we would configure the satellite in that way that we don’t really mind that we don’t really think about the interfaces or we don’t really pay a lot of attention to that space wire drive.
Of course, we have to have space wire drivers and CAN drivers and, you are drivers because you have to, but what we care about is the data, data onboard, how the data flows, but for us, software basically handles data. If you don’t really know what your data is, then there’s nothing you can do onboard of a satellite.
And we extend that concept to the ground because from the ground perspective, the operator also needs to get data and send data. Command is data, telemetry from a satellite is data, and we make that data flow as seamless as possible because at the end of the day, when an operator is doing by sending a command, they want to modify a position in memory of some computer on the satellite, whatever that is.
And we have created set of abstraction layers that we make sure that the operator doesn’t really need to care too much about where exactly the data is sitting on. It’s more like I need this. Give me the data and that at the end of the day, just to put a little bit of practical coating on this, it is a software abstraction layers.
So we grade those abstractions that from the ground, the operator doesn’t need to care and why we do this because also we’re looking a little bit ahead. Because eventually we want at ReOrbit we are trying to make satellites also, fly together and network together in orbit. And we also want to extend this concept to the satellite constellation.
When you have data on similar satellites, imagine that you have a formation of 10 satellite flying over your head. You can not operate each one of those satellites individually. So you need to create a bit of a sense of a flock. And that’s why we are just looking forward and saying, these abstraction layers would eventually in the future, allow an operator formation of satellites passing over their heads. And that’s what software defined means for us. We want to disect the problem of operating a remote system without the space hallowed, something that’s had been launched for 64 years already. We don’t buy that hollow anymore. I It’s like satellites are satellites. Satellites have been like that for like decades.
Let’s just move on and think about, how to operate them in a proper way. Sorry for the long answer. I said, I get passionate.
Hywel: No, that’s really interested. Really clear. Yeah. Yeah. Looking forward to those applications that you talked about, for example, and then as you say, in fact, the launch costs have come down, which you’ve mentioned, and we’ve seen in other areas, the miniaturization of subsystems, it means that you’re able to launch more cheaply satellites with a greater number of sensors and greater capacity to do all sorts of different applications, but determining how you manage those applications and determining what a task a satellite to do is a matter for the software and the operator to do so. That’s really interesting.
And in this area, however, there are a lot of buzzwords that are thrown around. Including and, to greater or lesser levels of applicability, but there are AI on satellites as an example, distributed architectures, in-orbit networking, and as you’ve mentioned, software defined technologies, and you’ve alluded some of these, like the use of thinking of satellites as servers in space and that sort of thing, how much you are such technologies in your view, and particularly in their ability to provide, services with good reliability to end-users on the ground?
Ignacio: Yes. buzzwords are a big problem in this industry. We were talking about classic space and NewSpace in the beginning. And for some reason, unfortunately, the NewSpace industry, perhaps coming from the startup scene adopted this policy of buzzword s all over the place.
And that’s a big change from classic space. The missions do the talking. And in NewSpace, there’s a lot of marketing going around, and that is a bit of a problem because some of these technologies that you mentioned, for example, AI or software defined architectures or, distributed architectures, people just talk about them in a very empty manner.
And then they start to lose the meaning because they it will have to take them as just yet another far and other, like buzzword that people are just like spouting. And that’s a problem. Now, if we remove that, don’t know how, but I guess that in the future, less power to marketing teams, more power, but we know products that’s maybe one, one way to go.
But anyway, maybe don’t get up all those technologies and how much mature they are. If you think them individually, AI, the distributed architectures and software defined architectures, they are mature on their own on the ground, let’s say so on the ground AI, it’s of course it’s maturing as we speak, at the stage of the, but still it’s already, you can really see the value already of AI. When it’s done in the proper way, right? Not just a list of nested if statements, but more like proper AI, it’s already paying off. Distributed architectures, I don’t really need to give a lot of examples on the ground.
Of course, there are many examples of that distributed architectures or the centralized architectures, the blockchain and all these things that are, are becoming like very topical are already rule for that, there’s a possibility of having distributed systems without a single central entity and still being able to add value. And networking I’m not going to talk about, how networks work on the ground because, we, we are now talking, talking here thanks to network. So I’m not going to explain, that networking on the ground is mature now how to bring that to orbit. I think that this is something that is you need to gain confidence in this technologies in orbit by means of taking the proper steps.
Meaning that I don’t think you need to go from zero to everything. I don’t think that you can go from no AI in space, no distributed architectures and no in-orbit networking all the way to having all those features, working upfront. You need to take them slow, and slow I’m not saying in decades, but more like. You need to prepare, a set of pathfinder missions where you say, in this pathfinder mission, I will showcase the in-orbit networking feature. In the next pathfinding mission that can be just few months away and with very small satellites and cheap satellites, you can say, I’m going to try, distributed architectures.
And here at ReOrbit, we’ve been discussing this, you know how, because we are pursuing all these things. We are pursuing all this. How do we make the industry aware that all this is possible. Again for an industry that is, historically a little bit conservative because of the heritage from classic space.
So we say, we would say that, we need to walk the talk. There’s no way that you can promise in space that you would say buy from me because this would work because I say it, you need to show that it works right. And that’s why we are envisioning a set of Pathfinder missions.
In this particular mission, we’ll try in-orbit networking. And that means launching two small satellites with the capabilities of talking to each other and then exchanging information in specific protocols, being able to change those protocols and show that, Hey, you can have two satellites in orbit if the same way as if they would be like, like network node. And the same for the rest. For AI, we are working internally here on self diagnostics making sure that satellites can have running in our statistical models onboard or assess the status of the power systems, of the battery, but how the battery will deplete, according to some scheduling where we’re doing all that, but we are going to showcase those in Pathfinder missions. And from those Pathfinder missions. We are going to show the market and the industry, which again is a bit conservative to say, Hey, this was not just empty dock.
They would do. It’s not just small more smoke and mirrors as you will find all over the place. This actually works. And we will also equip our product line with these features as we show that the advanced features work. And I guess that’s something that we cannot fully overcome, walking the dog requires going into taking proper steps and that, the capability of launching cheap satellites, small satellites for cheap launches or on cheap launches is it’s a good path, to increase, TRL or, the technology readiness.
Hywel: Absolutely. And yeah. You mentioned that flight heritage in many ways is just binary. It needs to be done.
Ignacio: Yeah. And also you mentioned you at some point, you said reliability. I think you said the how you show this, in a reliable way. And when it’s of course attached to what I said that way you need to go slow and show it. But at the same time, reliability in my opinion is an architectural problem. It’s we assume here internally that things will act up in space because the space is hard. Now your architecture needs to be ready to overcome that things that will definitely happen because they will happen.
And I’ve been part of too many missions already to realize that it’s going to happen. So you need to make sure that your architecture is ready to do the switchover, do the configurations to make sure that you can continue providing service after the shady things would happen because space is space and we cannot change that.
Hywel: Yeah, so you’re designed and for the environment accepted the limitations that it brings. So that’s great. That’s covered a lot of the questions and things that, that that I have for you today, I guess just finally, I always ask a form of this question to all of our guests, looking into the crystal ball of the future, I wondered where you thought you saw different forms of activity in the NewSpace sector heading in the next, five to seven sort of years. What are you most excited about as well at ReOrbit?
Ignacio: That’s a good question. I cannot really do a lot of, crystal balling because also people will, replay this podcast, in a five year from now.
And they will laugh at me because all my, my forecast for more wrong, wouldn’t be the first time. So the good way of putting it this, what is it that I’m looking for in this industry? I’m looking forward to the trend of commoditization of space equipment to continue, meaning that, that sensors, actuators, computers for satellites, they should stop being special things and AI and very specialized equipment with very long lead times and, and handcrafted natures.
I would love to see that in the future, you can go to a place like satsearch and say, I want to buy. Then start truckers for my missions and I will have them here next week.
I know that it’s, if there’s a long way for that, I think we are on the right path for this. So commoditization of equipment, I hope it will continue evolving in the way that it is evolving today. I would also love the space, as I said, a few questions ago that the space hallow that there’s this aura that is covering space things and science fiction is to me, something that we’re not working on science fiction here, we’re working on, satellite that are just a bunch of computers, connected like cars are, like a Tesla is. And that’s why I want space.
Continue the greasing that, that space hallow that somehow, we move forward overcoming the fact that yes, there are rockets and southerners going to space and that’s that, I mean that we’ve been doing this for decades, so let’s just move on, the process of hiring people and, like scaling companies a little bit easier because you need to start bringing in people from space.
You can just bring people from, automotive. And that’s that. So that’s a trend that I would like to continue seeing. I also would like, and this is perhaps related to my work here and what we are doing at real, with that, I would like software marketplaces to be flight software marketplaces.
If we’re flying a satellite and you need a library for encrypting your data, or you need a library for, I don’t know, a specific protocol, or do you want to have a driver for a specific interface that is a little bit uncommon or something I would love. This trend of having a place that you can go and select what you need.
And then you will be able to, not very much you to installing the software in your satellite, but at least with some steps, already sorted out. So that’s a trend that I would like to see and maybe last but not least, we commented a little bit on the, increasing, TRL before I, I was talking about this in the previous chat.
I think there is a bit of problems in the industry, and on new actors how to increase the TRL in in a more I would say reliable way. A clearer path to increase your TRL because so many companies have great ideas, but they face the famous heritage problem. Now you don’t have heritage and then you’re just kicked out of the discussion because you are not in space. That to me is a bit silly because it’s leaving a lot of great companies with great propositions and offers from, during the conversation because they haven’t been in space. So they need to have a bit of a better way of, technology maturation. And this is something that I would like to see in the next, three, four years that there will be a solid way of new actors, gaining heritage and then, maturing from there. So those are the things that I would have by us, by my work here, but that’s my opinion.
Hywel: Excellent. Thank you very much for, yeah. That’s some really interesting areas that we shared hopefully, but, maybe see in a, in the future and I’ll be really interested in for yeah, the audience to think about. And yeah. Thank you very much for the discussion today, Ignacio.
I think our listeners will have learned a lot about why the different concepts of NewSpace hardware and computing exists today, and the opportunities that software defined satellite concepts could bring. So thank you for sharing.
Ignacio: Thank you for inviting me.
Hywel: Absolutely. And to all our listeners out there to find out more about ReOrbit’s work and portfolio you could view the company supplier hub on satsearch.
On the platform, you can make requests for information, technical documents and other procurement requirements like lead times or quotes or whatever else you might need for the development of your missions or services in the NewSpace sector and beyond, of course. So thank you very much for spending time with us today on the space industry podcast.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date. Please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>In this article we give a brief overview of how satellite de-orbiting technologies work, followed by an overview of systems available on the global marketplace for space.
If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
Defunct satellites are becoming a serious issue for companies and organizations planning to launch mega-constellations, particularly in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
The potential for widespread space debris could, if substantial enough in the relevant orbits, have an impact on space stations, all satellite services, and even on future launches. In the most extreme case, the generation of a large, self-sustaining debris cloud (described as the Kessler Syndrome) is an enormous potential risk to a huge swathe of the industry.
In addition, many companies and organizations are increasingly seeing the reduction and mitigation of space debris as a core value in future missions and services in its own right.
These opinions and developments have seen a number of de-orbiting systems being proposed in the space industry, in order to provide solutions for moving obsolete systems out of operational satellite orbits.
Several government organizations, including the European Space Agency (ESA), have shed enough light on the issues to encourage the participation of commercial players seeking to resolve the space debris problem. Although a lot of complexities and challenges remain, some companies have brought tested de-orbiting technologies to the market for satellites at various sizes.
To better understand this emerging technology class, we will first discuss the basic concept of the de-orbit maneuver and then look at two categories of systems available on the market.
Please note that we have opted not to include thrusters and propulsion systems in this article as this is a much more well-established technology category, with a large number of suppliers and models on the market. We have previously put together an overview of products in this category that can be found at this link.
Satellites often carry an on-board propulsion system, which helps them navigate and re-position in appropriate directions.
As the NewSpace race has intensified, various small satellite setups have become popular in the global space market, some of which do not carry a propulsion system, which would possibly have helped them drag across the graveyard orbit at end-of-life or during the decommissioning phase.
Therefore, alternative de-orbiting systems and technologies have taken center stage for satellites requiring a support system for de-orbiting.
De-orbiting systems can be segmented into passive and active systems. Passive systems are generally integrated onboard a spacecraft and, when the satellite reaches the end-of-life part of its mission cycle, act as a drag-causing system to help move the satellite into the graveyard orbit.
On the other hand, active systems refer to external de-orbiting services or products specifically designed to move satellites in the graveyard orbit.
Passive systems have gained more momentum in the recent years; primarily due to ease in deployment and the growth of economically viable technology. Several organizations and companies have invested a significant amount of funding to bring more innovation in passive de-orbiting systems to market.
One of the most popular projects in Europe is the Electrodynamic Tether Technology for Passive Consumable-less Deorbit Kit (E.T.PACK). The E.T.PACK project is funded by the European Commission (EC) under the umbrella of the Horizon 2020 program and aims to develop ‘Deorbit Kit (DK) and related software based on Low Work function Tether (LWT) technology with TRL 4.
With over 3 million Euros in total funding for 45 months (March 2019 to November 2022), the project is being carried out by a consortium including the University Carlos III of Madrid, Fraunhofer IKTS, Technische Universität Dresden (TUD), Università degli Studi di Padova, SENER Aeroespacial, and Advanced Thermal Devices (ATD).
Such projects to bring innovation in the passive systems sector will help the space industry harness low costs and sustainable technologies to overcome space debris and defunct satellite issues. To further take a deep dive into the passive de-orbiting systems and products, in the following list are some of the companies whose passive de-orbit systems are included on satsearch:
Considering the ease of their operation and deployment, passive systems are often the most preferred options in the de-orbiting domain.
But with recent advancements in NewSpace technologies, in which companies have developed innovative products at cost-effective price points, active systems are gaining traction.
Active systems are more complex in design and require a thorough understanding of operations before the full deployment in space.
Such systems primarily consist of a separate spacecraft, particularly designed to de-orbit the objects in space. Astroscale, ClearSpace, D-Orbit, Momentus, etc. are some of the well-known players developing active systems, which are potentially set to be deployed in this decade.
With on-going developments in the active systems, and considering growing demand from several public and private entities, active systems’ success could become very important for the industry’s efforts to counter the space debris issue and fuel innovation in Space Situational Awareness (SSA).
In the section below you can see an overview of several passive de-orbiting systems available on the global market.
We have also previously published overviews of the CubeSat thrusters and small satellite propulsion systems and a webinar on how to adopt a thruster for small satellite missions.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the products and can submit a request for further information on the pages that open or send us a general query using our free request system and we will use our global network of suppliers to find a system to meet your needs.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a de-orbiting technology for your specific mission please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
]]>MiRAGE augments a satellite’s ability to detect and react to unexpected events. It proactively sets mission goals and plans the mission schedule. MiRAGE allows the satellite to become entirely independent from ground control.
The software is agnostic to the platform and the mission scenario, so that it can cover several space-based services, including scientific research, remote sensing, and telecommunications.
Examples of MiRAGE use-cases in Earth Observation missions include cloud detection, which includes optimization of acquisition schedule and downlink, and onboard focusing for SAR payloads to enable intelligent monitoring through feature recognition.
AIKO is an Italy-based company specialized in artificial intelligence and automation software for space operations. In this satsearch event, Paolo Madonia, Product Manager at AIKO, presents MiRAGE’s main features and discuss requirements compatibility and benefits.
Find out more about AIKO here on their satsearch supplier hub, and sign up for the weekly satsearch newsletter to hear about all future events.
]]>Pixxel is a space data company headquartered in the USA (Palo Alto, California) and India (Bengaluru).
The company is currently building a constellation of hyperspectral earth imaging satellites. The aim is to develop the ability to detect, monitor, and predict global phenomena, with global coverage every 24 hours.
This work has given Pixxel direct, first-hand insights into a wide range of supply chain issues across many levels of the industry. In this podcast, we cover:
Find out more about Pixxel here on the company’s website or connect with the company on social media such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook.
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody. And welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined today by Kshitij Khandelwal – Founder and CTO – Pixxel is quite a well-known name in the industry. If you aren’t familiar with the company, it Pixxel is currently developing a high resolution hyperspectral imaging satellite constellation. Now this work has involved collaborating with a range of suppliers from around the world.
And today we’re going to discuss some aspects of the modern space supply chain and the context of this work. So firstly, thank you very much for being available to speak today. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Kshitij: No, I think that’s it. Thanks so much for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Hywel: Okay. Yeah, you’re more than welcome. Let’s get into the topic. So we were really interested at satsearch in all aspects of procurement and how the modern supply chain or supply ecosystem operates. So I wondered from your side, from the context of the work that you carry out in Pixxel, what challenges in procurement have you witnessed in putting together your missions? Are there certain common issues regarding things like lead times, flight heritage information, or other issues like export controls, those sorts of things.
Kshitij: Yeah, I think you really hit the nail on the head, there’s definitely a lot of challenges that do come with confident procurement. And they start all the way in component selection.
We do go through these exercises where we generate these RFIs requests for information. And when these RFIs are then sent out to different vendors, different providers, first of all, scoping those providers and then screening the technology that we need is something that can be matched by what they have at the moment. And then going over the rest of the process, trying to work towards a proposal from the vendor. In some cases it’s really easy where you have a simple commercial of the shelf component, there’s a fixed price to it. And we just talk about the component, but in most cases, especially in the space industry, because the satellites are not always standard to you or something like that.
You do see a lot of customization that comes with the process. And that adds time cost effort from both sides to come to a solid proposal. We’ve been in this position multiple times where we have had to work with potential vendors to create proposals for ourselves and that happens of fairly regularly.
Apart from this with the recent challenges that the semiconductor supply chain has faced our lead times have shot up all the way from, two months, three months to close to a year for some components and that’s been really hard. And given that the plan is to make these satellites quickly, put them up in space quickly.
There’s going to be a lot of lead time issues that do come into the industry. And given that most space components, these radiation hardened, radiation tolerant components, a lot of stringent testing also comes into the picture. So there’s a lot of workmanship that goes from the vendor side on the testing side of things.
We used to really care about flight heritage before, but now our focus is just ensuring that the test parameters are met. So when we go through this whole process of creating proposals we just try to ensure that a very stringent test guideline is provided to the vendors.
Export controls, yes, usually the vendors take care of it themselves. We try to stay away from ITAR as much as possible. So most of our vendors are NON-US. And as far as import goes that is another issue trying to figure out the banking system to make payments in time because our payments are linked through the HS code of the import or things like that.
So there’s a lot of nuances to the whole process. Especially when you’re dealing with anything and everything, which is. These are some challenges that do come with the entire procurement process, as far as I’ve experienced.&
Hywel: Excellent. Yeah. Quite a range of things there.
And yeah. And as you mentioned, the semiconductor shortage is just a problem across industries, terrestrial and space-based and yeah. Is something everybody feels. Now a lot of the information that you just gave us is obviously at the product level or the component level. I wondered more broadly what sort of qualities is a company like Pixxel or the team, your teams in individually, what sort of qualities are you looking for in a new supplier? How do you decide who to work with assuming they have the component or product that you need?
Kshitij: I think over the last two, three years of just rummaging through spec sheets and data sheets we’ve kinda realized that there are some suppliers that are more about the fluff. And you do see that certain spec on the data sheets are always missing on the, not really clear about what kind of components they’re using. Not very clear about the way they are working. And you usually also get feedback from other people.
For example, When we tried to go for one of our components, to find suppliers for one of our components, and we were having a tough time trying to figure out who to go with. We did take feedback from other companies who gracious enough to, of course within certain bounds, talk about the experiences with the suppliers not the technology, but just general experiences.
And I think just for the suppliers themselves it becomes really important if their documentation is right, if they are responsive and patient at the same time. So we’ve sometimes had to deal with sales teams of suppliers who are just hammering down on this and just trying to sell us a lot of things. Sometimes even things that we do not need. I would say just a, focusing on what the customer’s problem is is usually the best way to go in any industry, space is no exception to that. And from our suppliers we are usually happy if they have experience working in space. So if they have heritage, if they have experience that is always a very good sign, but if they don’t, they need to have good testing plans figured out they need to have the right kind of. The right kind of validation for the technology. We have taken calls in the past to work with suppliers who do not have a lot of experience in the industry, but who had a very clear-cut plan to test out their technology and we’ve given them a fairly big order as well.
These are things that go a long way in creating trust. And we do not look for a supplier. And we think that, this is going to work with them for a couple of satellites or so our preference is always to look at more long-term prospects. And we are locking them in and we would want to go ahead with them for the entire constellation.
So that’s how we like to deal with them. So honest upfront suppliers are always nice to work with. In the end, of course, the technology itself is a deciding cost of the technology as well, and the lead times that it comes with. But yes the way people interact their flexibility in terms of putting together the contract as well, that in some cases they understand constraints on our end and we may understand constraints on their end, and so that’s usually a very healthy relationship for us.
Hywel: Excellent. So yes, quite a lot of things. To balance it, which is as you would expect when you’re looking for a partner for potentially the rest of the constellation, and whatever comes next.
So on that, Pixxel works with manufacturers and service providers, of course, in lots of different areas. I believe from several different countries today. So there’s a few aspects related to the supply chain that I would like to ask you about, some of them you’ve discussed already had been, firstly, you mentioned how important it is for suppliers to be responsive.
How quickly do you find that the suppliers would typically respond to your RFIs including whether that’s, whether that’s for quotes specifically or just individual documents like ICDs or CAD models.
Kshitij: I think we’ve had some really good and some really bad experiences in this. So there have been cases where suppliers have sent across proposals for entire missions inside of a few days. That, that are cases where you know we know that our suppliers are also working really hard regardless of us choosing them or not. So we do have that bit of an appetite for patience but we’ve seen some of the suppliers really go above and beyond to have proposals ready in a week, in four days, five days they work with our teams to do. So that’s also a very healthy sign usually. But in some cases we’ve had issues For a month or so a couple months to just get a hint of a proposal from a few suppliers. It does happen. It’s not always up to them as well need to be clear with our requirements.
But I think business is important to everyone. Whenever people see it coming so usually. Stay covered with it. However, beyond the codes getting different CAD models, ICDs files, and, support our technical support before, after I think that is where a few of the suppliers really do shine because of how prompt they are.
And there are some who are very lethargic or where you can see that the supplier itself is so much overwhelmed with the work that they don’t have the time to actually come up with something like an ICD for you, because they never planned to prepare it. So we’ve had those issues as well. And the way to deal with this is to just constantly keep bugging them because that stops our work, that it’s not it’s a single component related. It mixes with the rest of the mission and a lot of dependencies come based on single components. So we have had those issues as well. I’m not sure if that answered your question, but that’s just like the conversations we’ve had so far.
Hywel: Yeah, no, absolutely. I think that it’s very important.
I think it’s very important for suppliers to hear that these things are noted by your potential clients. People want the business. If you want the business, they need to behave like it. So that’s great. And then in terms of delivering the actual product itself, if we could take the, the semiconductor shortage out of the equation or just or is whether it’s a temporary blip, whether it’s that the industry or industries as a whole need to adjust to the new normal, if we can take that as a given as a factor, do most suppliers can meet their promise lead times based on your procurement experience.
Kshitij: Yeah they do maybe once or twice, we’ve had some issues in the very beginning.
But apart from that we are actually happy to see most new space suppliers meeting their timelines.
Hywel: Great. And what sort of average lead times have you seen for products that you procure regularly? Was it difficult to say?
Kshitij: No, it’s not difficult to say. So there are some components that really quickly, like antennas can arrive. Because the passive components does not have a lot of testing that’s required. So some components that I’ve really quickly others, not so quickly because there’s a lot of complicated moving thoughts through the entire process, the contractor has sub-contractors. So we’re looking at lead times of nine months. Even 11 and a half months on some of the other components. So it’s a mix. But I would say most like the average lead time for components is five to six months at this point of time.
Hywel: Okay. Interesting. Interesting. Now you mentioned earlier that you, a Pixxel are willing to engage with, at least discuss with suppliers using technology that hasn’t necessarily at TRL nine, perhaps you are, you likely to fly a component in, in a, in an important position that meets your technical specifications, but doesn’t have full flight heritage just yet.
Kshitij: If you find me Gbps radio that hasn’t been flown in space yet, but as tested, according to our specification, We would be more than happy to fly it.
So there’s definitely a lot of these components like radios with high data rate or looking at very high quality systems for some of the some other aspects reaction wheels, you’re looking at star trackers. In some cases, if the destined specifications I’ve met and if the vendor is, there is able to give us very solid confidence that this is going to go work in space based on ground testing. We are more than willing to take a call to fly those components in space, even if they do not have float heritage. However, having flight heritage always helps.
Hywel: Yes, absolutely. Do you often go back to, or would you go back to such suppliers who, maybe haven’t undergone the full range of tests for their product that you would like to see and ask them to do.
Kshitij: We’ve asked them in the past, some of them have agreed to do it. Some of them. It comes to the cost as well. In some cases we understand that if few components are just COTS components that are meant for satellites with one or two years of lifetime we fly missions with six, seven years of, So we wouldn’t want to unnecessarily jeopardize that component just because it has to be adopted for a very different type of satellite.
So in some cases we do understand that there are constraints. But in other cases we are glad that vendors have listened to our requests and have qualified their components. There is a GPS manufacturer in India that we work with who did the same.
Hywel: Brilliant. So again, it goes back to responsiveness and open, transparency and being willing to be flexible.
Kshitij: It does. It does. Yes.
Hywel: Excellent. And then I think the only other factor, the main or the major factor not quite covered is price. So if we assume you know, that there’s established flight heritage for a product that you need, so that’s not one of the factors, would you be looking a certain at what relative reduction in price would you seriously consider switching away from an established supplier you’ve been working with to a new vendor?
Kshitij: It depends. So there is a long-term cost to it and there’s a short-term cost to it. It’s difficult for me to just put a relative reduction in place, but it usually has to do with level of adoption of that technology.
So we’ve already spent some amount of time and money in working with a supplier that we’ve established to integrate them into our system. So for example, it’s critical subsystem the flight computer on the satellite. And we have a certain SOC that we’re using for the flight computer switching to a different SOC if it has a lower cost and a similar spec comes with the challenge of having to redesign the boards, having to redesign some of the technology.
So there’s a lot of this added delta on top of what we already spent. Which usually goes into goes in as a non-recurring engineering cost in the very beginning. And we would want to make sure that Delta is minimum. So at least that being paid for the amount of time and effort being saved, and then pretty much everything else. So it becomes a bit tricky for us to just directly shift from one supplier to another.
For some companies is very easy. So let’s say we are just changing an IMU. Are we are changing a few sensors, that’s usually pretty easy, but the more complicated the competent gets, the more difficult it becomes for us to switch our suppliers in that case, unless we make like a big decision that we’re gonna, let’s say switch from chemical propulsion to electric propulsion.
Let’s make that change. So those big changes very few and if they ever happened at that point of time, we would want to see if the relative reduction in price is something that we, that can also absorb the Delta that we would take to make that change. So I would say that is how I would put it. I hope that answers your question.
Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. I think that’s a really important insight for suppliers that what they need to consider that there is a cost on your side in order to switch. And as you say, the more complex the component, the higher that cost potentially is, which is really interesting because as space systems and what you can do with the satellite, is becoming ever more powerful because they are getting more complex. And so that is a factor. But at the same time, there are a movement towards modularity and a lot of the subsystems. So there’s two interesting dynamics playing out, but for the individual suppliers they just need to know that it’s not a case of yeah, a simple X percent reduction in price would result in the sale.
There’s a lot more to it than that. So that’s, there is really good information for, I wondered if there was just anything else, any other advice that you might give to potential suppliers out there about how they could, improve their own success in the end?
Kshitij: Don’t charge us a lot. I would say, just being ready with a stronger documentation, having ICDs ready, is usually a very good sign for us. It’s like a green flag. That we see from a supplier we’ve had suppliers, centers, test reports test supports from their flight demonstrations as well. And there’s nothing as validating as seeing that for your product. We have seen cases where supplies have been really dodgy about the flight heritage as well. We have flight heritage but they don’t really talk about it. What we don’t know if the satellite failed or if the component failed or what happened, but it’s good to see test reports and ICDs. So the we’ve had really good time interacting with vendors who have been open with that kind of information. And this is the space industry, so everyone’s always ready to sign NDAs. So having that information on hand is always a good thing.
Hywel: Excellent. That, yeah, that’s that’s great. And enables you to have a higher level of conversation early on because you don’t, you’re not discussing the specifics of, the necessary, flight.
Kshitij: Yeah, it does. The other thing that it does is is that it opens up the discussion about that component inside the team, because usually a single engineer cannot go through the entire ICD or through the test reports you need multiple members of the team to come and look at the component. So we start scrutinizing the technology and we start thinking about how it will fit with the rest of the satellite at a much earlier stage if that information is available, so that’s yeah, that’s how we usually go about it.
Hywel: Excellent. That’s a great advice again. Thank you. So in terms of the, those sorts of technologies that you might be assessing based on the documentation and based on the supplier relationships what sorts of new systems, new technologies on the horizon you perhaps consider it? If you wouldn’t mind, what, what you wouldn’t mind sharing. Of course as the Pixxel constellation continues to grow and mature.
Kshitij: I would say at this point of time high data rate radios is definitely one. We are looking at we are open to explore optical downlinks as well. So pretty much any and all technology aimed at microsatellites, aiming at making their updation, it’s something that we are always interested in. Keep our ears open and are always happy to have these conversations, whether it’s onboard processing, whether it’s data transfer newer technologies and attitude determination control. Pretty much anything and everything. We are more than happy to explore and see how we can bring it into our system. But yeah. Just by principle, it’s important for us to look for high data rate solutions. So that’s like the bare minimum.
Hywel: Fantastic. That’s great. And I just had one very final question. I ask a variation of this to most of our guests, but I wonder what it was in the industry in general. And you can speak specifically about Pixxels work or just across what you’re seeing in across space in general, what you perhaps are most excited about in the next few.
Kshitij: I think so throughout the 20, the last 10 years or so there was a lot of this talk about small satellites, 3Us, 6Us CubeSats and you seeing that all those companies that made these small satellites are moving to make bigger satellites, microsatellites 12U, 16U, and just going away from the CubeSat standard altogether building now the satellites. So you’re seeing this change towards rather than compactness because the launch cost has come down.
So no, you don’t really need to maintain that mass of 3kgs or 4kgs anymore. You can have it a little higher. The kind of fundraising that has happened in the space industry over the last two years and that will happen over the next three four years. It all seems to be in a very positive direction, obviously with Artemis and other things, there’s a lot of opportunity for in the upstream segment to grow which was not there at that scale before. I am particularly optimistic about the next few years for the space industry and the NewSpace industry, because we weren’t there during the, you know, sixties, seventies when they sent humans on moon.
It would be exciting to have a lot more participation from smaller companies, not just in the U S but all over the globe this time as we make such forace again and in general based on Pixxel’s experience this is a very accepting community. We’ve have had people take us seriously since day one, when there was no money in the bank, we have people take us seriously when there is, and that is there’s a lot of simplicity in the way people interact, it’s a very tight knit community and we truly appreciate the kind of support that we’ve gotten from not just our partners, but also suppliers, vendors we have interacted with and they know as well as us that we’ve learned in one way or the another from them on how to do a lot of these things. So yeah, I think that way just generally optimistic about things.
Hywel: Excellent. I think that’s a great place to wrap up always great to end on a positive, optimistic note. Thank you so much for the insights that you’ve shared with us today. It’s been a really useful, I think a lot of the suppliers out there in the industry will be following your words quite closely here. And there’s obviously great to, yeah, for you to bring things together in the way that you did at the end. I think absolutely, in the fifties and sixties, yes, there was no, there wasn’t this NewSpace industry backing up the major exploration missions that were carried out by NASA. So would be really interesting to see what this round is like. And also that there is a lot more international. I think, yeah, I would like to just thank you on behalf of the space industry community, and satsearch community and yeah, wish you all the best with the work the Pixxel is doing. We’ll add some links for everybody in the show notes and we’d like to thank you very much.
Kshitij: Perfect, thank you so much for your time Hywel. It was great speaking to you.
Hywel: Great. Thank you. And yeah, to everybody out there, who’s listening, and spending time with us today. As I said, we’ll share a bit more information about Pixxel when this podcast goes live. And if you’d like to find out more about the company and the work they’re doing, everything is online and then they’d be, I’m sure they’d be more than happy to hear from you across different channels. So thank you again for listening.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>KP Labs is a Poland-based company offering AI computers and software to bring autonomy to demanding space missions. In the podcast we discuss:
Here are some additional resources mentioned or referenced in the podcast:
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody. And welcome to the episode. I’m joined today by Maciej Ziaja, Machine learning software engineer at satsearch member company KP Labs.
KP Labs is based in Poland and develop solutions that bring greater autonomy to space. Today we’re going to be discussing the algorithms and hardware that can enable the running of machine learning in space missions.
Hi, welcome to the episode. Great to have you here. Is there anything you’d like to add to that?
Maciej: Hi welcome, pleased to be here, we can get to the topic.
Hywel: Okay, fantastic. So this is a really interesting topic, whether that’s getting a lot of attention in the industry as the amount of data and capabilities the satellites have increased.
And obviously there are limitations on communication between satellites, communication in particular with the ground. That’s the sorts of solutions or trying to overcome problems. They tried to address as well as enable new capabilities, new business models, new research opportunities. So onboard data processing or OBDP at the use of AI are becoming increasingly important in the industry. Like I just mentioned, what do you think is driving this?
Maciej: So firstly, to really understand and highlight the difference between the traditional approach, how stuff used to be done in the past vs the new approach with the onboard data processing. So throughout this talk, I’ve been mainly focusing on Earth Observation satellites that process images, capturing images of earth and process them.
And in this context, in the traditional scheme of things, satellites performing little to no independent tasks, and there are treated as data gathering devices that send bursts of images to the ground stations via the radio connection. And this connection that enables sending data from satellites to ground station is called downlink.
And after satellite captures photos sends them down to Earth. This process inside a data center. And this is how things used to be done. And then you approach is quite opposite to gather data and process it on board of satellite makes up like, be aware of the data that they’ve captured. In this new approach, we transmit the only results of data that has been processed, we send valuable results and we don’t have to process everything.
We don’t have to transfer with everything and then processes inside the data center. So I believe that there are two factors driving this. The limitations of the old approach and emerging possibilities with the new. So let’s get started with what was wrong, problematic with the old way of processing and data.
So the main limitations was transmission, was the communication, because in most scenarios you can communicate with your satellite and when it flies over your ground station. And if you want to have more connection, you have to build more ground station and is very expensive. And your satellite it’s still very dependent on those ground stations.
This creates a lot of problems because the communication is scarce. It is really expensive to build the ground stations. I communication can take long, latency in the whole process. They may come some communication gaps, mainly when satellite flies over different parts of where when you don’t have ground stations. To really provide you with an insight of how big this problem is and how different a new way of processing the data will be. In the old way, 15 to 20% of what satellites transfer is useful.
Like 80% of photos that we send via the downlink connection in old ways of doing things is invaluable. So the communication is really expensive and we wasted on sending data that may be cloudy or blurred. So there is a lot of to improve. Now, what is driving this shift?
Also, as I said, is the possibility of something new with new technologies, new space missions and I want to maybe get a bit of track and say about. This shift of thinking about satellites in wider context, because it is very important connected with onboard data processing, because there has been a shift towards more agile and more rapid development of satellites that are more focused on AI experiments, new technologies, and the why their reason for this movement towards AI.
And for example, if KP Labs we work on something called smart mission ecosystem, that grants great flexibility and ease of use. And previously you could either buy a pre-made hard to customize satellite or create your own solution from scratch. But you had to do the heavy lifting by building your custom design.
So in this new paradigm, with this new approach, we really want to hit the sweet spot between building stuff from scratch and buying something that is hard to customize. And we provide smart mission ecosystem, which. Comes with many building blocks for creating your solution with our hardware, our accelerate, or software for satellites machine learning algorithm.
And they are provided as building blocks. And they are not only busy to build on top of, but they also come with many great convenient tools, environments for testing, and all of that creates a new wave of satellites and new approach with emerging popularity of CubeSat substandard, smaller satellite. And what I have described this new approach with building blocks that enable onboard data processing on the lowest level.
It stems from advancement gradual change in more available technology, micro processor or things that are not necessarily connected to satellites, but companies like KP Labs can create building blocks. Although those basics components. And then the end user can create smart mission is out of those basic building blocks.
So there is a ladder of cooperation, new technologies on very rudimentary level companies that can create building blocks from those technologies and end users that can use these technologies. These building blocks to create smart missions in the end.
Hywel: Okay, fantastic. Yeah, that’s really interesting. We’re used to dealing with certain standards and levels of performance in space, and you sometimes when you take a step back and think for any terrestrial application, if you were only getting 20% of useful data, that just wouldn’t be acceptable.
So that’s really illuminated why solutions like onboard data processing are required. In terms of the technologies and systems that you’ve just mentioned, what sort of new capabilities can these solutions bring for satellite missions?
Maciej: The AI on board satellite can not only help the payload and the mission objective, but also aid the satellite operation.
And again, in the older approach, we were limited by the cost of communication, expensive communication and supplied was very dependent on ground station. And a lot of images that we sent, as I said, are cloudy or shaken, and they’re really unbelievable. And the numbers are quite shocking. How much, how many of them are in volume. So the most rudimentary tasks that you can perform with onboard data processing and AI is to discard the data that is invaluable transfer the data to air, but you can at least discount what is invaluable by making satellite, be aware of what it can gather. And you can also must out parts of images that are cloudy.
Use AI to detect clouds on images, Musk them out. And this really helps image compression algorithms. So even without actually doing anything smart on satellite. We, most of them do is to help the compression and transmission and the most basic level, you don’t have to change too much, but you can discard what is invaluable.
And this is already a huge improvement, but this is just the beginning because cloud detection can be treated as a preferencing step for image analysis. So really the cornerstone, the starting point is cloud detection and making satellite aware of. Again, this is just the beginning. And for example, in this smart mission ecosystem, as I said, we have a lot of very convenient tools and software to aid the mission itself.
And for example, offer a modular software system called Oryx, and it comes with a scripting engine, which enables you to change the mode of operation of satellite on the flight. So you can rewrite what your satellite should do without tackling the low level software and you don’t have to have the thing about the bridge between hardware and software with the modular scripting engine and Oryx, you can just write what your satellite should do in a very user-friendly scripting language called Lua and just update the script and the scripting engine will understand it and adjust the satellite to your needs. So this is again, a different side of the revolution that enables us to perform these onboard data processing tasks. But when it comes strictly to them to onboard data processing and AI, we again have to differentiate smart satellite and smart payload.
And the first one is to aid the satellite operation itself. And we can do this by using AI to analyze telemetric data because satellites have onboard sensors that monitor different parameters. And this is what’s smart satellite is about itself. What it can do, it can help our satellite can help to analyze the logs, the telemetry, and provide onboard maintenance.
Keep your satellite in good health and avoid failures. And on the other hand, we have the second branch of smart payload, which offers AI capabilities regarding the mission objective, image analysis of satellite for Earth Observation tasks and image processing.
Hywel: Two sides of the coin but really interesting that this, the same solutions enabling both, you’ve mentioned a number of these already, but I wonder if you could give some further specific examples of how algorithms and processing tools can support different kinds of missions.
Maciej: Yeah, there are tell us of exciting ideas and specific examples that we can provide, get the box of the maintenance and telemetric, because they are really interesting and anomalies and failures can be really straightforward.
Let’s take an example of out of bounds failures. to detect study failure, like for example, to low voltage power supply failure, you can just press the telemetry data. This is a really straightforward thing to do. However, there are many failure scenarios that are harder to detect called contextual anomalies.
This kind of anomaly can only be detected by AI nowadays. And what contextual anomalies are. They are occur when every single signal on board, the satellite is incorrect, right. And it all, it seems fine. However, when you get them and compare them how they relate to each other. It may come that even though each one of them is perfectly fine, they are in combination in a situation where they should not be during normal operation.
And this is really important and detecting such a failure is only possible with AI, but if it is possible on board of satellite with AI, you can really take some steps. You can try to mitigate this problem automatically. And this is a huge difference because if you were to try to mitigate failures with the traditional approach, you would have to gather the logs and then wait for your satellite to fly over a ground station transmit these logs and analyse them in station. And after you detect a failure, it may be too late to do anything. You may have missed the moment when you could have taken the action.
And this is why you want to be able to detect the failure on board of satellite and have some failure handling scenarios. In case something happens, you can detect them with AI and start rescuing satellite in orbit without actually having to wait for the communication session to begin. This is really important and it makes a huge difference because actually I have another example of quite shocking number because from the year 2000 to 2015, little over 40% of small satellite missions experience, at least partial failure, provided by NASA. So it’s insane number and smart maintenance and fault handling are crucial key points to mitigate this problem and to really help satellites to operate in a more correct. And this was more about the smart satellite, but now let’s move on to the smart payload because this is where maybe the most interesting and more, most spectacular things may come.
So we work at KP Labs on several machinery algorithms for observation. And I have already mentioned the most basic task of cloud detection because it’s going to help utilize data, transmission better, but the possibilities are far beyond that. And we worked for example, on smart farming algorithms and with AI, it is possible to estimate soil parameters from a satellite image.
And this is a really interesting idea. It’s something that is hard to wrap your mind around when you think about it. You can estimate, for example, how much potassium ground contains just from a satellite image.
Hywel: Just from the image of the surface.
Maciej: Yes, but actually it is something more than image of surface because it captured image of surface, but we work with very specific images.
We call, they are generally called hyperspectral images. And even though they capture. What the grant looks like on the most basic level, they cover the light spectrum beyond visible wavelengths, and they are very feature rich and they capture the data in infrared, ultraviolet, or radio frequencies. And you can estimate you can infer such complex parameters soil quality just from a satellite image, which is really interesting and was never heard of previously until AI and hyperspectral data came into play.
So you can really think of those images as scientific scans or using scientific apparatus, than normal images. That’s we are comfortable with. They are much more than just RGB images and alongside our domestic work on a soil analysis, we organized open for all challenge in this topic of soil quality assessment. And we provide data and metrics for competition that we have prepared. And because hyperspectral data is so feature rich, we advertise the competition with a See Beyond Visible slogan because hyperspectral, it creates images, but the images contain things beyond what you can see with your own eyes, which is a really insane idea. And this initiative, this competition of soil analysis is supported by European space agency. So I definitely encourage everyone listening to this podcast to try it out.
You can join the competitions and there are some nice prizes for the winners. So definitely check it out. And going back to the benefits of using AI versus the traditional approach. Again, we are doing a lot of these comparisons. You may ask what is the difference between analyzing so with AI, with satellite versus how used to be done before, vs this is done actually now, so we can experience this firsthand, whether we were in gathering data for our competition.
And we were cooperating with people that work daily with soil analysis and how they do this now is there is a guy who gets to rent an ATV and drive around crop fields and gather some boxes, some probes of ground and park them in a larger box, send them all to a laboratory. And we’re actually has to run some analyses with a scientific apparatus.
It’s something that you have to reorganize people, equipment vehicle, laboratory, and it’s a process that can take weeks or even months to cover a large area of crop fields and with satellites we are close to the point when you can just order a analysis of soil with satellite, click a button, and have results delivered in hours or perhaps minutes one day.
So it’s really, again, interesting idea. And there’s a huge, different numbers are really on the side of hard satellites and we are not only working on soil analysis, but there’s another interesting and novel idea regarding super-resolution tasks. And super-resolution is a technique for enhancing quality of images enlarging of extra details created by AI.
And you may have used it. You have Photoshop installed because I believe nowadays, if you stretch out image and you enlarge it, you may use a, an AI algorithm built in photoshops to ask some details and sharpen the image and enhance the quality. And this is how this technology has mainly used for aesthetic purposes and for manual analysis.
However, now together with European space agency, we are running a project for using super resolution as a data fusion step as a prep processing step to aid further data processing. So for example, it’s imaging, but you have a observation task like monitoring fire spreads, for example, or tracking vessels. And with super resolution before you apply AI to the final tasks.
For example, vessel tracking, you can use super resolution to first enhance the image, make it sharper. So it’s easier to detect the vessels by the final algorithm because it gets better quality images at the input. And this is a very novel idea of super resolution in classified space environments. And this is what we are working on. Beyond what we work on at KP Labs, there are many more use cases that may come into play, and there are people around the world preparing different AI solutions for tasks like again, vessel tracking and the anomoly defection, natural disaster monitoring.
Sometime ago, I came across a really interesting model to predict possibility of car accidents, crossroads from satellite photos. Yeah, it’s really cool. And it’s connected to safety. So really important topic and AI was able to take a photo of some network of roads and estimate which crossroads, where most prone to accidents and crushes.
So it’s a great tool for city planners and stuff like that. Possibilities are really endless and there are many benefits in general to using onboard data processing and AI. And one things to note is that in general, the running AI on satellite is an asset and not a must. So we can deploy any way we want. We are very flexible.
Nevertheless, there are some use cases that are uniquely available, thanks to onboard processing. Like the best example is this online risk management with telemetric analysis and failure prevention. However, there are some new, exciting ideas that are close to being implemented, like in orbit rendezvous operations, where a swarm of devices or satellites or space vessels with high degree of independence can cooperate together. And this really requires a high level of autonomy to operate actions between different vessels and satellites in orbit.
Hywel: Yeah that’s amazing. This really interesting use cases, there’s quite a few things that stood out to me, any online telemetry of tracking and the failure prevention is fascinating because presumably the larger the satellite, the smarter this satellite, the smarter the payloads on the satellite, the more important such capabilities because the satellites are more expensive and heavy.
You want that ability to be able to track the telemetry and prevent what failures you can. So that’s interesting. And yeah, we talk a lot about satsearch, viewing both sides of the marketplace. You do lots of comparisons and a a lot of discussion of competition in the industry. And who’s what what are the alternative solutions to things, but you never think of it as the sort of applications you’re talking about.
You never think of it as satellite versus a guy in the truck driving around collected soil samples, but for, to the end user, that’s the comparison they have to meet where they’re trying to decide, which is the best solution to find out the soil quality.
So really interesting stuff. Thank you very much for sharing along that. So we talked a lot about the processing capabilities and the results that the such onboard processing and AI can bring you. What sort of hardware is required in order to use it in space?
Maciej: More than AI in general, it’s a very demanding software around, in all condition. I would say perhaps it is one of the most demanding in terms of performance software. So when we talk about running AI inference in domestic conditions, graphic cards are often used accelerators and they may be built into your computer and they are used in data centre, they are great. They perform great, and they are a standard.
However, what works well on the surface is not that suitable for space missions and when it comes down to satellites. The traits between power consumption and performance are really crucial for efficiency management, because there is always a risk of your satellite running out of juice. And this is a really important risk and something that you can, you have to be aware of.
First thing is about the trade off between power and saving energy is really important. It’s more important than in normal conditions. And also the hardware flexibility factor has a different context in space because you can easily swap GPU models in your computer. And you can just take out parts of your computer and install new ones.
However, this cant be done in orbit. Unfortunately, you cant just take out pieces of your satellite. And for this reason at KP Labs our accelerators are mainly a FPGA based and this enables us a flexibility and FPGAs are very specific devices because normal processors can be programmed with different software. Computers can perform different tasks because they run different pieces of software and FPGAs are like that, but they are even more programmable because not only software, but also hardware can be resynthesized on the fly. You can describe different hardware. FPGAs are able to readjust on the flight on the hardware level.
This means that different trade-offs can be balanced during the mission. For example, you can a single core performance over a month, or vice versa in orbit and also really repioritize when energy saving is crucial and you are close to running out of the juice again. So flexibility and power consumption and performance are key factors in modern AI hardware for space.
And when it comes down to KP Labs and what we offer, we have three different AI accelerators for satellites, Antelope, Leopard and and let’s walk through them. So Antelope it would be most light unit, it is designated to the smart satellite. So we are talking about these maintenance tasks, anomaly detection, failure prevention, Antelope is an AI accelerator that is designed to run algorithms, to perform. To help the satellite operation. Yeah. However Leopard which is a medium sized all-rounder. It’s more focused on smart satellite.
So it is designed for image processing for Earth Observation tasks. I like cloud detection, segmentation, soil analysis. So this is the difference between smart satellite and smarter. And last but not least is , which is the bigger brother of Leopard, biggest unit. And it is designated for the most demanding space missions whereas Antelope and Leopard are designed for CubeSat missions. Work with standard DPX space missions for satellites over 50 kilograms. So this is definitely for the biggest context. I have told you about all those algorithms and hardware pieces and what we can do with them.
But we do work hard not only on prototyping them, but on what we work hard to also on turning these possibilities into real life advantages and and space missions that are implemented in real life. And this is why we launch our in-house satellite mission called INTUITION-1, which will carry a Leopard on board and perform smart findings and analysis.
And furthermore, we have invested in making sure that our development environment is really user-friendly. And we put a lot of emphasis of the telemetry and safety and robustness and the development environment and simulation environment environments to make sure that you develop your satellite in a very convenient and very robust way.
And this is why we support a second mission called PW-Sat3. It is a mission run by student and scholars from Warsaw University of Technology in Poland. And we provide them with our solutions and we are really eager to cooperate with them and offer our support. PW-Sat3 will carry Antelope and test the telemetric analysis algorithm.
And we are really looking forward to cooperating with students and scholars and try out. User-friendly and how efficient our development tool chains are. And our solution is, and how end user can benefit from. And once again, I would like to highlight the flexibility and the hardware of our the flexibility of our hardware and software, because Leopard is based on FPGAs that can be reprogrammed in orbit to support different hardware, accelerator architectures and Oryx our modular software enables you to reprogram satellite operations and this leads to very reusable, very adjustable satellites.
It means that a single satellite can support different goals and missions as the time progresses. And because of these wide capabilities and variety of tasks at hand, we call it INTUITION-1, our mission with Leopard on board, a blank laboratory that can perform diverse experiments, and try out new possibilities, different possibilities during the same mission.
Hywel: Very interesting to know, to understand what the, some of the technical considerations are. And obviously engineer’s, you’ve mentioned some of the things that they would need to consider when trying to implement their own solutions using onboard edge processing AI, you’ve mentioned the importance of considering power efficiency and also in the first instance, thinking about how you’re using the tools, whether it’s to enable that smart satellite concept and analyze your own telemetry data or.
Whether it’s a smart payload situation. Both of course. So I wouldn’t do them. What are the sort of technical considerations that an engineer would need to factor? And then the trade offs that they may need to think about when integrated the hardware and the software into satellite and deploying it on orbit.
Maciej: Yeah, this is a really important topic because the engineering is what drives satellites. And when it comes through satellite drivers and software development, it’s used to be a pretty daunting task in the past. A lot of things had to be written from scratch. Often you have to use a very obscure hardware and program from the very beginning.
However, a huge progress has been made with the new emerging new space paradigm. And nowadays with technologies like our space smart solution ecosystem, creating satellite software can be a much more developer friendly user-friendly task, and our development process and what we offer and in form of building blocks, encourage good programming practices with modern coding standards.
And this means that we build highly testable code that works with CII environments. And this is really important too, to software developments because nowadays programming tools are dev ops becomes more and more disposable. So every software developers will really appreciate this process of creating highly testable code that works well with existing software tools.
And we really put emphasis on unit and end to end testing this. Not only means that our satellite software is robust. And you are confident in how it works, but you can also create your software on top of it with great convenience and using the software tools that we provide. So not only the building blocks are really great and created in a very cautious way with good coding practices, but you can follow the way we create software and development tools. It provided a way of creating software that is really user-friendly and very convenient. And on the other hand, AI space is a relatively new thing and it’s still maturing and at KP Labs so we work really hard on pushing the frontiers of AI on board satellites and raising technological readiness levels of new solutions.
And as mentioned, the hardware around AI in orbit is a pretty novel and it’s very different from standard GPUs. And it comes with a ton of benefits and I have praised our flexibility of hardware and FPGAs. It comes with the cost of heavy, a lot of parameters to fine tune and tweak. And at first glance, it is really hard to know how to get the optimal configuration for the mission at hand, because you have so many possibilities, and this is why we have developed a custom benchmarking process for robust AI deployment onboard satellites because there are tons of existing benchmarks and the majority of them, it is great and they will work fine for choosing your hardware platform for choosing your hardware vendor hardware family.
They are grateful for this purpose. However, after you have chosen what you want to use and you have it delivered this kinds of benchmark, they tell you really nothing about how to utilize best, what you have chosen, how to find, need, how to tweak it. And this is how. our benchmarking process differs.
And when it comes into play, after you have bought your seller, you can use our benchmarking process to find this unit. And we have created this process while evaluating our hardware, our Leopard AI accelerator. You can think of this benchmarking process as painting the landscape of what the hardware is capable of other different circumstances in different. For example, we created our benchmarking process with different sized neural networks with different use cases, operational modes and configuration. And then mathematical terms, you can think of this benchmarking process as multidimensional matrix or tensor of various scenarios, various integrations is various parameters and we can be results quantified and measured in relation to power consumption.
So we know how to turn the knobs in a way that really works as intended. So the trade-offs those regarding our hardware are balanced in a very conscious way. And this not only helps us to scale hardware, current solutions regarding what we work on now, but it provides us with confidence and knowledge about future deployments.
And we can easily predict what is what we are capable of and what can be easily implemented. And what is the best path to take if you were to invent something new and deploy something new? Because we have such a broad understanding of how our hardware scales and this benchmarking process was applied to Leopard.
However, this workflow of benchmarking we have developed is available public. So we encourage all AI in space practitioners to check it out and follow our steps, to perform benchmarks in similar spirit and evaluate their hardware pieces. So the general knowledge of this field, they know how it grows with continuing experiments and we are more and more mature with the hardware platforms in our possession.
Hywel: Thank you. We’ll link to that in the show notes as well, the benchmark in process, or provide some more info. And you mentioned that is obviously it’s a solution that enables you to determined or prepare for future deployments. And I wondered if you could do that a little bit and think about future deployments of AI and onboard processing in general, in the field it years to come, not just the next sort of mission schedule.
What do you think? What capabilities and opportunities you think satellite data end users, and mission designers, are likely to have access to with?
Maciej: Okay. So this is a really interesting question because it is justly starting. We are just at the beginning of this path of truly autonomous space systems. And in recent years, we will experience raising these technological readiness level of the solutions that I have described.
Easy to use, feature rich satellites development systems are nearly at 10 and the accessibility of onboard data processing and AI in this space really will enable us to see more complex solutions being built. And we will see things like satellite swarms, and fully automated satellites to come soon. And so this, we can expect a merge between the cloud computing services and satellite technologies, and it started happening right now.
Amazon web services, which is the most popular provider of cloud services already provides a satellite ground station service. This is a very basic feed by the word again, just at the starting point, but we can expect a moment when satellite missions will be part of a bigger autonomous system of swarms or connections between different computers, semi autonomous systems of automatic decisions making.
This is really interesting. And AI plays a huge role in automating Earth Observation processes in general and onboard data processing will definitely decrease latency and like satellite operations and businesses will be able to order a satellite observation analysis on demand with AI insight delivered on the spot.
Maybe like. Come on people. And like every Joe will be able to order a satellite observation and with a few clicks and have some interesting insight delivered by AI. So in the far future AI and onboard data processing, we will hopefully help to launch even more exciting Scifi like missions, like smart space vessels and robots, and are some interesting ideas regarding satellite mining and really interesting for me to come if you’re looking at a very broad perspective, but also really interesting and not other things are really close. And really at hand to come in years to come.
Hywel: Quite a vision to the future. I think there’s so many things that so many people in the industry and then the followers of the space industry would like to see happen.
And maybe in some cases expected to see happen by 2022 and obviously the sort of technologies you’re talking about conformer core part of enabling that. So that’s brilliant. Thank you very much at the insights you showed shared this today. I think we’ll be really interested to the community. Yeah.
On behalf of satsearch and all of our listeners in the space industry podcasts. I’d like to say thank you very much for spending time with us and sharing that information.
Maciej: Thank you very much. It was great opportunity to talk with you.
Hywel: Thank you. And to all the listeners out there, you can find out more about KP Labs, this smart mission ecosystem on all of the tools and technologies that said, that have been discussed today on the satsearch platform. We’ll link to the details of that. And you’re free to use the request system to get in touch with the company and more.
We’ll also share some of the resources that were mentioned. Yeah, we would encourage if you have any interest in this area if you have professional applications of the tools and technologies that are discussed , to get in touch. And finally, I’d just like to say thank you all for listening and spending time with us on the space industry podcast. We’ll be back soon.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments.
Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>In this article we give a brief overview of how satellite Ka band communications systems work, followed by details of commercial products available on the global marketplace for space. If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
Satellite technologies are increasingly being used for remote sensing, navigation, and geo-positioning, telecommunication, and television applications. Systems can exchange data in a wide variety of bands, with typical frequency bands for satellite communication in the very high-frequency bandwidth of 1–50 gigahertz (GHz).
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) designates bands in this range with a variety of letters that are, in order of increasing frequency; L, S, C, X, Ku, Ka, and V. A fair access policy is implemented by operators to manage and control bandwidth usage.
Specifically, the frequency range of the Ka band, as defined by the IEEE system, is from 26 to 40 GHz, with a wavelength of 1.6 cm to 750 mm. This is double the bandwidth of the Ku band and five times that of the C band. The Ka band spectrum is widely used for broadband data communications, mobile phone and data applications, and direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting.
Ka band transceivers, transmitters, and receivers provide high data throughput and bandwidth due to their operation in this Ka band part of the frequency spectrum. The higher Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) at the beam center helps in increasing the data throughput and frequency reuse. It is also common to refer to the transmitter and receiver collectively as a transponder.
The band’s smaller wavelength leads to a lower size for the required communication components for signal transmission. However, the susceptibility of Ka band frequencies to rain attenuation is a notable drawback.
Most High Throughput Satellites (HTS) operating in the Ka band typically fall within the following Ka bands: 27.5 – 31 GHz (uplink) and 17.7 – 21.2 GHz (downlink), for a 3.5 GHz bandwidth.
Several suppliers are now focusing on developing Ka band transmitter solutions with the CubeSat form factor in mind and are optimizing the power, mass, and size constraints of their transmitters to align with the structure, volume, and power consumption requirements of CubeSats.
Examples of launched commercial satellites that have used the high-throughput Ka band are:
Before we take a look at the various commercially-available systems on the market, this short section provides some advice for engineers performing a pre-concept analysis of a ka-band transceiver system for their own mission.
Selecting the most relevant sub-system should begin with an identification of the requirements it must meet and the constraints upon it. These will drive the selection of components based on attributes that can satisfy these values.
For example, the requirements and constraints for the Telemetry, Tracking, Commanding and Monitoring (TTCM) sub-system, and, by extension, its transceivers, are derived from various sources such as mission objectives/needs, system requirements, TTCM internal requirements, sub-system-level requirements and so on.
Certain parameters, such as the mass, power, and volume of the transceivers, are considered to be constraints, while parameters such as data rate, frequency, and RF power are considered to be requirements.
Note that for the purposes of this article data rate is considered to be the rate of data transfer with respect to modulation schemes for encoding digital signals. In addition, RF power is a considered to be a measure of how powerful the transmitter output is, relative to 1mW.
Note that these requirements are the result of a preliminary analysis of the products information available in the satsearch marketplace.
In the section below you can see an overview of several Ka-band transmission systems available on the global market, which can be used by CubeSat and small satellite developers to fit their telemetry and telecommand requirements.
We have also previously published overviews of the X-band transmitters, S-band transmitters and the emerging optical communications segment.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
These products refer only to the individual ka-band receiver and/or transmitter modules in the communications chain:
These products are complete sub-systems used for one or more forms of ka-band frequency communication and data exchange:
Thank you for reading! If you need any further assistance identifying the right ka-band product for your mission or service, please send us a general query using our free request system today. And to stay up to date with new articles, product data, and other updates from satsearch, please sign up for our weekly email newsletter.
]]>Epsilon3 is a US-based provider of mission and engineering operations software.
The team consists of engineering and design professionals from firms such as Northrop Grumman, Google, and SpaceX, with experience that includes first-hand operational management of sending American astronauts to the ISS. In the podcast we discuss:
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody. And welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined today by Laura Crabtree, CEO of Epsilon3. Epsilon3 is a California based developer of space missions and engineering software products.
Laura previously worked as a senior mission operations engineer at SpaceX, where she actually helped to train and fly the first commercial astronaut crew.
And that’s the topic that we’re going to be discussing today. We’re going to take a look at the evolution of commercial human spaceflight, and the outlook for the future in this area. Very interesting part of the industry. One that a lot of people are familiar with both inside and outside the industry. Of course.
Thank you very much for spending time with us today on the space industry podcast. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Laura: That was a pretty great intro and thanks so much for having me.
Hywel: Okay, fantastic. Well you see several commercial ventures that are targeted human space flight in, in one way or another, as a vertical in the industry, these always gain a lot of attention and are always very interesting for people because they’re so easy to understand. And part of the dream that so many people have with related to space is to travel into that environment.
So what factors do you believe are driving this recent growth and interest? Why now?
Laura: Yeah, I think it, it started 12 years ago or so when we had the commercial cargo vehicles that were being developed and NASA started to be more comfortable and confident in the abilities of commercial providers to travel to the International Space Station.
So if you recall, Dragon was then being developed at that time, as well as the Cygnus vehicle. And previously these missions had only been performed by other countries, which was a diversion from where we were, I don’t know, 30 years ago.
And I think after that came the commercial crew contract and the only reason I, not the only reason, but the biggest reasons why we transitioned a commercial crew one, because we were dependent on the Russian Soyuz too, because we had, at that time, retired the space shuttle, and we needed to get into the abilities of commercial partnerships to take astronauts to the space station so that I guess set the stage.
And then now the field has opened up and I think there are many factors in why that is, but a couple key ones, one, the reusability of Falcon9, it’s just a workhorse. Its . . . people have a lot of confidence in it, and this is something that the public really needs to be able to get behind the reusability and the comfort and the reliability of the rocket too. Obviously, accessibility is space is increasing and is potentially going to increase very soon with Starship coming online.
Obviously launch costs decreasing. This is something that’s been talked about a lot, so I won’t hammer that down. And then the last thing I think is people really want to get excited about something space is this unexplored frontier. The other unexplored frontier obviously is the oceans, but space is seen as something that’s unattainable and that ability for normal people to go into space is something that’s been talked about for years and years.
And so when we flew SpaceX when we flew Doug and Bob in 2020, we all knew what happened in 2020. I had hundreds and hundreds of people coming up to me that I knew and telling me that was the highest high point of 2020, because if you recall, it was March of 2020 when we all went into lockdown. And then we flew Doug and Bob in May. Everybody needed something to get behind. And this was something that they got really excited about. And I think it came at the right time for everyone to watch and feel the excitement around something new happening in a world that was so closed.
And then you see that happen. And then later now with Inspiration4 people are seeing it becoming more available and they’re actually thinking, Hey, I could potentially realize my dreams. And then you saw Virgin and Blue Origin launch within weeks of one another. So now people even are more excited about it because they know that there are potentially other providers that can get them to the edge of space or to space.
And so I think those are the factors that kind of get people really excited and get more companies building in that arena.
Hywel: Absolutely. Yeah. Obviously in space flight. There’s always been a latent reservoir of fanatics and fascination from people which is just something that’s waiting for companies to, to try and tap.
And as you’ve laid out there, there’s a series of really large-scale technological achievements that have enabled this and factors. So that’s great. Thank you.
You mentioned by name the commercial crew program, which is a relatively new approach for NASA relative to NASA’s timeline. NASA is now fully supporting this initiative, but what differences do you see that there are in the use of commercial astronauts versus NASA astronauts? And are there any advantages to the taxpayer by NASA taking a certain approach over another, which is always a factor in these conversations?
Laura: Yeah. So I think to set the stage for this, I think about it as commercial astronauts, some, so someone who’s paying to go to space. I don’t like to use the word tourist because a lot of these people are performing experimentation.
They have actual, real needs that, that they are performing in space. And so like with the Inspiration4 crew, they were doing a lot of the medical experimentation and there are with the Axiom astronauts. They are actually performing some work in space as well. So I think of it as commercial. Yes. That could be partial to a tourism as well.
And then I think of it as career astronauts. So you’ve got NASA, ESA, JAXA and Roscosmos who are the main players in there. And then obviously you have the Chinese, but I’m going to focus on the international space station partnership, because those are the people that I know. And so those are astronauts who are career astronauts.
They are selected from a pool of actual thousands and thousands of people and go through training. Those are two types of astronauts. And I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both, depending on what your end goal is.
So a little background on the commercial crew program, this was specifically designed for career astronauts to be flown to the space station on commercially developed, built and flown vehicles.
And we talked about it being built out of the retirement of the space shuttle. Right now, there are two vehicles, the SpaceX Dragon, and the Boeing Starliner. The SpaceX Dragon, as everybody knows, started flying 2020, and then the Starliner has yet to fly, but is expected to fly this year. And I’m super excited for that.
For the training time, we talk a little bit about kind of the flights and how expensive they are, but I think it goes back to. When you’re paying for something, whether it be from the government or from personal, it starts at the moment you pay and it keeps going. So for commercial astronauts, the training time should be near zero.
They should be trained on exactly what their mission is. As we spoke about the Inspiration4 astronauts, I suspect that training was more than zero. I saw on Instagram and all other social media that they did have a lot of training. They did perform new things. And then with the next commercial crew, that’s going to fly on Dragon.
They are going to be performing new things. So I suspect that these commercial astronauts on Dragon are going to lay the groundwork for the future so that we can get the training time down to near zero. So a lot of the lore of space I think, is in the training and the preparation. And so I can’t actually, if I was paying as a commercial astronaut, I would want the training.
And so that actually probably increases the price a little bit because it’s fun. You get to do a zero G training. You get to do a High-G training, you get to do all sorts of fun things in the simulator. Those are things I’d want to do, but theoretically, the training time could be like weeks maybe. And then for career astronauts, I’m sure there’s multiple years of training that are required to get to the space station.
And then even after you start training as an astronaut candidate, there are even six to nine months more after you’re selected for a mission. So that alone would reduce the cost. And then you look at the government paying for something, paying for a Soyuz versus paying for Dragon. The price is a lot different.
I don’t know the exact price, but it does save the taxpayer dollars. A lot of money. To do this commercially versus to do it via the government. So I’d say the commercial crew program alone has saved a lot of money over the government on the government side, and then it will continue to do, because now that’s already been developed and it’s successful.
We can continue to save the taxpayer dollars, I think. Yeah. That’s that was a long-winded answer. Sorry.
Hywel: That makes a lot of sense. And yeah, I liked the, like the distinction you’ve made with. Talking about commercial astronauts versus tourists. I’ve I agree with you. And I’ve also found it very difficult to label someone taking such a risk in one of the very first machine.
Even if we’re talking to the first hundred missions, it’s still a huge risk. There are still all sorts of things that could go terribly wrong. It’s very hard to label that tourist.
Laura: Because I was so close to it. If I had paid for a flight on Dragon, I wouldn’t consider myself a tourist. And I don’t think we should be considering them tourists either. So commercial astronauts is better.
Hywel: Yeah. Fantastic. So a lot of the potential demand, or at least the potential demand that’s discussed in the industry when it comes to human space flight is said sometimes to be driven by sub-orbital and private space stations. Do you believe there’s going to be some sort of consolidation within this area?
Most people likely to choose private space stations because they can spend more time on orbit. For example, you see each of these as independent verticals that will have their own lines of business and perhaps even round trips of the moon.
Laura: I’m hoping for all of this to happen. I’m not necessarily banking on it, but my sincere hope is that we see suborbital flights, orbital flights that are a couple of days, a couple of space stations where you can go for a couple of months and, or you can take a trip to the moon.
The thing that I think will be the hardest is actually building the space stations because you need to get very large payloads in orbit. And that in and of itself is going to take time because it takes many launches to get there. There are a lot of companies, and I think everybody would be probably surprised to know that there are probably 7 to 10 companies building private space stations or targeting building private space stations.
A lot of people have heard about Axiom. A lot of people have heard about Orbital Reef. And so I think that there are at least seven or eight others that are building also. So I think I can’t predict what’s going to happen because this is the kind of thing where you’re actually creating a market that doesn’t exist.
And so that’s a really exciting piece is that we’ve seen the creation of the Inspiration4 mission and the creation of the commercial partnership that people have with SpaceX.
So Axiom, and then what the other commercial missions. And then we’ve also seen the ISS taking a few commercial astronauts, not very many, and I think. It might be on the order of five or six, and now there’s going to be the first full private mission to the space station coming up in the next month or so. So that in and of itself is creating a new market that I think in the next five to 10 years, we’re going to see how that unfolds. And I’m super excited about it.
Hywel: You’re absolutely right. It is creating a new market because this is about human travel. You can’t travel to somewhere without the destination existing. So we need to build those destinations first when we talk about space stations.
Yeah. It is really interesting, but of course a market that does already exists, which space companies have discussed at least space access, which is the Intercontinental travel market.
So, SpaceX has presented this vision of intercontinental travel using rockets, which is very interesting. I think, do you believe this is a segment that’s going to mature, that could potentially mature as the reliability of reusable rockets keeps increasing. Do you think this market could open up further beyond just the tourism aspect? I’ve heard discussions of cargo. And is this something that you could see happen?
Laura: Yeah. I’ve actually talked to an entity of the government that is focused on the cargo from point-to-point on earth with reusable rockets. So there’s that piece. I don’t know yet if the rocket point to point is going to be the next vertical, because I’ve seen a lot of building in hypersonics and supersonics.
So I believe that’s going to open a quick point-to-point travel because there are companies like Venus Aerospace, Boom Supersonic, and Hermeus, just to name a few that are developing hypersonics and supersonics.
So I think that’s going to reduce travel time and open up sort of point to point travel in, on the, the world stage. So right now we can’t go faster than 0.89, Mach 0.89, a for commercial travel. And so since the Concorde retired, those speeds of greater than Mach 2.0, haven’t been matched.
And so a couple of these companies are getting to the place where I think it’s going to be really exciting to see what the market looks like for travel in the next 10 years. Have you heard of those, all of those companies?
Hywel: No. No, I wasn’t familiar with those. Obviously heard some of the concepts, but no.
Laura: Yeah. So Boom is targeting Mach 1.7 in 2029. Hermes is working towards Mach 5 hypersonic. And then Venus is targeting Mach n9 hypersonic, which would get you from San Francisco to Tokyo in an hour, which is pretty amazing.
So these are going to be smaller aircraft, but I think that the point-to-point travel is going to be smaller in the number of people that can fly. I think the point-to-point travel is probably going to be opened up by those before it is opened up by rocket point-to-point travel just based on safety and reusability, but I could be wrong.
Hywel: Okay. Interesting. Thank you. I guess I, your predictions for that aspect of the market in the next five to 10 years, what else do you think we could see on the horizon in the next five years? Say with regards to human space flight.
Laura: I’m really hoping that we can get back to the Moon with Artemis. I think that is going to open up a market that has been dormant for a very long time, and hopefully we can learn how to exist in an environment like the Moon to enable us for future deep space travel, which I really want to see in my lifetime. And I, 100% believe it’s possible. And I would like to see it in my lifetime and my children’s lifetime.
See somebody getting to another planet or going through deep space travel and understanding what that does to the human body and the human psyche. I don’t know that’s going to happen in the next five years, but I hope so. At least to the moon, I hope that people are able to, on a regular basis to fly to the edge of space and pass the Karman line with different types of flights.
So we already talked about the orbital flights. We talked about Dragon and we talked about Starship. We talked about the Boeing Starliner, but then there are other vehicles that can get you to a hundred thousand kilometers. So we haven’t talked about the balloons yet. So there’s a couple of different balloons being developed, one being World View Enterprises.
So they’re going to take you to the edge of space on a balloons. This is not a high G environment. So if you can’t, if you can’t take a High G environment, you can’t go to space, but you could get to the edge of space, see the curvature of the earth and really appreciate this beautiful earth we live on.
So I think that is well within our reach in the next five years. And then seeing more regularly. Of New Shepard and Virgin Galactic space planes. I’m hoping that we can get to that kind of reuse and more frequent flights of those so that we can make it more accessible to people.
And then I think, I really think we’re going to be able to see rapid reuse of vehicles. Whereas Dragon is concerned if you need to reuse Dragon. It does take a lot of refurbishment to reuse, and I’m hoping that we can get to the more rapid reuse in the next 5 years to make it more easy to turn around another flight. So those, I think those are my, within the next 5 years, things that I would hope to happen.
And then I think there’s going to be a lot of infrastructure that probably needs to be built to make sure those things happen. From earth observation, communications, and then from the Moon communication standpoint, there isn’t a lot of infrastructure there on the Moon. So hopefully we can see some Moon communications platform accelerated to support Artemis in the near future.
So a lot of the things!
Hywel: Fantastic, the number of organizations and companies that you’ve mentioned there just illustrates how potentially large this market is today.
The 7 to 10 companies building private space stations, the, all of the names you mentioned offering flights in space in some form or other in different ways. And the intercontinental travel, I think. Yeah, just illustrative of how much is going on.
Laura: I think it’s also really telling that large corporations, very old aerospace corporations are looking to build private space stations as well as 10 percent currently 10% startups. And they both have a really good chance of succeeding.
And I’m really excited to see which one comes out on top or which the three to five come out on top because I’ll probably sign up to go to one of them as soon as I can.
Hywel: Oh, fantastic. Laura. I think that was really useful. I think we will have taught the space industry community a lot about what is going on in human space flight today and look at the potential for what we could be seeing tomorrow very soon. Yeah. I’d like to thank you very much for spending time with us and for sharing all your insight.
Laura: Awesome. Thank you so much.
Hywel: Great. Thank you. And to all our listeners out there, you can find out more about, about Laura and Epsilon3 on the company’s website and on the satsearch platform. And we’d be more than happy to help facilitate any questions, you might have any communications with the company you might have.
And yeah, I guess have a think about yourself as to whether you would book a flight on one of these trips, if it was possible there. Thank you very much.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>This article discusses on-board data processing with reference to SpaceCloud®, a payload computing hardware with a framework for satellite cloud computing applications created by the Swedish public company Unibap AB.
Unibap is a technology provider focussed on developing artificial intelligence (AI) and digitalization solutions for industrial and space applications, and is a paying participant of the satsearch membership program.
Today’s satellites are far more than simple sensors in the sky. In recent years, innovations in Earth Observation (EO) and remote sensing, across a wide variety of spectra, have led to new satellite business models and data collection concepts.
For example, there are now optical payloads on the market with greater resolutions and range of functions in a small physical form factor. EO constellations based on such cameras have also been funded and launched, providing greater availability and reliability for end-users. In addition, there has been an increase in the number and diversity of those end-users, from both the public and private sectors, who have found new commercial opportunities based on the data available.
This growth has led to greater demands on the processing facilities of satellite systems in a number of key areas:
Storage constraints – as satellites collect more data (in terms of both the number of files and the average size of an individual file) the on-board storage capacity is under greater strain. Data downlinks are limited by the downlink capacity and ground station coverage, meaning the satellite itself can end up storing more data for longer periods of time, potentially affecting its ability to collect more. At the same time, the satellite itself is increasingly expected to utilize some of the data collected to make decisions on-board, meaning that the data’s accessibility, as well as the total capacity, is also under pressure.
The need for greater computer resources – more powerful and complex satellite applications are requiring greater computer resources throughout the system. Even the smallest satellites can now feature complicated sub-systems (such as deployable systems, adaptable propulsion units, and high-performance sensors) that all require control and coordination by the system’s On-Board Computer (OBC). This also places greater demands on system health monitoring and error reporting protocols.
The need for better in-orbit decision-making – there are growing demands on satellite manufacturers to produce systems that can operate in a more agile manner, to more easily position Earth Observation cameras for example, and provide greater versatility in missions. More agile and versatile satellites are being developed incorporating innovations in:
However, aspects of such new capabilities can only work effectively if the satellite itself is capable of fast and effective decision-making, independent from ground control.
In addition, in-orbit decision-making can result in distributed decision-making, so that satellites can start reasoning with each other, do autonomous research, and control satellite constellations.
For example, this will be particularly important if a satellite is orbiting the Moon or Mars where the response time will be delayed by several minutes. Likewise, rovers exploring surfaces of planets looking for minerals, water, or indications of organic molecules would be able to more easily navigate and avoid getting stuck if they can operate autonomously.
Ultimately, the more advanced any space system becomes the greater the requirement for, and benefits that, increased autonomy can bring.
The downstream burden – limited downlinking bandwidth is a potentially significant constraint on an effective mission, particularly with the increase in the amount of sensor data collected and transmitted in today’s missions. In addition, typically, once data is downloaded to the ground station it is then corrected, calibrated, and possibly archived before being distributed to the various stakeholders that use the data to make decisions or create products. All of these processes need to be carried out efficiently and securely, and the cleaner and more well-organized the input data, the easier this is to achieve.
Such increases in demand are being looked at in a number of ways. In some orbits an optimally situated satellite could act as a data hub, for example; storing and downlinking data from several other satellites.
Optical inter-satellite communication links are also being established so systems can more easily transfer data, and there are also a wide variety of innovations in the ground segment to overcome potential bottlenecks in the system.
In addition, one of the key enablers of more efficient satellite services, and one that is gaining increasing attention in the market, is on-board data processing (OBDP).
On Earth, data processing tools and capacity are ubiquitous. Access to computing resources with the ability to parse, compress, manage, analyze, and transfer image data (and other similar formats) is provided by a wide range of device- and cloud-based programs, many of which are free. However, in space the unique challenges of the environment dictate whether and how such tools can be used.
Many legacy satellites had very limited capacity for processing and handling data on board. Instead, they would simply store what raw data had been collected until it could be downlinked to the ground, in bulk or in packages.
This meant that unusable images, corrupted files, incorrectly formatted information, or other useless data took up valuable storage and downlink bandwidth, before being rejected on the ground once analyzed.
By processing the data on-board the satellite, some of these issues can be avoided. This makes the overall data collection more valuable and frees up more of the limited available communication bandwidth. This is particularly important for low latency operations and even for deep space missions.
Satellite OBDP enables the removal of unusable information, such as images outside the target area or that are obscured by clouds and smoke. This makes it faster and cheaper to download the valuable data to the ground, as there is less to download.
On-board processors can also compress data so that individual packages are smaller, again making them faster and cheaper to download.
For Earth Observation (EO) applications there is clear value in the ability to post-process captured images soon after they are acquired. This concept is sometimes described as ‘putting the brain closer to the eye’, or edge computing, and can be a core building block in the development of a more advanced satellite imaging service.
An advanced payload processor does, however, need to be carefully integrated into a satellite to ensure that it works efficiently with the payload and other on-board computer (OBC) technology.
Next-generation satellites already require greater computing resources to make full use of their tools and systems. At the same time, efforts are made to reduce the size and weight of satellites, requiring engineers to closely pack smaller components and sub-systems into the structure.
Payload processors then typically face the same environmental and operational challenges that can affect OBCs. COTS computation systems for space are often complex due to the stringent limitations on mass, power consumption, size, and timing and communication requirements. However, the most important factor is the required radiation tolerance.
As the size of processors increases, the risk of Single Event Upsets (SEUs) becomes more prominent. In addition, an increase in the clockspeed of the processor increases the number of latching windows per second during which the charged particles can impact data on the CPU memory.
In recent years there have been more rad-hard payload processors, OBCs, and electronic components brought to market that have opened up new opportunities for satellite integrators.
In addition, the growth of constellations means that operational models, and hence satellite integration requirements, are changing. OBDP capabilities on multiple systems in-orbit enable them to work in a similar manner to cloud computing on the ground.
To meet such requirements, satsearch member Unibap has developed an OBDP system utilizing cloud-based and cloud-inspired technologies.
Unibap is a Sweden-based computer system technology developer creating AI and computing technologies to support advanced automation systems for industries in space, as well as intelligent vision solutions to automate production flows on Earth.
The company has developed a system called SpaceCloud® – a payload computing hardware system with a software framework designed to facilitate timely, actionable distribution of information through on-orbit cloud edge computing, and data processing, storage, and analytics.
With SpaceCloud®, Unibap is aiming to accelerate the adoption of OBDP capabilities in the space industry, making them more accessible to teams building satellites around the world.
The SpaceCloud® software consists of both a framework and an operating system (OS) and has the following key features:
More information on the SpaceCloud® suite of products is available on the pages below:
The next section discusses some of the potential applications that SpaceCloud® can enable in satellite missions.
There are several existing and emerging space applications that are dependent on OBDP, such as:
The following sections present some of the in-orbit demonstration (IOD), research, and commercial missions on which the OBDP platform SpaceCloud® has been launched, tested, and verified.
D-Orbit’s Wild Ride ION mission
The Wild Ride ION mission was launched on the 30th of June 2021 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The in-orbit validation mission included a variety of applications targeting some of the highest-value space data market segments, such as;
To illustrate some of these uses further, below we look at specific mission examples in which SpaceCloud’s OBDP capabilities have been deployed:
D-Orbit’s ION Satellite Carrier mission
Firstly, again launching from Cape Canaveral, Florida, this time onboard SpaceX’s Transporter-3 mission, this mission features 17 SpaceCloud applications and is designed to further demonstrate how a satellite can become a more versatile, configurable, and multi-purpose instrument.
It also features the ability to upload new applications while in-orbit so that testing regimes can evolve, and new ideas may be brought on-orbit faster. In addition, the system also includes a hyperspectral electro-optical instrument developed by VTT that is giving end-users access to almost real-time Earth Observation imagery.
Working with the European Space Agency (ESA)
Unibap has an ongoing agreement with ESA to demonstrate the capabilities of SpaceCloud® in-orbit. The objective is to investigate aspects of the software-defined satellite concept – working with the existing hardware and software on an orbiting system and changing operational aspects to meet new goals.
In December 2021, Unibap successfully demonstrated the ability to reconfigure a sensor on an operational satellite in order to meet new mission criteria. An existing star tracker was reconfigured to capture new EO data, masking clouds and unnecessary land areas.
In just 3 weeks a solution was designed, the satellite’s neural network retrained with new input uploaded from the ground, operating algorithms changed, and new data was captured and downlinked. This mission demonstrated that more versatile satellites are possible with today’s hardware and sub-system setups.
The NASA Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy (DSA) research
NASA selected Unibap to provide 25 SpaceCloud® products from the company’s iX5-family for the DSA research program.
The Unibap products are deployed in ground-based research at the NASA Ames Research Center, with the aim of advancing autonomous capabilities for distributed space systems.
Delivery was made during the first half of 2021 and Unibap is supporting NASA with on-site integration, in partnership with Unibap’s US distributor.
The Hyperspectral Thermal Imager (HyTI) mission
The iX5-100 computer has also been used in the Hyperspectral Thermal Imager (HyTI) mission, funded by NASA’s Earth Science Technology Office InVEST, investigating volcanic degassing, land surface temperature changes, and precision agriculture metrics.
The system provides health monitoring, data transfer, processing, and storage functionality and features a heterogeneous architecture (CPU, GPU, FPGA). It also performs as an alternative dedicated AI accelerator.
Near real-time EO and mid-air airplane detection
The L3Harris™ geospatial intelligence software system ENVI®/IDL® was integrated into SpaceCloud® within a duration of 4 hours to deploy a near real-time Earth Observation application.
The application also featured machine learning capabilities developed by US-based remote sensing company SarianaSat™ Inc.
Another SpaceCloud® application developed by SaraniaSat™ Inc for US Space Force also leveraged the onboard ENVI®/IDL® L3Harris geospatial software suite for mid-air airplane detection.
The application scans 100 km2 of World View-3 MSI spectral data to produce geolocated coordinates for detected aircraft in under 1 minute on the iX5-100 computer.
The data processing burden for satellites is expected to further increase in coming years, as are customer and commercial demands for more agile satellites and systems able to adapt to changing mission criteria.
On-board data processing has the potential to improve many different satellite applications and generate greater value for their operators and downstream customers.
Implementing cloud-based systems that are capable of increasing versatility and operational performance is more of a question of development workflow and changing traditional procedures than it is of technology.
Solutions, such as Unibap’s SpaceCloud®, are already available on the market and are being tested and qualified in a wider range of application areas with each new mission.
Satellite operators with relevant business cases now have greater access to versatile OBDP systems that can more easily integrated into systems in development and that can bring benefits across mission lifetimes.
Unibap is investing heavily into SpaceCloud® and its ecosystem because they aim to propel this new edge computing market in space. SpaceCloud® is making it very simple to deploy new applications and tailor satellite missions, even down to changing mission requirements in-orbit, every second.
To find out more about Unibap, please feel free to view the following resources:
ACM Coatings specializes in ultra-black coatings and foils that improve the efficiency and performance of optical equipment.
In this episode we discuss how coatings can be used to suppress stray light, and reduce noise and reflections, as well as how to integrate them into space equipment for missions. We cover:
The company also provides bespoke coating for a wide variety of opto-mechanical parts, as well as undertaking build-to-print manufacturing of the parts and assembly after coating.
The black coatings are designed to provide low reflectance, high thermal stability, high absorptance, high emissivity, excellent adhesion to essentially all materials, and low outgassing in a few microns of a coating.
Please note that while we have endeavored to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everybody. And welcome to the episode I’m joined today by Alexander Telle, CEO of satsearch member ACM coatings, which is a company based in Germany.
ACM coatings is a subsidiary of Acktar, a company based in Israel and specializes in ultra black coatings and foils that improve the efficiency and performance of optical equipment. In this episode, we’re going to be discussing how black coatings can be used to suppress stray light, reduce noise, and reduce reflections in space, particularly in NewSpace applications.
So firstly Alexander, I’d like to welcome you to the space industry podcast and yeah. So see if there’s anything you’d like to add to that introduction.
Alexander: Thank you very much for the introduction. It’s perfect, and we are really glad to have the ability to speak with you today.
Hywel: Okay, fantastic. So let’s get into this, this is quite an interesting topic. We constantly deal with the software and the hardware, in particular of space companies that the individual sub-systems and components. Whereas what ACM coatings does is to improve the performance of those components.
So I wondered if you could provide a quick overview of how black coatings are leveraged in space missions and the sort of components on which they are used and how they can influence that performance from the missions perspective?
Alexander: Acktar’s deep black coatings and coated films are widely used in optics and photonics applications. And you can perfectly use them to suppress and absorb scattered light, but also to absorb laser power. And in addition to make surfaces with a high emissivity. And these properties have a high potential for space missions.
Stray light suppression plays a major role in optical and photonic payloads like cameras, spectrum meters, or telescopes, but also in solar sensors or star trackers. This is a considerable issue. The ability to absorb laser power, especially referring to a high laser induced damage threshold of the coating can be relevant for free space, laser communication in complex systems, which may also need stray light suppression in addition.
The generation of high emissivity of surfaces can be used very well with passive thermal management, but also for infrared calibration targets. This is already proven by a numerous space missions, to which we can return later.
Hywel: Okay. Interesting. So yes, quite a wide range there. And as you say, multiple uses in a singular application, both the improvement of the performance and the suppression of the stray light.
So we’re very interested traditionally in optimizing stray light, carefully to, with great precision has been very important for missions by the space agencies and larger manufacturers.
Do you find that NewSpace companies have requirements that are different from these, from the agencies and the large OEMs for that legacy missions have typically needed, or the requirements along the same lines – is the need the same?
Alexander: Yes and no, the general goal of all large mission projects as well as NewSpace projects is the optimal optical performance under space conditions. It is well known that the environmental conditions are different depending on the requirements in NewSpace or earth observation or a deep space project
Our coating technology performs in both worlds, in big space, like space agencies, instrument projects, with the same two words, as in NewSpace projects with maybe a high-volume industrialization comes into play. This is because. It is here where we can perfectly combine our expertise from 25 years of space heritage, and the experience from industrial serious production.
This is the key difference to our competitors in the market for space-qualified coatings. Space is only one part of our company DNA cause our coatings and firms have always achieved. Our production records in industrial photonic application. And serious productions such as sensors, medical technology, new analytics, laser applications, or even in the automotive industry.
And maybe our difference is that NewSpace projects also require cost optimization, which in our case can be realized mainly through higher volumes of the components. Our self-developed proprietary coating machines are so variable and flexible that is possibly to coat even larger quantities of components. And as the quantity is increased, the cost for the coating decreases.
The second related aspect is that the component size. The size of the components to be coated are usually much smaller of a NewSpace project then for components such as cameras or telescopes for large missions and the component size also has a significant impact on the construction.
Hywel: Yeah. Yeah. I imagine it would be really interesting. If the work that you’ve done in other industries, particularly, like you mentioned medical industries, there, there are quite stringent qualification requirements.
So, bringing that experience of going through those compliance procedures outside of space, into space as well, must be interesting to know their qualification requirements for Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) NewSpace components, for outgassing, thermal stability, radiation, and so on.
These are often different from the ECSS-driven space agency mission requirements for deep space exploration, travel to other planets. Are there any specific qualification requirements that you’ve had to change or adapt in your solutions in order to tailor to the NewSpace market?
Alexander: On the one hand, it’s true that deep space missions or missions to other planets have different requirements, perhaps more demanding requirements in missions, in low earth orbit for NewSpace applications.
On the other hand, we have always large missions, like the panic was for better satellites, which were in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) with relatively the same requirements, especially focus now with NewSpace components is of course always the resistance to atomic oxygen. In recent months, we have carried out various additional qualification tests in collaboration with our customers, and we’re able to show that all our coatings, but also our coated films are perfectly resistant against atomic oxygen.
In addition, we can say. That we have coatings that have been qualified for large missions and extreme temperature ranges. For example, coating qualified for use at cryogenic temperatures like for the famous James Webb space telescope, or a coating qualified for very high temperatures on the other end up to plus 550 degrees Celsius, like for the mission to Mercury.
If as you have coatings that are qualified in this broad spectrum. It’s much easier to respond to the requirements for NewSpace than the other way around.
What is playing an increasingly important role is the topic of as a form of management for entire satellites, but also for sub-areas instruments. And for this purpose, we have developed new materials based on our roller coating technology.
We can coat a thin film substrate, typically polyimide-like with either deep black coatings, which has high emissivity and high solar absorption or with a white coating option, which has relatively high emissivity at a relatively low solar absorption to improve the passive temperature management of small satellites.
Hywel: It’s very much about the performance requirements of the individual components and subsystems rather than what the mission overall is trying to achieve. Because as you’re saying, if the coatings in the films are qualified for large temperature ranges and stringent requirements, you’re able to adapt them to meet different aspects without too much change.
Let’s say one area. So let’s take cameras. As an example , obviously, you’d imagine the optical requirements in cameras would demand lots of use of minimizing street lights and optimizing optical performance. There are several COTS camera manufacturers emerging that are targeted in the NewSpace market in visible, near infrared shortwave infrared bands and across different spatial resolutions as well.
And we talk a lot about these sort of applications. We hear a lot about them and in the industry and the end users are growing as well, but of course, everything in space comes with trade-offs. So what are the kinds of trade-offs that such camera manufacturers or the users of them would need to consider when selecting the right sorts of coatings and substrates to increase the overall performance.
Alexander: The first thing to not is that stray light and optical performance, of course, dependent on the wavelength range of the application. Stray light problems often arise when you take an existing system design that comes from the visible wavelength range and change the wavelength range to near or shortwave infrared.
They’re at your offices stray light effects that will not see in the visible range. So what is the reason for this? The reason is that the absorption of light in surfaces in our case in black surfaces is wavelength dependent and surfaces frequently use in technology such as anodizing actually only absorb light in the visible range and become transparent or even reflective in the infrared or even already the near infrared starting at 650 nanometers.
This means that the opto-mechanical components, if used for my lens, that perfectly worked in the visible range. Already act like reflectors in the near infrared and can massively deteriorate performance. In contrast, we can claim without deep black coatings that they absorb in an extremely wide range from UV over the visible, into far into infrared.
We cover everything up to a max wavelength of 15 micrometres and this also covers all photonic applications that we see today for the NewSpace market. Long story short, the wavelength range plays a major role in the consideration of this topic. As soon as you get into the infrared range, stray light issues are much more critical and cannot be tackled with conventional surfaces.
This also means that you cannot avoid creating a new stray light design for your specific product line and answering the questions about optical performance in stray light suppression with this design. The advantage is that already on the hardware side, you have the possibility to exert a great influence on the performance of the optical system and both all on the contrast and the image quality.
And not only later in the image processing in the software, which has to eliminate these effects. The goal should be always to realize an image that it is good. It’s necessary for the application on the one hand and on the other hand, you would like to match as many customer requirements and applications as possible with such optical system for the NewSpace.
Hywel: Brilliant. So as good as onboard data processing and image post-processing are becoming. If you could improve the quality of the pictures coming into the system in the first place, then you’re obviously going to get a better result. I’m very interested in that you say cameras, as an example, can be adapted from different wavelengths, but not without some optimization calibration work, which as you’ve said to sounds just vital.
Yeah, that’s great. Thank you. And that’s on the payload side, obviously. I wondered if you also had any recommendations for teams that are using or designing for yeah, from the supplier side staff design star trackers or some sensors, these navigational components that have the can be effected by stray lights and reflection.
Alexander: I can say that the topic of reflection suppression should be considered as, in the development, this can also lead to the advantage of lowering the degree of complexity. If you use suitable absorption layer for stray light baffles also, solar baffles and entrance baffles. For example, if you use a powerful surface treatment, one could make the component smaller or shorter.
This means that you can reassign a certain number of wanes or apertures. So the complexity is reduced. The number of components is reduced. And with that, the cost of such a system is reduced. It is a good solution working reliably for a long time without showing any degradation effects. By the way, we have available a full database of stray light and reflection measurements for all our coatings.
This data is called ERDF, which is E directional reflectance distribution function and the is used and stray light design analysis software. Using this data enable you to see the effect of our coatings very early in the development process. Just reach out to us and we’ll make it a available for you.
Hywel: We can link to that. Definitely in the show notes of the episode. You can’t overemphasize. I think the benefits that simplicity could bring in the space in any space hardware, reducing everything that you require in that process and time, power requirements, everything. So that’s a really good point there.
So thank you. I think just to finalize here, there’s an array of a different component manufacturers focused on sun sensors, star trackers, cameras as we’ve mentioned and various other kinds of optical technology, some you mentioned earlier in satellite links with optical communications, lots of these are emerging for NewSpace, for the NewSpace market at the moment. How do you see the market for you as a coatings provider evolving in the next, say five to seven years, not withstanding pandemics and global invasions.
Alexander: Yeah in general, for photonics, not only for space has always been a growth market. We see with the NewSpace movement is strong demand, strong growing demand for surface solutions, a solution for absorbing surfaces, in our case, especially this fast growing market with new companies, new players coming in can become more confusing therefore communication platforms and supplier platforms like satsearch play a big and important role in our daily work. On the one hand it to be visible to the industry, but also to give us a better understanding of the new players and their requirements. It’s fair to say that we have very positive view of the market.
And of course we want to grow with it. We are permanently looking for new fields of application for surfaces, besides the classic stray lights suppression for cameras, telescopes, or spectrometers, star trackers, and solar sensors. Of course, we do see all the big potential for laser absorption. Especially big potential for laser or satellite communication and free space communication but also for passive thermal management for instruments and satellites.
Hywel: Fantastic. Thank you. That’s a very wide range of areas. Very exciting outlook for you guys there. That’s that’s everything I wanted to cover. I really appreciate you being able to spend the time with us today. And I think the listener base will have learned a lot about the importance of coatings, the applications of coatings and files in different situations and how to manage the trade-offs and the considerations from both let’s users, potentially a supplier’s point of view. So to thank you very much for your time and attention today, Alex.
Alexander: Thank you. It was a big pleasure to speak with you today.
Hywel: Thank you. And to all our listeners out there, you can find out more about Acktar and ACM coatings on the satsearch platform. We’ll then provide you some links in the show notes to this show and you can reach out to Alex and the company and the team there with any of your questions about the material that we’ve covered today. There’s also information about lead times, data sheets and all sorts that we can help you access, and we will be happy to help you then with anything you need your procurement or trade study. Thank you very much.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Reduced launch costs have made heavier systems more affordable, and innovation in sub-systems means that mission designers have more options for useful equipment that they may want to take on-board.
For Earth Observation purposes there are also fundamental limits on how small aperture sizes can be in order to achieve certain resolutions. The more accuracy you need, the larger the optical payload has to be; and so the bigger the satellite.
Microsatellite platforms and buses have been developed to meet these industry demands, and in this webinar you can hear from four expert manufacturers in this market segment discuss some of the opportunities they can bring to missions, and provide technical information on how to work with such technologies.
The presenters in this webinar were all experienced manufacturers of platforms for microsatellites and are paying members of the satsearch membership program.
The individual slide decks for the presentations are freely available on each company’s supplier hub linked to below, alongside each speaker’s details:
The following systems are all manufactured by the satsearch members who presented in the webinar and were each referenced in the talks, or are related to the products discussed:
This article is an introduction to Space EP manufacturer Texas Instruments (TI), a participant in the satsearch membership program, and was produced in collaboration with the company.
Established quality levels among high-reliability integrated circuit (IC) products help to facilitate the choice of products for a specific application. Product quality requirements differ significantly for different applications such as automotive applications or space missions.
The various quality levels of products include:
QMLQ and QMLVproducts have ceramic packaging, are hermetically-sealed, feature single-controlled baseline flow and Al bond wires, and are produced to MIL specifications. However, although QMLQ products are military-graded, only QMLV products are radiation-tested.
QMLV products are highly reliable, with life tests per wafer lot, and are ideal for missions requiring longer lifetimes. Compared to QMLV, the additional sub-class of QMLV-RHA products are subjected to additional total ionizing dose (TID) lot testing to qualify as radiation-assured. COTS and AEC-Q100 standard products are normally offered in plastic packaging, have either Au or Cu bond wires, and are sometimes supported by multiple silicon wafer fabs or assembly test sites thus do not have a single-controlled manufacturing baseline flow.
The rapidly evolving NewSpace industry has led to the use of PEM products, such as COTS and AEC-Q100, which are gaining traction due to their scalable and flexible supply, lower costs and smaller footprints.
However, there are an array of associated quality and reliability risks for such PEMs to be used in space, which has led to a demand for solutions such as radiation-tolerant Space EP components.
In the NewSpace sector, the requirements for lifetime, reliability, and radiation protection of products are considerably reduced versus QMLV-rated devices. Nevertheless, radiation exposure poses a critical challenge for PEMs, even for LEO missions or missions with shorter lifetimes.
Radiation tolerance is highly dependent on semiconductor and process technology, placing significant burdens on manufacturers who are not experienced in producing components for the challenging environment of space. Lot-to-lot variations in radiation performance can also be a concern.
Generally, COTS/AEC-Q100 products are neither radiation tested nor radiation assured. More often than not, it is difficult to find information about the radiation tolerance, component design, and fabrication process of a COTS/AEC-Q100 product. Therefore, identifying a suitable NewSpace product can be a time-consuming task.
Significant variations in operating temperature range are also important factors to be considered and tested for when using PEM products in space. The tin plating, commonly used in COTS/AEC Q100 products, may lead to the growth of tin whiskers in harsh environments, which can short the metal leads and cause system failures.
COTS/AEC-Q100 products are not tested for extreme space flight conditions, such as thermal cycling or high vibrations and G-forces during launch. Particularly during thermal cycling, Copper wires with high-temperature coefficients tend to be more susceptible to bond neck breaks, as opposed to gold wires.
The organic mold compound of PEMs can also result in moisture absorption and organic compound outgassing, reducing the reliability of products in space.
Finally, if multiple manufacturing and assembly sites are used, variation in the performance of PEMs under extreme conditions can occur, due to slight differences in fabrication processes and resources used.
Upscreening is an important consideration when selecting an IC for use in space. Semiconductor vendors cannot provide guarantees on similarity between individual wafer lots with respect to radiation performance. Ensuring a flexible supply is usually judged to be more important than reducing lot-to-lot variations in radiation hardness.
In most cases, the radiation protection of a COTS part is not verified on an ongoing basis. Instead, the fabrication process is continually monitored and calibrated to account for drifts over time that impact the electrical performance. For automotive and industrial applications such variations and drifts will typically be identified during these tests in the foundry, and can then be rectified.
However, radiation performance would still be likely to vary, particularly for COTS components, where there are no direct tests to assess whether the protection of an individual component is within acceptable limits. Variability would be expected from fab to fab and from lot to lot, and, in some cases, even from wafer to wafer.
Therefore, engineers looking to upscreen components should make certain that parts are procured from the same lot, and with large enough sample sizes across lots to catch all outliers. But this is extremely difficult when procuring COTS components as it is not often possible to access the full details of the product’s origins.
To ensure the highest level of quality it is important to implement a single control baseline, which means there is a well-defined set of materials used and only one wafer fab, and assembly site, involved.
In addition, to meet quality levels for radiation-tolerant Space EP and QMLV-RHA, radiation lot acceptance tests are used, ensuring that any component leaving the manufacturing site meets the desired radiation hardness.
Developed as a solution to many of the risks commonly facing ICs in space, radiation-tolerant Space EP products are a unique line of PEM products developed by TI designed specifically for LEO missions or for missions with shorter lifetime requirements.
Space EP products have plastic packaging, either flip chip-mounted (with no bond wires) or gold (Au) bond wires, and do not use packages with high tin content to reduce the risk of tin whiskering. TI’s Space EP products have a single-controlled baseline flow with one wafer fab, one assembly line, and one material set, and have all the documentation to ensure lot traceability.
Most importantly, Space EP products are radiation tested and radiation assured. Different fabrication processes and alternate die designs are also adopted in order to achieve the required radiation performances as follows;
Such manufacturing considerations and material uses result in more efficient ICs suited to the harsh space environment.
Compared to COTS/AEC-Q100 products, radiation-tolerant Space EP products are more rigorously tested for space conditions, such as extreme launch conditions and thermal cycling.
The products are subjected to standard parametric testing, with guardbands, to ensure effective performance at typical LEO operating temperature ranges (e.g. –55°C to +125°C). Components are also characterized for total ionizing dose, single event effects (SEE) and neutron displacement damage (NDD).
In addition, Space EP ICs are qualified as space-graded by subjecting them to the following additional testing and qualifications – not usually performed on standard COTS or AEC-Q100 automotive products:
Radiation-hardened, 2.2-V to 20-V, 1-A low-noise adjustable output LDO in Space Enhanced Plastic
The Texas Instruments TPS73801-SEP is a low-dropout (LDO) regulator designed to offer a fast transient response. It has a dropout voltage of 300 mV and can supply 1A of output current. The device’s closely-controlled quiescent current is 1 mA, which drops to less than 1 µA in shutdown, and it has been designed to produce very low output noise.
Radiation-hardened, 3.5-V to 32-V, 6-A step-down voltage converter in Space Enhanced Plastic
The Texas Instruments TPS7H4010-SEP is a synchronous step-down DC/DC converter capable of driving a load current of up to 6A from a supply voltage that can range from 3.5 to 32 V. The converter is designed for ease-of-use and to provide a high level of efficiency and output accuracy in a small size. It has a pinout designed for a simple PCB layout that includes optimal thermal and EMI performance.
Radiation hardened supply-voltage supervisor in Space Enhanced Plastic
The Texas Instruments TL7700-SEP is a bipolar integrated circuit designed to be used as a reset controller in microprocessor and microcomputer systems. It features a highly stable circuit function with a 1.8-40 V supply voltage and a SENSE voltage that can be set to any value greater than 0.5 V using 2 external resistors.
To find out more about Texas Instruments’ space portfolio, please view the company’s satsearch supplier hub here.
]]>This article discusses some of the applications of deployables and gives an introduction to deployables manufacturer DCUBED (Deployables Cubed GmbH).
DCUBED is a paying participant in the satsearch membership program and this article was produced in collaboration with the company.
In general, the term deployables refers to foldable structures that are packaged small during launch and are then unfurled to their full dimensions once in space.
In satellites, deployables are typically used for sub-systems that require large volumes in space, such as solar arrays, antennas, radiators, baffles, and de-orbiting devices.
Such deployable systems are gaining increasing attention in the NewSpace industry in order to meet more demanding requirements for high functionality satellites that can be packaged into small volumes for launch, to achieve economic launch prices.
The volume, and sometimes mass, savings made for a system can reduce launch costs, particularly for constellations where economies of scale have an impact. Deployables can also bring new capabilities to a satellite, generating a greater volume and/or variety of data with commercial value.
These deployable structures are usually held-down and released using a release actuator such as a pin puller or release nut. A variety of Hold Down Release Mechanisms (HDRMs) are also in common use to perform basic functions in launch vehicles and other spacecraft. For example, sensitively calibrated optical components may be affixed to survive the vibrations of launch, before being released to operate in orbit.
Any deployable system is challenging to design, manufacture, and test, as there is an inherent requirement to be highly reliable during mechanical operations. In addition, due to the role they often play, a failure in the operation of a deployable sub-system can potentially be critical to the entire mission.
Before we take a closer look at how and where deployables are used in the modern space industry, we will first introduce satsearch member DCUBED (Deployables Cubed GmbH) to give context to their work in this area.
DCUBED (Deployables Cubed GmbH) is a Munich-based NewSpace company that develops miniaturized release actuators and deployables, specifically tailored to the needs of smallsat and nanosat customers.
DCUBED was founded with a vision to accelerate the utilization of space by creating innovative and user-friendly technologies and has developed a portfolio of actuators and deployables suitable for a variety of use cases in space.
The company’s array of technology includes deployable sub-systems for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) missions, but DCUBED is also involved in a variety of Geostationary Orbit (GEO), Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO), lunar, and deep space missions.
The firm has an active research and development (R&D) function and has also invested resources in recent years into manufacturing processes and equipment, aimed at being able to standardize production at high volumes while ensuring reliability.
This is an approach we have seen many companies in the NewSpace sector follow, particularly as large constellations are increasingly driving commercial activity. This can often take the form of turning a bespoke product into a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) system, suitable for mass production, and was discussed in a July 2021 podcast with DCUBED CEO Thomas Sinn.
In terms of DCUBED’s product portfolio, the company’s actuator products include the Nano Pin Puller nD3PP and Nano Release Nut nD3RN which feature adaptable interfaces for use with a range of third-party systems. The deployable series of sub-systems includes the on-board monitoring camera, the D3S3 Space Selfie Stick, and a variety of deployable booms.
DCUBED is also working on a deployable solar array for use in nanosatellite constellations, particularly for communications satellites, electric propulsion, or advanced Earth Observation missions that require greater power for data transmissions. The 100W Solar Array is an origami-based folded solar array system designed to fit into a 1U form factor and to be used as a single unit in order to ensure a controlled folding into the deployment box by reducing the assembly steps.
Developing this suite of products has given DCUBED widespread exposure to many forms of deployable technology innovation and use cases, many of which are summarized in the next section.
In this section we take a look at three key areas of space-based deployables, along with some examples of individual systems and technology demonstrations from DCUBED’s work.
Hold Down Release Mechanisms (HDRMs) are widely used in launch vehicles, satellite deployment systems, satellites (both big and small), and planetary landers and rovers.
They can be used to deploy spacecraft sub-systems or detach satellites from the rocket (e.g. opening the door of a CubeSat / PocketCube deployer) for operation. DCUBED’s Nano Pin Puller nD3PP and Nano Release Nut nD3RN are examples of actuators that can be used for such functions.
In addition, HDRMs are required in order to assist in the deployment of planetary landers or depositing other payloads on surfaces. DCUBED is currently working with a cross-disciplinary team on the deployment mechanism of a lunar rover for example.
HDRMs operating on spacecraft have to be highly reliable as they are usually crucial to mission success. They can also be set up to operate autonomously or only upon receipt of a command signal, and redundancy is usually built in to ensure there are options to operate the components in the absence of the correct trigger.
HDRMs and other forms of deployable components play two key roles during launch and deployment – the first is to affix, and then release, satellite components or sub-systems during launch, and the second is to enable the deployment of satellites from launch vehicles.
As an example of the first use case, DCUBED is working on an asteroid observation mission with the European Space Agency. The spacecraft includes a high power optical system that will observe and collect data on the asteroid.
Optical payload lenses are precision-calibrated but movable parts. During launch, deployment, and transit to the correct location, the payload will need to be secured in order to protect against damage due to vibration.
The system will then need to be released at the correct time, and again will require a deployable actuator that is highly reliable and will operate effectively throughout the mission’s lifetime.
Deployable sub-systems can bring a huge range of new functions and performance enhancements to satellites of almost any size. Below are a number of deployable sub-system examples along with some details from DCUBED’s work:
Solar arrays
With advancements in computing power and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, there is a growing need for higher power input on-board small satellites. Deployable solar arrays are an emerging NewSpace solution that could help address this requirement.
DCUBED is currently working on the PowerSat mission – an In-Orbit Demonstration (IOD) of a high power CubeSat solar array for the use of space power applications, scheduled for launch in Q1 2023.
This mission is part of the NASA Educational Launch of Nanosatellites (ELaNa), in partnership with California Polytechnic State University (CalPoly), and DCUBED will be supplying their deployable solar product PowerCube – a 100W 1U nanosat solar array.
Monitoring devices
Monitoring the health and operational status of a satellite during operation is becoming an increasingly complex yet important task, due to the wider array of systems in use onboard and the greater capabilities a satellite can have while in orbit.
In addition, self-monitoring cameras and other devices can provide an excellent marketing opportunity; capturing visual evidence of a satellite in actual use to share with potential customers.
DCUBED’s Space Selfie Stick D3S3 is an excellent example of such a system, and it was launched on an IOD mission as part of the SpaceX Transporter-3 flight on the 13th of January 2022.
As mentioned above, deployable systems often play such a crucial role in space missions that they require very rigorous testing and qualification before use
In general, the European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) and NASA’s General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS) are used as the standards for space qualification tests to which deployables are expected to adhere.
Deployables are subjected to vibration and shock tests to simulate the conditions that will be experienced during launch. They are also tested to withstand thermal cycles in a baking chamber to ensure they will still hold and/or deploy effectively while experiencing extreme temperature conditions.
Deployables are also tested under microgravity simulations to prove their ability to unfold into the required dimensions in space.
The testing procedures and requirements are very stringent and often may result in a heavier structure than necessary. With increased access to space in the future, the lifetime of the satellite can be expected to be reduced, resulting in possibly relaxing some of these requirements.
DCUBED is not only working on developing cutting-edge deployable technologies but is also contributing to standardizing testing procedures of deployables to try and make them more suitable for the COTS deployable products.
For more on this topic please listen to our October 2021 podcast with DCUBED CEO Thomas Sinn.
To find out more about DCUBED’s expertise and the range of deployable systems and components available, please click here to view the company’s satsearch supplier hub.
]]>Epsilon3, a California-based space software company, creates tools to better communicate and manage operational procedures and recently took part in a live demo that we hosted to explore approaches to improving mission development coordination.
Epsilon3 has developed a platform designed to reduce errors through intelligent error checking and automation, and enable users to increase performance over time with detailed metrics and reports.
In addition, Epsilon3’s software helps to streamline communication and enables teams to create, revise, and track procedures with mission-critical data collaboratively; in one place, and in a standardized manner. You can view footage of the demo in the video below.
Please view this page to find out more about the Epsilon3 OS for Space Operations.
Key features of the system include:
During the demo, Epsilon3 highlights two specific case studies as examples:
Please click here to find out more about Epsilon3, and sign up for the weekly satsearch newsletter to hear about all future events.
]]>This article is an introduction to CMG manufacturer Veoware Space, a paying participant in the satsearch membership program, and was produced in collaboration with the company.
Control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) are actuators used for satellite pointing control purposes, such as refocusing of mirrors, scanning mechanisms, optical path adjustments, and also for a range of mechanical activities in space exploration. They can operate complementary to, or in the same manner as, some functions of reaction wheels, attitude control thrusters, magnetorquers, and other similar sub-systems.
In particular, CMGs are increasingly being seen as a highly suitable actuator technology for Earth Observation (EO) satellites, as such systems have demanding pointing requirements. In larger systems, the type and quality of the imagery data collected can also depend on the agility of the satellite itself.
In addition, across all form factors, enhanced agility allows satellites to access off-nadir angles and collect imagery faster than simply waiting until the next available pass. Agility offers more flexibility on collection planning, allows shooting between clouds, and can shorten the time between imagery request and delivery.
As a result, greater agility is opening up new business models for satellite operators, such as the development of more advanced and efficient EO services or the creation of new remote sensing systems based on established optical payloads.
In this article, we provide an overview of CMG manufacturer Veoware Space and give some examples of past and current work in this area.
Veoware Space has offices in the United Kingdom and in Belgium, with the majority of the technical development conducted at the office in Belgium. The company was founded in 2016 and has since shown significant growth in the Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS) sector.
In 2021 Veoware secured new seed funding and doubled the team headcount. Today Veoware Space’s portfolio focuses on all aspects of attitude control systems and support services; from reviewing new ADCS requirements through simulation and design, to the production and ongoing support of systems in-flight.
In particular, the company specializes in developing miniaturized control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) for small satellite applications, designed as scalable and modular systems that can provide highly agile actuation capabilities.
This core technology was developed under a number of projects with the European Space Agency (ESA) and multiple flights to orbit of the systems are scheduled in 2022. The products are currently undergoing technology environmental testing, performed together with ESA, as part of the final mission development stage.
A CMG typically consists of a spinning flywheel and one or more gimbals that are motorized. The gimbals are used to tilt the angular momentum of the rotor and the change in the angular momentum causes a gyroscopic torque which can rotate the satellite or spacecraft.
CMGs can offer as much as forty times (40x) the torque, for the same input momentum, of traditional reaction wheels, roughly halving the power requirements.
Reaction wheels require a greater level of power in order to change momentum, whereas CMGs are able to accelerate or decelerate both anti-clockwise and clockwise more efficiently. A CMG’s flywheel runs at constant speed while only the gimbal turns, requiring less power in order to produce altered output torque.
However, when using a CMG it is important to mitigate the impact of singularities, which cause an additional level of complexity in the control algorithms that are similar to the zero-crossing avoidance algorithms for reaction wheels.
Singularities are situations in which no output torque is produced by the system due to all individual CMG torque output vectors being perpendicular to the desired torque direction (i.e. becoming coplanar).
There are however multiple techniques to avoid singularities. For example, Veoware Space utilizes an internal CMG gimbal management solution that computes the distance from singularities and optimizes its trajectory to always increase such distance.
CMGs can bring a number of useful capabilities to small satellites. Increased agility is becoming more important for satellite manufacturers and integrators looking to maximize their payload or other sub-system investments.
For example, an Earth Observation satellite equipped with a CMG can start collecting a whole new sort of imagery than just simply staying nadir-pointed during collection. This can include, but is not limited to:
In addition, an EO constellation also equipped with optical inter-satellite communication links will be able to re-orient the satellite either towards ground or in-orbit terminals in order to rapidly downlink high volumes of data. Using CMGs, the spacecraft could save the use of gimbaled laser terminals, hence saving mass and complexity.
CMGs are typically heavier than reaction wheels but can be easily used alongside them, with control switching between each system as needed.
The required mass budget makes them particularly suitable for larger satellites, which also often have greater requirements for precision pointing and attitude control torque.
The Veoware Space MiniCMG for example is suitable for satellites above 250 kg and the Veoware Space MicroCMG is suitable for 50 – 250 kg satellites.
Veoware Space’s CMGs are also designed to be adaptable to different mission requirements by changing the configuration in which they are accommodated on-board. Basically, how many CMGs are accommodated, and at what angles they are fixed, can maximize the agility around some axes compared to others. This enables more efficient access to off-nadir angles in order to increase the chances of collecting the desired target.
Veoware can also calibrate the CMGs with orientations to offer different preferential directions, and the systems feature microvibration mitigation to enable high pointing stability.
In addition, various readymade libraries are provided for the interface software so that torque requirements from the satellite platform can be interpreted by the CMG cluster and the gimbal position adjusted accordingly.
Modularity is a key feature of Veoware’s CMG technology, and also provides an inherent redundancy for the actuator system. The Veoware Space MiniCMG and MicroCMG can be used in clusters in order to meet a wide variety of torque requirements, with the number of CMGs required for a specific mission determined as part of the project design phase.
Module clustering is enabled from 4 to 16 CMGs, with an ideal recommendation of 4 CMGs for basic function. For example, in a 6 CMG cluster, 4 CMGs are used for roll and pitch, and 2 CMGs for yaw manoeuvring of the satellite.
Veoware Space’s CMG clusters can also be used in combination with a cluster of reaction wheels to boost agility and redundancy of the actuator system of the satellite. For example, a cluster of 4 reaction wheels from another company can be integrated alongside a cluster of 2 Veoware CMGs.
The clustering approach provides flexibility in terms of positioning CMGs in the satellite structure. For example, if there are space constraints restricting the ability to place CMGs next to each other, they can be situated in another location anywhere else in the satellite, without the need for a change in the design.
Since the design is fixed and the requirements are met through the modularity of CMGs, the lead time for manufacturing can be significantly reduced.
In addition, the product development process is also simplified as it will include reviewing the requirements and deciding on the number of clusters first, followed by production and delivery of the individual systems.
An effective ADCS requires careful integration into the satellite bus in order for the output torque to position the system as needed. This requires thorough testing before, during, and after integration.
In order to ensure a successful CMG integration, Veoware assesses momentum effects, torque microvibrations and jitter, and bias and noise of the mission requirements as part of the design review process.
The team also provides simulated power, momentum, and torque profiles based on the pointing requirements in order to feed into mission scenario design or satellite service economics. The mathematical model of the design is also provided to the customers for further simulations and testing as required.
Mass, volume, and interface recommendations for different actuators solutions are also offered to help ensure more seamless compatibility and interoperability with other sub-systems.
A more agile satellite has the potential to create new business opportunities in a number of downstream applications. Enabling the satellite to be agile will also have an impact on access to the target area, thereby reducing the required overhead time for coverage.
For a satellite constellation, if all of the satellites have more agility, the operator may not need as many of them to provide the same services, contributing to the sustainable use of space and debris mitigation.
CMGs could be a very suitable choice of actuator technology for the attitude control requirements of a highly agile small satellite, given the low power requirements compared to reaction wheels.
As discussed, systems such as Veoware Space’s miniaturized CMG technology, in modular forms, provides scalable solutions for satellite manufacturers that can open up new opportunities.
To find out more about Veoware Space and view further details on the company’s control moment gyroscope (CMG) portfolio, please see their satsearch supplier hub here.
]]>The space industry has become a highly valuable ecosystem for the world, but activities within it still come with a high level of risks and challenges. And such activities are also increasing, in both scale and frequency, across the world.
This year, the industry as a whole has nearly doubled in size in terms of finances and new technologies, according to some early analysis. In this wide spectrum, satsearch has worked hard to better connect, manage, and enhance supply chain activities on a global scale.
As a global digital marketplace, satsearch has a unique vantage point from which to assess the development of the industry and in this article (created by Omkar Nikam) we discuss some of the most important highlights of the year, as well as the upcoming challenges and opportunities.
In the past decade we’ve seen the emergence of several new governmental space agencies from countries such as Turkey, Australia, and the Philippines, while a number of other developing countries are already also participating and engaging in space research. It is clear that the coming decade will present a number of opportunities in space for new entrants.
As this ecosystem expands, and competition further increases, it will be crucial for nations to exploit existing capabilities and work out how they can best help build the country’s future in space.
For example, countries such as Japan and South Korea are gradually expanding their footprint in space based on their existing capabilities in the high-speed passenger transportation and electronics industries.
Utilizing existing strengths helps accelerate the overall development of a nation’s space sector. As another example, Lithuania is one of the countries that might potentially emerge as one of the top players in optical applications for the space industry.
Lithuania serves the optical and laser technology needs of more than 50 countries today, and it has already provided critical optical solutions to organizations such as NASA and IBM.
In years to come it is likely that we will observe similar moves by countries willing to take a bottom-to-top approach to building and scaling their space capabilities.
The defense sector has long been one of the biggest consumers of space technology and services. From Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs) to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) services, military and security agencies procure downstream satellite applications from almost every area of the industry.
The United States, Russia, the UK, and France have consistently been at the top of the list of countries in which military organizations have leveraged satellite technology for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) applications.
In recent years several terrestrial events have also triggered other nations to put more of a spotlight on the acquisition of space assets for the military, from a national security perspective.
China, South Korea, Germany, and Australia are some of the countries where state agencies are now heavily investing in space. South Korea is also a country whose commercial space ecosystem started receiving strong support from the government in 2021, as the US lifted missile restrictions in May.
On the other hand, in Europe the scenario is unique in terms of harnessing in-house capabilities. Europe’s Governmental Satellite Communications (GOVSATCOM) programme is primarily encouraging European companies to produce and share capabilities to strengthen the European Union’s (EU) space capabilities for military purposes.
The EU is also slowly progressing towards the use of space technology for multi-domain war operations. SES and TEKEVER are two prominent companies tasked to deliver and showcase a part of multi-domain connectivity between the drone and satellites.
Similarly, satsearch member Redwire Space is one of the commercial companies taking an innovative approach in the multi-domain segment, successfully demonstrating support of multi-domain operations in July 2021. To find out more about Redwire’s work, please check out our podcast with the company, on modeling and simulation development for space system design, integration, and testing.
The United States is of course the most prominent global player in terms of military procurement, and has recently facilitated a wide range of military space opportunities for Non-geostationary (NGSO) companies, signaling that military interests in NGSO will be increasing in this decade.
Collaborative and partnership approaches have proven to be one of the most successful ways to achieve common goals in the space industry, and this trend is continuing. As an example, in December 2021 Europe produced two of the biggest consortiums of companies that are aligned towards the common goal of enhancing the NewSpace ecosystem.
The New Symphonie consortium, led by Euroconsult and satsearch member ANYWAVES, has brought together 20 companies under one umbrella to lead NewSpace solutions studies for space-based connectivity.
In addition, the UN:IO consortium, led by Mynaric, Isar Aerospace, and Reflex Aerospace, and featuring satsearch member NanoAvionics, is to initiate work on an independent European satellite communications constellation.
Both consortia were awarded contracts by the European Commission (EC) and the European model of developing strong, multi-faceted partnerships, with both public and private involvement, is also being replicated in several developing and developed nations.
Similarly, India is also a good example of a country focussing on international cooperation in space. India already has a strong foothold in the space industry, but some parts of the private sector are yet to see opportunities to fully contribute to the nation’s space capacity-building. As the Indian private ecosystem is slowly flourishing, with companies such as AgniKul Cosmos, Skyroot Aerospace, and Digantara recording strong funding rounds, the country’s giant telecommunications (telecom) players are taking more of an international route to space.
Bharti, an Indian multinational telecom group, is currently one of the leading investors in UK’s OneWeb, a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite operator with the aim of bringing LEO satellite internet services in India. This PPP will further strengthen international relations as well as help enhance the space ecosystem in both countries. In addition, Nelco, an Indian satellite service provider, and Canada’s Telesat have partnered to bring LEO satellite services to India.
Some of these important 2021 highlights have set a new benchmark for future emerging players looking to leverage international opportunities through collaboration and partnerships.
NewSpace technologies have been a game-changer across many parts of the industry, with privatization policies being one of the key drivers of accelerating innovation.
In 2021 the industry has seen a number of trending product categories, such as:
Considering the innovation landscape, some companies are trying to specialize their products/services in one specific domain. While others are trying to enhance products/services portfolios to serve a broad spectrum of customers.
For example, companies such as CubeSpace, DCUBED, and Oxford Space Systems are working to specialize primarily in one solution area, while Unibap, Xiphos, and KP Labs are serving a range of customers with an existing portfolio. Please note that all these businesses are satsearch member companies.
NewSpace has brought this agility to business models and in this decade we will likely see many more companies specializing in one domain as well as providing a wide range of services across others, all around the world.
As NewSpace businesses’ motives have always been about low-cost and high-quality, the industry is currently experiencing a new wave of service and business concepts. For example, satellite-as-a-service was one of the emerging trends observed in 2021. Even giant firms such as BAE Systems have started keeping a close eye on this model, with their acquisition of UK-based space-as-a-service company, In-Space Missions.
In addition, ReOrbit, a Finnish small satellite manufacturing company, and satsearch member, aims to position itself in the NGSO satellite market as one of the key companies with satellite-as-a-service capabilities. ReOrbit is also aiming to produce reusable, flexible, and low-cost space systems, as well as equipping its satellite platforms with built-in autonomous orbital capabilities and software-defined architecture.
As mass manufacturing demands are growing, with prominent companies such as SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper registering a massive number of satellites planned for launch by 2030, it is certainly safe to say that NewSpace actors will further develop and strengthen the supply chain to serve the increasing demands.
The start-up and SME landscape in the space industry has grown significantly, in both value and scale, in recent years, particularly as non-space actors are also closely watching investment in the space sector.
Therefore, to keep the value chain sustainable and on track to continue healthy growth, start-ups and SMEs must leverage the global space industry network in order to participate, innovate, collaborate, and distribute their products and services.
Several companies have sought to access the global market through existing channels, such as the satsearch digital marketplace, that were not accessible even five years ago.
One of our own key achievements in 2021 was to successfully create multiple new digital channels to provide marketing opportunities and Sales Qualified Leads (SQLs) to both emerging and established space companies, helping SMEs scale up their businesses as well as explore new avenues in the emerging markets. Such approaches have gained significant further traction in the industry for a variety of reasons, one of which is, unfortunately, the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.
From utility management to rocket science research, the pandemic has showcased that digital platforms have much to offer to growing and maturing sectors such as the space industry. In 2021 satsearch generated hundreds of millions of Euros’ worth of business opportunities for suppliers; helping the market to keep moving despite significant restrictions and delays on travel, in-person meetings, conferences, and even some aspects of manufacturing, testing, and launch.
Our marketing activities have also played a vital role in enhancing the global footprint of a number of suppliers. Some of the most prominent SMEs, research institutions, and start-ups, as well as numerous government agencies around the world, have extensively utilized our platform for trade studies, procurement, and market assessments.
We expect the growth and adoption of digital-first solutions to continue in years to come, and this will see the global industry develop closer, more meaningful ties and relationships even as it expands and diversifies.
Our digital platform is becoming a global nexus of the space industry, enabling companies to develop a value-adding presence beyond national borders. As the industry expands further we’re playing an important role in helping industry players to navigate, explore, and create strong partnerships globally.
In addition to better connecting buyers and suppliers, we’ve also helped create more awareness for supply chain management in general, by increasing transparency in operations.
To serve higher volume orders, on shorter timescales, businesses need to develop manufacturing approaches that can scale to meet demand. In addition, many upstream clients increasingly expect a greater level of information and communication during procurement, manufacture, and delivery, to enable more predictability in mission development.
As the global industry matures digitalization will continue to find solutions to these challenges, and many others. But every new development will benefit enormously from ongoing close engagement with engineers as end-users, and this is something satsearch is to continue to focus on in 2022, and beyond.
We look forward to seeing you on the journey!
]]>But with more models on the market than ever before, combined with innovation and supply chain changes in satellite buses, form factors, and sub-systems, making the right choice of EO camera can be difficult.
The video below is a recording of a satsearch webinar entitled a guide to selecting Earth Observation cameras for satellite missions.
In the webinar you can hear first-hand from experts in optical payload manufacturing, testing, integration, and operation.
To stay up to date with future events and all of other work at satsearch, as well as to receive a weekly commentary on trending stories in the space industry, please join our mailing list today.
The presenters in this webinar event were all paying members of the satsearch membership program.
The individual slide decks for the presentations are freely available on each company’s supplier hub linked to below, alongside each speaker’s details:
The following systems are all manufactured by the satsearch members who presented in the webinar and were each referenced in the talks, or are related to the products discussed:
Dimac Red is a global professional sales organization with a focus on providing high-reliability electronic components for the space sector.
In this episode we discuss the procurement of such components and what factors engineers need to weigh up during selection. We cover:
As a professional sales organization in the space sector, Dimac Red provides distribution services for the companies listed below.
Please note; if you have any questions or comments for Dimac Red, please click here to find out more and get in touch.
VORAGO Technologies is a privately held, fabless semiconductor manufacturer founded in 2004 and based in Austin, Texas, USA. VORAGO provides radiation-hardened integrated circuit (IC) components for satellites. Click here to find out more.
O.C.E. Technology (OCE) develops debug software tools for embedded SPARC and ARM system-on-chip (SOC) devices. It also offers a range of high-reliability SPARC LEON SOCs and system-in-package (SIP) memories, OBCs, and custom parts. Click here to find out more.
Argotec is an Italian company focussed on the design, development, integration, qualification, and operation of near-Earth and deep space satellites. The company has offices in Turin, Italy, and Maryland, USA. Click here to find out more.
Isobaud is focused on the optoelectronics and sensor markets. The company designs and manufactures high-performance hybrids and hermetic packages for aerospace, industrial, military and medical applications. Click here to find out more.
Flux manufacturers magnetic components for space applications and has contributed to more than 100 projects. Flux also designs and manufactures custom-made inductors, transformers and power supplies for the electronics industry. Click here to find out more.
STEEL ELECTRONIQUE offers electronics and electromechanical equipment for space missions including onboard computers, mass memories, & DC-DC converters. The company was founded in 1971, and following the liquidation of its parent company, STEEL ELECTRONIQUE became independent in 2001. Click here to find out more.
TELETEL, founded in 1995, is a private Greek software & hardware, design, and development company actively working in the areas of space, defense, and aeronautics. TELETEL’s main competence is the provision of system, software & hardware solutions for Defence and Aerospace systems. Click here to find out more.
Renesas is a Japanese semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Renesas offers a comprehensive portfolio of microcontrollers, analog, and power devices for a range of applications across industries. Click here to find out more.
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com. .
Hello and welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined today by Michele Pergola product manager at Dimac Red. Dimac Red is a global professional sales organization with a focus on providing high reliability, electronic components for the space.
And in today’s episode, we’re going to talk a little bit about how to enhance the procurement of such component across the whole supply chain. Really so Michele great to have you here. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Michele: Thanks for inviting me, Hywel. And, um, no, it’s everything fine you perfect.
Hywel: Let’s get into the topic today. Now the space mission designers, constantly trying to, you know, get the highest cost of performance ratio that they can for components and engineers need to kind of keep the risks low. And we all know how difficult that is in the space applications. They will need to ensure high quality and they look to also purchase it lower costs, particularly for NewSpace missions, where volume is key, and you have smaller teams, potentially a smaller companies.
What do you think of some of the important considerations for engineers who look into balance these aspects, this risk, quality, and cost when they’re selected and the sort of components that Dimac Red provides?
Michele: Well, this question will open up a lot of consideration and insight to be done. Then a self-contained answer is not easy to do, but I’d say that, um, can be resuming in a single word that requirements, every decision, uh, selecting components must be take into account the requirements.
This is the baseline to start every discussion with engineering and evaluate the best balance for risk, quality, and cost. Of course, uh, the requirements, uh, depends on many variables, like the mission profile that includes orbit. Well, the mission will be performance, the lifetime, and the many others as you know, engineering like live is always trade-off.
But since we are speaking about NewSpace mission, so usually the involved with low orbit and short lifetime, the use of COTS or downgraded Rad-hard components is allowed. So I think that for critical subsystem, the use of rad-hard components is almost mandatory but anyway, redundant configuration with the control design that limits catastrophic errors.
Some engineers are not use it to space design think that they can just exchange cards with rad-hard without consequence, but many aspects should be taken into consideration. As you know, space environment is quite different from earth environment and many things can go wrong without possibility to fix your system in-orbit.
What I’d like to advise to the engineers is not considered just the downgrade components available to the market. It is to consider a full list of a downgraded components that are available to the market, right now, these devices are electronic components they designed it for space, but they don’t go to all the space qualification flow that makes them really cheaper because usually they are expensive because all the qualification flow they have to perform.
The, so the mix of a plastic package instead of ceramic and reduce its cleaning flow makes the radiation hard the downgraded components up to 80% cheaper than usual spaced grade part. But from my point of view are more reliable than cost wise, better than upstream without the risk of handling all this.
Hywel: You mentioned there, the qualification flow. And there are, as we know, there are various different ways in which engineers qualify components, depending on the mission, the volume, the et cetera, risk levels, as you put it, the requirements, which is so important, what approaches to sort of qualify and, or screening components, do you think, make sense or, or clickable in different kinds of scenarios, you know, based on your experience.
Michele: In this year, the thing the space industry has so many different scenarios and sometimes scenarios vary during the design phase. So it’s quite common that that designer start from an idea on a, some specs, and then they ended up to face the reality of the market availability, time pricing or quality level mismatch with selected component.
So in general, I’d say that there are two baseline situation, uh, from one side, uh, the institutional program financing and driving by space agencies, like for example, ESA in European union and NASA in US and the fast-growing the other side of the fast growing market of NewSpace driving by private funds where the cost savings is a crucial point more than a for institutional program but institutional program, usually they are more demanding and looking more the harsh environment part of the space, for these reason that often the engineer must use qualified components or components that go to qualification process.
These makes, of course the project more expensive and give to the designer a limited choice of components. These components and related design are for sure more reliable. And most of the time exceed the design life. Um, a study that I saw recently made in 2019 in US call it the satellite lifetime study show that 80% of military and civil in the U S satellite and 75% of commercial satellite exceeded their design life.
Uh, with that, I want to say that maybe this additional space. So it was usually really conservative requirements. If this is bad or wrong, I need to do the consideration. But for sure, something like the ESCC qualified components or in a European union or MIL standard in US is something needed to have guarantee that electronic system will be active in deep space and for a long time.
From the other site, there are NewSpace project that usually are less demanding in terms of requirements because of the short lifetime orbit position, is opened up new possibilities where different approach from the classic qualified components and testing is possible. And that you can say make sense in order to be able to not I’d say shoot the bird without bazooka, because sometimes I think you’re that standardize and have the standardization of the screening and test for COTS and downgraded components is needed in order to give some insurance to the engineer that should choose the parts.
Now today, the trend is to use an automotive-like screening flow and the look into editing each of the components. But a space agency are starting to work to give off each other guidelines in order to guarantee a minimum of each level for these components, use it in space in your space, mission and I think that this could be the way to go.
Hywel: You’ve touched a couple of times on the differences or the relationship between downgraded rad-hard components and upgraded COTS components. Could you maybe give us a couple of examples of where one category is more beneficial than the other, or more attractive than the other?
Michele: Like you said, the chain beyond electronic components on it’s values and why for this reason for space components usually ask it traceability to guarantee reliability.
This is not happening with commercial components, but we do not need to forget that also in your space mission of subject to space environment that is not like hurt. So many other aspects should be considered. And for sure the effect of radiation on the components is crucial. There are additional resistance of the components depends mainly on the technology of the device and partially on the production batch.
It is an intrinsic of the device technology, just a quick resume for those who are not familiar with these, there are two main radiation tests for electronic components, Total ionizing doze tests that depending on technology and component, that informant high-low intensive and unanswered low-dose rate. These radiation test is based on the accumulated energy that the device can tolerate in the junction without significant degradation of its electronics physical performance. The other tests for radiation that should be performance single event effects test. These tests are also destructive and the behavior of the components depends only on the technology.
These tests are not sensitive to the different manufacturing lots. Now we have any way for NewSpace mission. We have any study of about 20 years that you space co-locating the NewSpace at the beginning of 2000. So we have some data on the behavior, of COTS in space, but here comes another problem to the COTS.
The product cycles are short while space project lifecycle is quite long. And need to rely on component that should be manufactured for many years. So also space heritage do not last for long because the production changes on commercial components. So in short, I’d say yes, I think that it works to upstream commercial components if you do not want to use downgraded rad-hard components.
Hywel: Now as more and more of the NewSpace missions, try and at least to go beyond low earth orbit turn, you know, we’ve seen various examples of that. Uh, radiation considerations for devices, uh, uh, becoming more prominent because of obviously the changing nature of the, uh, operational environment that they face.
Will upscreening COTS systems, you know, to higher doses, be a viable option for, probably smaller lifetime missions, like maybe a two week lunar surface mission, for example, or do you think such approach comes with too much risk?
Michele: Uh, yeah. In general, these COTS versus downgraded rad-hard parts is something that, a topic that they face many times speaking with buyers in engineering, from different companies.
Because it’s becoming more and more, a crucial point. And now that space electronic manufacturers trying to enter into your space and that with more and more products. So I define, uh, from a quality point of view, the upstream COTS and approach down to top wide downstream of the rad-hard parts and approach top-to-down.
And many electronic space manufacturer I work with, they have embraced this approach. So packaging, the class I space grade components into plastic package and using an automotive, like flow. These, uh, like I told you before, reduce a lot of the costs and make it more appealing from the cost point of view, compared to the upstream COTS.
A typical example that I can do is the plastic products from a readiness. Uh, that, um, in this case, we are speaking about our management device, like a battery controller, the downside drivers. So to reference, everything related and parts that are used at the critical power supply subsystem of the project.
And these are parts that are designed for space and place it in a plastic package. And without a user test flow, in this case, they also created that intermediate they’re shown like in plastic. But with that QMLV qualification. So that save the cost and some tests and they really the ceramic package, but a more reliable quality.
Another example that I can give you is that for example, microcontrollers, again, they sign up to be Rad-hard at a technology level and are they offer from QMLK qualified part down to every plastic MCU? The main point I’d like to highlight is that these devices are designed for space. These means that the die inside the packages that are labelled from radiation point of view differently from the COTS components.
If you are asking to me, would you choose an upgrade COTS or downgraded device? I stay with second. The reason is quite simple, COTS not to come for free as that cost that you have to play is upfront and you have to take care of many aspects and the risks drop rate, and you have to buy in quantity. The downgraded components have designed for space that is basically the same of the rad-hard full grade the space part and that then the, the flow, the price nowadays is comparable without the risk of performing the upgrade.
Hywel: Finally then, I wonder if you could just give us a little bit of a prediction, uh, for this aspect of the industry for the next few years. Particularly how you see risks, quality, and price evolving, these trade-offs and these balances evolving the judgments and decisions that engineers have to make when it comes to cots components in for NewSpace missions.
Michele: Yeah. I think that the approach that was taken until now for bringing COTS to space was not as reliable last that deep space, but both NASA and ESA started programs to create a flow, to standardise COTS screening, in order to be used, used in their official programs.
These of course will increase I think, a bit to the cost, but we will put the use of COTS under more regulated than reliable part, but this is happening for COTS and for rad-hard plastic components that they want to remind that space agency wants to own institutional programs most of the time.
They are creating specifications like the ESSC 9000 B. From ISA or the class B introduced by NASA. ESA will for sure help in spreading the use of COTS components in space, but with more reliability and these, we have the use of these components in mission that go beyond the low earth orbit.
So, yes, I think that, uh, with the, uh, right standardization and design for space, the cost will be also used for this kind of niche. But, uh, I, uh, like I said, I rely more on downgraded development.
Hywel: Brilliant. So the choice will be there. And again, it’s back to where you began really back to the requirements for the mission.
Michele: I think that, um, the standardization of the COTS for space, when we increase a bit, their price, we will see our meeting point between the upgraded qualified COTS and that downgraded rad-hard part. So they will meet in the middle. Let’s say this is clearly a good deeds for the designer because they increase their choice. That became much wider. And, um, and also the average cost of mission, like even at them. And then we’ll. But at the same time, the reliability will be still good enough. I think that this is, uh, what is going to happen in the short term?
Hywel: Well, that’s fantastic. I think that’s a really good place to wrap up. Um, it’s been really interesting to gain your insights on the use of, you know, cuts versus rad-hard components and all the different qualification testing and engineering considerations that go with such choices. Um, so yeah. Thank you very much for sharing these insights with us today.
Michele: Thank you for having me and to satsearch team.
Hywel: To all our listeners out there. Please remember you can find out more about Dimac Red and the full portfolio of components and products that they supply at satsearch.com. You can also use our free request service to request technical details, documents, company introductions, quotes information on lead time and or export controls or anything else that you might need for trade studies or procurement purposes.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Texas Instruments is a well-known global manufacturer of semiconductors, integrated circuits, and other electronic components.
The company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, in the US, and also has a European HQ in Germany, with a number of other offices and facilities around the world.
In the podcast we discuss:
You can find out more about the Texas Instruments space portfolio here, or you can use this link to access the TI E2E™ design support forums that were mentioned by Michael in the podcast, where you can engage further with the company.
Please note that while we have endeavoured to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to the episode today. I’m joined by Michael Seidl, systems engineer for space applications at Texas instruments.
As you probably know, Texas Instruments is a global manufacturer of semiconductors, integrated circuits and other electronic components. And has headquarters in Dallas, Texas in the US as well as a headquarters in Germany.
The company also has a suite of products for the defense, aerospace, and space sectors. And today we’re going to talk a little bit about how NewSpace engineers in particular can balance risk, quality, and price, those three key elements of any machine during component procurement. So thank you for being with us here today, Michael, is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Michael: Thank you. I think you did a wonderful job. Thank you very much for having us.
Hywel: Let’s get into this topic. Now, this is quite an interesting area and an area of challenge that most teams have to consider.
The NewSpace team is usually looking to get the highest cost of performance for components. Engineers want to keep risks low, you know, have high quality and purchase at costs that are suited for their needs. What do you think are some of the most important considerations for engineers who are looking to balance these three elements, risk, quality and cost, when selecting components for new space missions.
Michael: Contrary to the traditional space market in NewSpace cost is the, the fundamental requirement. Of course. So the total bond must really stay here below a certain threshold to allow for positive business case of the mission overall, fully qualified space parts as they are required for the GEO or deep space missions are simply not affordable in many cases. And in order to meet the cost targets, the manufacturers are then looking to adopt COTS parts and thereby assuming probably more risk for their mission that they really want to. And in response to this, TI has introduced its space enhanced plastic product for you, the space EP.
So space EP products address all the aspects of space requirements and make only very conscious compromises for the new space market to enable really the greater affordability. So, let me highlight a couple of items of the Space EP products. So there’s first of all right, it’s a real space product meant for space. Of course, it comes with a certain level of radiation hardness. So at least for 20 krads TID for every lot acceptance test, there’s a one-time characterization for at least 30 krads TID. And the SEL characterization goes for at least 43 meV. For the material usage as is a real space products portfolio, there, we are not using any copper bond wires.
All products we’ll have gold bond wires inside. There is no heighten implemented. All the lead finish will be done with nickel, palladium gold or any other finish that does not have puritan insight to avoid the 10 risk of problem. And it also uses the enhanced mold compound to assure there’s low outgassing. And there’s also a very low moisture observation.
And for the general robustness, it of course covers the temperature range from minus 55 to plus 125 degrees Celsius. There’s also an extended qualification test for each assembly, lots, including the hast and also temperature cycling. Further we’re using for these products, a controlled baseline with only one way for fab, one assembly site and one material set.
And then in addition to all these also, the surveillance product life cycle, as it’s typically needed in space applications, and for each of the products, we also provide the vendor item drawing the VID on the DLA website. So is there really a true space offer just as the lower cost? And so it’s bridging the gap between the commercial or the COTS devices and the fully space qualified, many times ceramic package device.
Hywel: And so that’s a really clear example there of the sort of weighing up the different factors that engineers are required to do. Now you touched briefly on the qualification there of the material, and there are obviously various different ways in which end engineers can qualify components that which depend on the mission, the acceptable risk level, that the volume of components being used.
What approaches to sort of screening and qualifying components do you think makes sense in the different sorts of scenarios, that you’re dealing with TI customers?
Michael: I think there is the very first, most important question customers really have to answer for themselves. This is how much risk are they willing to accept for their mission and also what actions they want really to take, to mitigate it, especially for the higher volumes. So if you’re talking about hundreds or more of devices, they need, then upscreening Clearly comes to mind. However of screening at the component level is a challenging thing. And for a number of reasons, right?
There’s first, you have to get all the parts from the same lot as there can be a lot of variability in terms of radiation performance, from lot to lot. Within the same lots, then you need to do further acceptance testing as they can be radiation variability within the same lots, still from wafer to wafer and from dye to dye and it can take a long time to find a part that really meets the mission radiation profile and the cycle time for radiation testing can be long. So you might end up testing three to five different part numbers to find one that really works for you.
So it can not only be very expensive to do the upscreening but it can also be very time consuming. And further then designers must really aware that space qualification, it’s not only about radiation hardness tests, right? There are also many other reasons for failures in space. That must be mitigated by the correct packaging and material decisions.
So many COTS devices will really exclude themselves from being a viable option for space as they’re simply not built the right way for it. Let me give you an example. So one of the main reasons that the plastic packages have been slow to be incorporated in space systems is that the packaging material is an organic mold compound and that can absorb moisture and outgas organic compounds.
So the moisture observation can result in a reduced reliability and lifetime of the product while the outgas constituents, they can condense on other components, contaminating them and it impacting their performance. So that’s a major problem for the sensors, especially for the imaging sensors.
And in response to that TI Space EP products, they are plastics, right. But they are using a robust mold compound. And that is really also tested for outgassing susceptibility and meeting the NASA standards. And finally another important criteria here for upscreening, upscreening means that the parts will be monitored for functionality during and after the radiation test.
The semiconductor vendors now can take advantage of their comprehensive test programs that are part of their general product development and manufacturing efforts. So everything is in place there already. And except for rather simple products, the test houses to typically not have that convenience and the ability to perform testing with the full coverage as it would really be.
So for highly complex devices, I would say it becomes fairly impossible to verify that truly no damage has happened to the device during any of the applied robustness tests, without access to the original test methodology of the vendor. I think it’s really one of the most important items that the test coverage really has to be fully met.
Hywel: Well, I wasn’t aware that the radiation protection could differ within lots, you know, between labs kind of make sense, but within less significant investor, that’s a major issue. If the impact of a lack of testing on those lots or the lack of acceptable radiation protection is that outgassing causes the component to affect the other components around, it can have a critical failure quite early on in the mission, you know, so that’s great.
Thank you. I wonder if you could then move on to provide an, a bit of an overview of some different NewSpace scenarios where some of these specific qualification approaches will be more applicable to teams; the alternatives, you know, how do they weigh up, which processes to follow, which are not so effective?
Michael: Overall TI provide seven major classification levels. And let me explain those seven levels to our listeners. The first two are called commercial and automotive, and those two are probably the most cost competitive, and they’re really tailored towards all the high volume applications and a flexible supply and guarantee supplies is a key concern.
And the way this flexible supply is created is that each of these products here do typically have multiple manufacturing site options. And for each of the production steps, even though, even from the wafer production and to assembly, and also the packages can use materials, they shouldn’t for space like using metson or copper bond wires, which are really not recommended for space.
I’d say using these two classification levels for space applications come really with quite some risks. So it’s an a, should only use such products for their space missions if there are certain failure rates of this product is acceptable and any outgassing would not raise any concerns to the components around them and upscreening can only provide some level of risk mitigation.
Of course, what a lot of unknowns remain here. So TI does not recommend to use a commercial or automotive parts for space missions. Then there are three military standards, one called EP which stands for Enhanced Product and uses a plastic packaging and the other called QML Q and QML V which come in ceramic packages, all three targets, the harsh environments and use explicit material sets for increased reliability.
Further all three provide a single controlled baseline, which means only a single for production site and assembly side is used to keep lots of lots variation low however, they do lack any radiation hardness tests. Now should designers use those to upscreen them? And I would say, well, in the absence of any affordable rad-hard component with similar functions upscreening might be a thought here indeed, right?
For, especially for new space applications, at least to get some understanding of the sense of activity of these components towards radiation. However, the remaining concern would be the lot to lot variation and the most likely insufficient verification test capability. In other words, quite some level of uncertainty will remain after upscreening for these parts.
And further, since these military components are more expensive than their commercial or automotive counterparts designers need to analyze. If screening was really pay off versus buying truly space qualified components, then so TI’s recommendation for space is really the two remaining quality levels.
And this is the Space EP and QMLV RHA products, the Space EP quality level targets the LEO constellations, and they provide really a good balance between the robustness, the radiation hardness, and the cost, which is so important for new space and the fully qualified QMLV RHA products are the right choice for any functions that are really mission critical or applications that will be exposed to higher levels or longer durations of cosmic radiation, as it would be the case for the MEO, GEO or deep space missions.
Hywel: You mentioned a couple of times now the assembly process for some of the components, you know, from the idea of this have a single assembly process with, from wafer fab to assembly sites. But when people are purchasing or procurement components deciding between different components, each has a value chain behind it.
And there are many different combinations in which components can be realized within this value chain from wafer fab to the final assembly site of the component, and then into the subsystem, how much of a risk or quality impact can the semiconductor industry in general, you know, have on different batches of components that are produced. At the space engineers, how much should they care about upscreening in this ecosystem?
Michael: Yes, this is exactly the challenge with upstreaming. As semiconductor vendors cannot provide any guarantees on similarity between individual wafer lots with respect to radiation performance. This is the big difference between products created for space applications and those that target other markets, especially for the commercial and automotive market, the supply flexibility is judged most important and much more important than keeping the lots of lot variations in radiation hardness minimal. Actually, it’s not verified at all. And then manufacturing fabs process is, are continually monitored and calibrated to account for drifts over time that impact the electrical performance, right?
That’s what’s really matters in automotive and commercial. All these variations and drifts will be caught during the test and can then be rectified. It will rectify it into the foundry, but radiation performance will also probably vary with that, but for COTS and two, 100 parts, there are no checks to see if the radiation performance is within limits or not.
Therefore you can see quite a bit of variability from fab to fab and also from lots to lots. And I said, in some cases, even from wafer to wafer, so if you’re upscreen you have to make certain that you get all your parts from the same lot. And have a significant sample size across the lots to catch all outliners.
And this is extremely difficult to do when procuring COTS parts choice. You have no idea where they’re coming from and from outside, just like we say, for products, target for space applications, that is very different, right? There is a single control baseline, which means there is a well-defined set of materials used and only one way for fab and assembly site involved.
And for the quality level Space EP and QMLV RHA, there is even an radiation lot acceptance test inserted here. And that really assures that any component leaving the door here is really meeting that the desired radiation hardness.
Hywel: Talking about radiation hardness. I mean, you mentioned the requirements for components that are going to be used beyond low earth orbits beyond Leo missions and these sorts of missions and applications even emerging commercial applications are coming more into view for new space companies. I think they’re more possible and there’s more of a commercial imperative to at least investigate them.
The radiation considerations for devices using those missions are obviously very, very important. In your view, do you think upscreening COTS systems to hide those is going to become more of a viable option for shorter term missions beyond LEO say a two week Lunar surface mission or you know, something in GEO that’s supposed to last for a couple of months. Or do you think this approach makes these missions too risky?
Michael: Let me put it this way. The way I see us as the higher the level or the longer the duration of spacecraft is exposed to radiation, the higher, the risk to experience a failure, of course, and therefore customers ask for the higher radiation test levels for such missions.
So the monetary risk in upscreening for any higher radiation hardness levels increases. And in several ways, first chances are higher that the COTS parts will simply not pass the upscreening and the money and time for the test would be just the lost or one would have to purchase and test components from several lots to finally identify a lot that passes, which of course means much higher cost and higher investment.
And then second if the upscreening was successful, it’s still the coverage of the test program must be taken into consideration only because it passes test houses, verification test. It does not mean that the device does still meet all aspects and parameters as the semiconductor vendor would warrant in its datasheet.
And since the launch for higher orbit is always more expensive. A failure of a component does typically also have a higher impact versus a LEO application. So for higher orbits or deep space missions, TI only recommends full QMLV RHA parts. And the, since volumes are typically low, it is hard to see how upscreening would ever make much sense in such GEO or deep space missions.
Hywel: Balancing those factors of risk, volume and price. And the volume is a key factor. Thank you finally, just to put your predicted hat on, I wouldn’t, if I could ask you how you see this question of risk, quality, and price, this balance of those three things evolving in COTS components in the next, you know, three to five years for new space missions in the industry.
Michael: Yeah, I would say with the arrival of the intermediate quality levels, such as TI’s radiation tolerance, Space EP portfolio, there is less motivation to go with upscreened, COTS product. And I see there’s definitely also a learning curve for both sides. So the design teams will learn about the impact of failing COTS devices in space and get clarity about where they can use and were not. And likewise, semiconductor vendors continue to learn about the exact needs and we’ll be able to further optimize the trade off between required quality level and component costs for their customers. And the introduction of the Space EP is a very important step on this still young journey.
And as the segment keeps growing, we can also expect vendors to optimize the cost per unit as volumes go up the natural semiconductor business. Along those lines, we can then rather expect a decline in the motivation for upscreening of COTS devices as we go through. TI has clearly understood the need for more cost effective radiation hardened products, and brought out its Space EP portfolio accordingly. Designers can expect many more products to be released in near future in this quality level, as well as in the full space QMLV RHA is very convinced that space qualification is done best by the original semiconductor manufacturers. Only the semiconductor vendor has the necessary insights and the ability to control all factors, such as the technology note and design methodology, the used material sets or the manufacturing flow from wafer fab to packaging.
And by applying it’s complete verification methods and test programs. Quality assurance can cover all nuances of potential use case. And last not least it’s simply makes so much more sense to have the vendor run the tests once and support all interested customers with these results instead of having each customer to finance and run his own qualification tests.
Hywel: Yeah. It makes a logical sense. And as we say, the, the balancing that cost is not just about the cost of the component, as you’ve explained, it’s about the cost of testing and the cost of integration and the cost ultimately of, of a failure of a potential failure. So I think that’s a great place to wrap up, Michael.
Thank you. And thanks very much for sharing your insights with, really interesting discussion on testing component choice and covered quite a lot of the behind the scenes information from the manufacturers or vendors perspective as well, which I think is, uh, is really interesting. So thank you.
Michael: Overall so I hope I’ve been able to trigger some further interest in the TI portfolio. So if you’re interested or if you want to learn more about space grade components and technologies, please take a visit to TI.com/space. Or please do also reach out to us. Maybe by the ETE forum, we’re more than happy to hear about what you’re working on and see how we can support you best with our product.
Hywel: Brilliant. Thank you. And to all our listeners out there, please remember you can also find out more about Texas instruments, portfolio of space components at the links in the show notes and on the platform at satsearch.com. And you can use our free request service to request technical details, documents, company, introductions, quotes, information on lead time and export controls or anything else that you might require for trade studies for procurement purposes.
And finally, if you’ve enjoyed this episode, then please consider giving us a rating and subscribing wherever you get your podcasts today.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Sfera Technologies is a Bulgarian NewSpace company that develops technologies to integrate satellite data systems. In the podcast we discuss:
HomePort is an integrated ground segment service designed to accelerate satellite data delivery, from downlink to market distribution. HomePort couples a virtual ground station network with a privacy-oriented storage and processing architecture, streamlining the process to receive, ingest, process and deliver satellite data.
Satellite operators can use the HomePort platform to create a virtual ground segment for their mission by renting station capacity on a real-time marketplace. HomePort then automatically routes the satellite data from the stations straight to the cloud for processing.
Click here to find out more about the system on the satsearch.com platform.
Please note that while we have tried to produce a transcript that matches the audio as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to the episode, I’m joined today by Zdravko Dimitrov CEO of Sfera Technologies.
Sfera is a Bulgarian NewSpace company that develops technologies to integrate satellite data systems. Today, we’re going to talk a little bit about innovation and the use of blockchain technologies for satellite ground station services and related systems. So Zdravko, thank you very much for being here with us today.
Zdravko: It is good to be here, thank you.
Hywel: Fantastic. So let’s get into this topic. I mean, blockchain technology grabs all sorts of headlines at the moment, all over the world, and we’ve seen some emerging applications of it in space. So I wondered if you could start by just giving us a brief overview of blockchain technology in the space sector, and maybe focusing particularly on how it’s relevant to, um, satellite ground station services.
Zdravko: I think what we can, we can begin with is just to give a brief overview of what blockchain is and what exactly it does when it comes to solving problems. The essence of the technology is to actually decentralize the system. In order to avoid specific points of failure, a single point of failure, you have the main benefit of using blockchain is that you can actually enable trust.
This is pretty critical because at the end of the day, when you want to procure some kind of service or product, you need to have some degree of trust for that. Blockchain technology and some specific features of the technology, such as smart contracts and oracles, can have pretty interesting uses in providing services in space industry and specifically in ground station services.
And so, if we have to look into this from the provision of a service’s perspective, one of the main benefits is that you can actually automate the provision of services and turn everything into essentially a digital protocol that replaces paperwork, which is pretty important, especially when it comes to aggregating capacity from different ground stations.
When providing a ground station service, because you have an entirely new tool that is a lot more agile to actually provide your service and provide guarantees for your service, then it would be, if you don’t just sign a basic paper-based contract.
Hywel: The technologies that you’re talking about. I mean, you’ve mentioned there that blockchain is often operationalized through smart contracts and, uh, in the, in the ground station segment, such smart contracts must be used to get over some of the critical bottlenecks that ground station services have, in order for them to be, you know, more widely used and adopted. I wonder if you could describe some of those sorts of bottlenecks or problems that, um, smart contracts can potentially solve.
Zdravko: For example, one of the things, if, let’s say you have to provide ground station capacity to, let’s say space companies by segment operator or conversely, if you’re actually space segment operator and you’re looking for, uh, different providers of ground station capacity.
At the end of the day, you will need a specific brokerage service that can basically provide the guarantees and put them in place so that you know, that these third-party stations that you’re using can be trusted, or you have to go to this on your own and still end up having specific agreement. Of course, there are specific pros and cons for each of these processes, uh, on your own it is of course not particularly efficient.
If you run through a brokerage service, of course, you basically gain a dependence to an extent on the broker. Whereas if you actually use a smart contract, you can get into a relationship directly with the provider of the ground station capacity and the smart contract ensures that the guarantees that say the payouts, what penalties of a service is not carried out are actually in shrinking code.
And this code can be supplied with real-world data to assess whether a specific payment can be carried out, whether the service has been finalized, uh, whether it is being some kind of failure along the way. And all of this means that to a large extent, you will not need legacy approaches to actually approach third party providers of the service, but your guarantees are actually in shrink in the codes and this entire process can be automated and made a lot simpler and a lot faster.
Uh, and when you actually have this on a ledger, uh, you have provable evidence that specific transaction occurred, uh, that specific interactions actually took place, which is a major advancement over how things would be done through some kind of intermediary service.
Hywel: Brilliant. So efficiency in terms of compliance efficiency, in terms of compliant with auditing requirements. That’s really interesting. So what in particular then is, um, Sfera’s vision for addressing some of the challenges that you’ve described?
Zdravko: The one major thing that we have in terms of vision is for very, let’s say broad centralization of ground segments, because this is a trend in general, in the entire space industry.
And it’s also a bit paradoxical because we have an industry that’s actually going quite fast. You have an increasing number of interactions between actors from different jurisdictions, from different regions, different regulatory frameworks. They need to obtain trust between each other. I think at the end of the day, when you have so many different environments from each, each of these actors come, this is going to create a problem for the scalability of infrastructures, because at the end of the day, you will need a lot of brokers who do services, where you’re going to need somebody who’s operating a single network across jurisdictions, or you can actually trust a decentralized system in which the guarantees are basically provided by the code is being redefined to use.
And this will allow for a much more organic growth of ground segment capacity. So let’s say if you have somebody setting up a ground station in Australia as an individual company, or with somebody in India or Brazil or anywhere else, uh, by going through a decentralized blockchain based infrastructure, they have a uniform environment in which guarantees can be provided.
And this is going to allow for much more, like already mentioned organic growth of capacity across the globe. That can be accessed in a way that is, that is reliable. And our vision is to basically work in that direction, provide an infrastructure and toolkits to make this possible. Make it possible to, to decentralize the provision of ground segment services, which of course does not mean that other types of ground segment services are somehow rendered obsolete.
It just creates another vector in which the ground station service can be procured, even for those who already are and can be procured to off-road, even for those who already operate specific types of services.
Hywel: We hear a lot about the regulatory burden on ground station managers in terms of the licenses required. And then to add onto that the commercial arrangements that they need to make with their suppliers and their upstream clients. Yeah. And when you’re talking about crossing borders, like you say, different jurisdictions, this is a difficult problem. And one that the aptly named smart contracts would seem to be particularly suited to.
However, such a change in the operations for ground station managers and ground station network providers; how it would be adopted? How would it ever come about, especially at scale? Is that going to require changes, significant changes, in hardware and software that’s currently used?
Zdravko: Not particularly in terms of hardware, unless let’s say station operators or some kind of intermediary links, let’s say process the data after you receive any to operate some kind of validation hardware.
Very particular type of notes that ties up with a specific blockchain. Uh, the reason no particular need to actually go for other types of hardware or have some, some special kind of software, of course there is going to be in each manage identities to actually tie up the specific identity of the provider or the consumer of the service to, to the blockchain in some way.
Um, manage key pairs and everything else that basically allows you to an extent to ensure that the other party is who they say they are. And so that’s one of the things and of course, um, in terms of, uh, validating the events that have occurred for the smart contract, it would be necessary to operate with Oracles because the smart contract itself, this is something that’s isolated on the blockchain.
So it doesn’t really operate with external data or things that don’t happen on the blockchain. So if you actually want you to interpret anything, That occurred between two stakeholders and a transaction. You will need to have an external input. It’s introduced to the smart contract that sort of oracles come in, which are basically software protocols that translate real world events to the smart contract so that a decision can be made in automated.
That’s an example I can give you. Let’s say there was a contact window for ground station, it’s supposed to receive data from a given satellite, but for some reason, the data that is being anticipated to have been received has not occurred, is not being received and the event has not occurred. So if you need to figure out what has happened and actually automate this process, as opposed to making calls investigated and so on, you can actually use, or it goes to identify what it was up.
I’d say a force majeure event, what some kind of elements of the system did not function, according to specification, was this can be configured in any possible way to ensure that security and privacy concern, but this entire system can actually be automated. And it’s possible that some software configurations may be needed for things like this, but overall, all of this can pretty much run on available hardware and no specific, uh, very specific knowledge would be necessary to actually make this upgrade.
Hywel: And then I guess in terms of, um, the, the introduction of, of such services as well, the, the adoption, what steps do you foresee would be required to help convince operators to switch from some of the legacy solutions that you’ve discussed to an arrangement that’s based on smart contracts and are there incentives that could apply at certain times that would nudge them to accelerate adoption?
Zdravko: That’s actually a very good question that touches upon several technological aspects of blockchain. So of course, when you operate with public blockchain, let’s say if you want to do something, you inevitably have the volatility. Essentially of the payment methods, because you know, when you have, when you have to pay with, uh, with basically a tokenized asset, um, that asset doesn’t have a fixed price.
So it’s pretty volatile. And that means that if you have to carry out payments over all the blockchain, then you have to rely on, let’s say a, uh, an additional implementation. So hold a stable point, uh, which is something that’s going to make it possible to avoid this fluctuation in price. Basically solved the volatility problem.
So one of the very specific things about this technology is that it allows for a very direct peer-to-peer communication and exchange of value. So a great incentive for somebody who operates, let’s say a ground station here would be that they would directly monetize their capability. Uh, and this would actually happen quite fast.
Some because whenever you transfer value over a blockchain, that’s a, that’s a process that occurs within minutes and it’s completely traceable and verifiable. And the system itself is made in a way that you wouldn’t need to rely on a third party to actually verify that this process is correct. So in essence, there is a lot more control in the consumer of the service and the provider.
They have a lot more freedom to manage their service however they want to directly generate revenue from that they provide a ground station service to directly generate revenue from it. Or if the ones who consume such services to actually maximize the value that they’re investing into the service. So this is, this is actually a pretty good, pretty good incentive.
Uh, but of course there are plenty of hurdles that still remain because blockchain itself is not a very recognized technology yet. It’s still making its, let’s say initial steps in real world use cases. Because up until now, it used to solve mostly, you know, virtual use cases and you know, it’s not particularly tangible.
Now there are, there’s actually some very interesting use cases, including such that we’ve identified in spare. Blockchain and tokenization can actually provide a major advancement and benefit in how the services are provided in terms of speed, in terms of traceability, in terms of user control, in terms of actually modifying the service would in terms of providing agility. So plenty of benefits that technology can give. And it’s a question of actually implementing those benefits and users understanding these benefits so that they can be incentivize to switch over to watching those solutions.
Hywel: Finally, I guess, you know, we’ve talked about some of the specific applications and areas for the future. I wondered if you could just touch a little bit more, maybe a bit more broadly on, uh, how you see smart contracts and blockchain technologies being used in the space industry, reaching a sort of level of penetration in the next up to five years?
Zdravko: We’re actually quite optimistic on this. Uh, there is a growing need to replace specific legacy solutions with something that’s more efficient, especially as the industry grows, because like we already mentioned, there is a paradox between the growth of the industry and the needs for increasing trust mechanisms.
So the smart contracts and in general, in blockchain technology in general is a pretty good solution to this. So some specific use cases would be like, we were already building, like in terms of ground station services provision. Another interesting use case would be access to data. So for example, if you have specific Earth Observation data that is being processed and ready to be used. It’s possible to use blockchain to track who actually has access to specific datasets and see who has used specific data or who has access to specific dataset. There are plenty of other non-data-related use cases which can come up, which is supply chain management.
So let’s say you have to track the components for a launch or something else. I’m blockchain is a pretty good layer to provide verifiable tracking of the entire supply chain access to specific resources to something else. That would be great use case, for example, a computation resources or access to a satellite service or some kind of, let’s say operational time on a satellite, but it’s also something that’s very useful. Credentials management, identity management, or specifically sensitive environments, where there are needs to be up at say a role-based access architecture, and you need to see who’s actually using what resources.
This is a great use case of blockchain. In general, there is a great amount of processes that can actually be at the very least deployed on a blockchain or in a more optimal way tokenized. So they can be part of multiple systems that talk to each other. So we’re pretty optimistic in the usage of blockchain for, for this purpose.
Um, of course there is also other use cases like space traffic management, but overall there are many many potential ways in which this technology can actually be deployed successfully.
Hywel: Fantastic. Well, thank you very much, Zdravko. I think that’s a really good place to wrap up. It’s been really great to hear all the different insights and, uh, application areas, et cetera, where blockchain could have an impact.
And I think our listeners will have found the discussion really useful, particularly with where we are in the wider context of the web3 movement. And, um, a lot of the stuff you hear from outside the industry. So it was great to get the space industry and a viewpoint and all of this. And that was a really useful too.
Zdravko: Great. Thank you.
And to all of our listeners out there to their, the whole Space Industry community, and you can find out more about Sfera technologies in the show notes and on satsearch.com. Our platform has, you know, a variety of information, content and features built to help you conduct trade studies and make procurement requests for systems like this.
And whether you’re looking for technical documents, quotes, information, and lead time on logistics or whatever else you might need for such studies. I really hope you enjoy the episode. And please remember to rate and subscribe us wherever you get your podcasts.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments.
To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>However, this is placing increasing demands on a satellite operator’s data management, storage, and processing systems.
The process of downlinking satellite data to the ground also faces bottlenecks; from the fundamental limits of satellite passes and ground station coverage, to issues of interoperability between ground segment systems and end-user applications.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities and other advanced on-orbit data processing technologies are offering solutions to these problems for smallsat missions and services.
The video below is a recording of a satsearch webinar entitled a guide to advanced data processing and AI for satellite missions.
In the webinar you can hear first-hand from experts on the production of useful information and valuable data products using advanced processing and AI.
To stay up to date with future events and all of other work at satsearch, as well as to receive a weekly commentary on trending stories in the space industry, please join our mailing list today.
The presenters in this webinar event were all paying members of the satsearch membership program.
The individual slide decks for the presentations are freely available on each company’s supplier hub linked to below, alongside each speaker’s details (in order of appearance):
The following systems are all manufactured by the satsearch members who presented in the webinar and were each referenced in the talks, or are related to the products discussed:
Please note that while we have tried to produce a transcript that matches the audio of the event as closely as possible, there may be slight differences in the text below. If you would like anything in this transcript clarified, or have any other questions or comments, please contact us today.
Hywel, satsearch: Hi, and welcome to everybody. We’re just going to leave it just a minute or two to give people a chance to stop snoozing their calendar notifications and join the webinar. It’s great that we could have so many people here today. Always tricky to pick the right time zone for these events when we’ve got the companies and participants across the world, but I’m, hopefully this’ll work for a lot of people, okay. I think we can make a start. Quite a few people that joined there. Thanks. Thank you to everybody. Who’s who’s taken the time to spend time with us today. My name is Helen Curtis and I am head of market research and we’re hosting today’s webinar on a guide to advanced data processing and AI for satellite missions.
The aim of this webinar series is to really delve into the technical topics that are currently gaining a lot of interest and attention in the industry and speak to the expert in those topics, the people with real firsthand knowledge of of the missions, of the technologies and find out what these innovations are really about and what engineers and companies, student teams and anybody else in the industry is interested, what they need to think about making decisions for the missions of tomorrow.
We are going to hear from four different experts four different companies, five people, but four different companies. And all of these companies are satsearch members. And we, during the webinar, we will also have the chat function running during which you can chat to a chat to each other or a chat to us if you like.
But for specific question, We’re not going to run a a, an audio Q&A at the end of the session, we found that sometimes these can take a little bit long and people can’t quite get the answers that they need, or people, sometimes people can’t stay right until the very end, et cetera. So we’ll be running the text-based Q&A throughout the session using the zoom function.
So you can find this at the bottom of your screen, you can open the Q&A panel, and then you’re able to address questions generally to all of the participants or all of the presenters today, or to individuals. And they will do their best to answer those throughout. Obviously not while they’re talking, unless there are some real geniuses here, but they will do the best to answer those before the end of the session, we’ll have a little bit of extra time at the end, too.
So I think without further ado, we can start, we can get it to the first the first presentation here today. So firstly, today we’re going to hear from Helena Milevych and MichaÅ‚ Gumiela from KP Labs. Helen, if you’d like to share your screen, we will we’ll get going on the event, the nephew, and again, the audience have any questions please let us know in the Q&A or the chat.
Helena, KP Labs: Okay. It’s first that I can ask her a screenshot while. Yes. Perfect.
Okay. I hope you see it. First of all, thank you very much for for inviting us for organizing this webinar. I think the topic is really interesting. And so we all have something to to bring to the discussion. So as it was already mentioned, the company name is KP labs. And today along with MichaÅ‚ Gumiela who is our system engineer we’ll show you some examples how the onboard data processing and AI could be used in space.
So just to give it short introduction about us, why we are here, why we have some expertise in this area. So we are from Poland. The company was established in 2016 and right now we are almost 60 people. And if you look at how competent this is our products and projects, we could split them into four areas of interest, which is imagery, software computing, and AI here is the most crucial, most important part.
So it goes quick summary, just to give you some some understanding of what we are doing within this five years, we’ve completed five sorry eight projects right now, ongoing. We have 12 more projects. We are about to start four big projects with the next one to two months and the the overall budget for this projects for over 10 million Euros.
So why we’re taking about onward data processing and AI in general, why it is so important for space? First of all, if you look at different predictions and different researchers one of the example that I found is created by Euroconsult that within 2020-2029 almost 12,000 satellites will be launched, but over 1000 satellites will use onward data processing, which is over a 100 satellites a year, which is a huge difference comparing what we have right now.
And according to a different different research predictions for 2030, we will successfully mine the moon or whatever by China certainly, or we’ll operate assets from the moon. We’ll manufacture in the space directly, or AI will be common, faceless face. If you think about areas of interest, area of space, where it could be used.
So it could be a earth observation with increasing the efficiency of satellite images that we use today, according to different numbers are we are using around 15% of all satellite imagery data, which means that thanks to the cloud detection or to some big disaster mitigation or some other techniques, we can increase this number.
And now other area could be risk management that will be beneficial for us as people on the earth. There’s also deep space. with this time delay in the communication and we have to have autonomy and semi-autonomy in, in this area. And this is this is must, there’s also space debris missions.
And there are more and more companies, more and more agencies there that are interested in in space debris, this is something where we could also use onboard data processing and an AI and last but not least is human flights, not only flights, but also human inhabitants that are about to happen on Mars or any other planets.
So this is this is the areas that are quite important for us, our product, as a company, what we are doing, we have smart mission ecosystem. Which he is hardware, software and algorithms combined together where everything works with everything. So we have like Oryx, which is modular onboard software, we have Antellope, onboard computer.
We have Leopard which is data processing unit to process and pre-process data onboard satellite. There is also a lion, which is bigger brother of Leopard dedicated to bigger satellites. And of course there is the Herd which are bunch of different algorisms for Earth Observation, but also for telemetry data analysis to check whether everything is working correctly with the satellite.
And of course there is, Oasis, which is PGC. And the idea that we want to check beforehand, if everything works correctly, with the satellite or the idea of these these products and our projects in parallel is that on one hand, we want to increase machine processing capabilities and mission safety and control on one hand.
But on the other hand, we also want to give the mission development time and mission cost because it is super important in case for speaking about constellations or mega constellations. So this is why we see a huge potential for onboard data processing and AI, here where I pass the word to Michał Gumiela who will speak about more technical issues.
Michal, KP Labs: Yep. Thank you, Helena. Thank you all for joining us. So my part of the presentation will be a little bit different. I think that you’re already convinced about values behind in-orbit processing. So I would like to touch them challenges and discuss with you how to tackle them. So at first, from growing interest and to clear benefits coming from the edge data processing when you think about on orbit processing, probably enter with that problem of constraints, resources in multiple areas just to name a few of them.
So you can think about computational resources, especially for AI that’s could be limited for many pays grade platforms. Avail power and to heat rejection capabilities for your satellite platform might be another constraint. Of course, additional mass and volume for additional data processors might be not available in your mission, in your budgets.
So at KP Labs, we designed integrated solutions to cover most of the payload needs by a single device. So you can perform data acquisition from your instrument. You can have large volumes storage, data pre processing capabilities will this enter what is especially important to us AI processing acceleration that’s in a single device.
That’s, what’s normally be essential part of the satellite essential payload computer. So we propose adding said to value to, to, to your normal payload computer. And so we propose here very flexible architecture, consisting of a radiation hardness supervisor to increase robustness of the mission up to choosing ultras caves, MPS, consisting of RMCP and if PJ to cover multiple applications and multiple algorithms and use cases up to one terabyte of PSL, see flash memory reliable on non flash memory and plenty of from, with Earl error correcting codes. And of course, a bunch of external interfaces to keep the solution compatible with different instruments, radio OBCs.
So that Leopards the processing humans I’m talking about Can be all you need for payloads managements with data processing capabilities. And this is exactly what I would like to present. You taking a hyperspectral satellite mission intuition one as the assembler use case does, apart from the platform, satellite pass consists mainly of just free components.
So we’ve got hyperspectral instruments in terms of the electronics, this is just an image sensor and the central part is Leopard GPU. And the third component is very important in onboard data processing the processing algorithms, both classical and the deep learning based. So all those three components cooperate with one another, allowing us to create an onboard data processing pipeline.
So we start with rope frames from the sensor that are transferred to the Leopards, the GPU as an enormous stream of data, like six gigabits per seconds. I ip core in the FPGA part of the Leopard is used to receive and stored the data. Then we may use various pre-processing algorithms perform coregistration of the data radiometric processing, and so on, to obtain hyperspectral cube.
After that cloud mask is created to filter out, use those data to avoid further processing. Also at this tab, we can store the data for further downlink or compress it or so long. And then a clear parts of the imagery of the data are processed in the most important step devalue extraction. So of course we don’t want to downloading the whole hyperspectral picture.
It’s really essential when we are talking about hyperspectral pictures. It may be also very essential for synthetic aperture radar data and other multi dimensional or quite big data. So we want to make use of our segmentation and classification algorithms to select only the data that is really interesting for us.
Basically we can transform hyperspectral sin with multiple bands. Just to one to the image consisting, for instance of pixels classified to the classes that we want to find on the picture. Taking this in numbers, that means that we can squeeze our typical 50 by 50 kilometers scene from 1,500 megabytes to just four megabytes of data.
Of course we need to first train the algorithm. So this is quite important and quite big challenge for in orbit data processing. We need to train the data for practical usecase. Of course we can use the neural network architecture multiple times and the architectures can be reused for multiple problems.
So of course the typical use cases cover agriculture, including the disease detection surface to type classification and even soil parameters mapping that we are working currently on and fine tuning our algorithms to to demonstrate within the practice. But as I said before, when we are thinking about on orbit data processing, we always keep in mind the resources.
So the questions may are is efficient AI influence on the embedded systems suitable for space application. It is possible. So we prove in our research recent. Paper that, that’s true. So benchmarking deep learning for onboard space applications tackles various image processing problems to cover multiple use cases free state of the arts, our deep learning models for air surface segmentation for objects detection are namely in that case, across Trotter detections on the moon surface and the last one for Mars surface classification we’ve proven that performance of over two Terra operation per second is achievable just on the single processing note of the Leopard. And you can have to for our most computing intensive model, we got 20 frames per second of the AI influence and testing different power profiles of the interference.
We show that you can. Lower power dissipation or you can just higher peak performance depending on the budgets of your missions, technical budgets that you have. And what is really nice about this we did all the work on the Leopard GPU, the view of Albert’s model. So the model design for algorithms, prototyping and testing on the grounds compatible with the flight model of the Leopard.
As I said, we are treating the testing on the ground very seriously before you will deploy the algorithm in space. So this is also our solution for that challenge, how to test the things on the ground. But going back again to our challenges all that algorithms that I’ve just shown you normally cannot work without great data.
Data on the proper level of processing. So when you apply the algorithms on the data available on grounds, typical use for instance, level two data or so, but to have the same onboard is essential to perform all the steps on orbits. So you would require radio metric corrections, atmospherically, correction geo-reference and so on, but the cases even the more complex when the preprocessing requires that the data that they’re hardly available on board, like state of the atmosphere to pure pepper from the corrections. So once again here, we decided to use deep learning techniques to solve the issue. Our approach was to train our AI models with different atmospheric conditions to automatically compensate for the effects.
And actually we succeeded in that experiment. We share with you our results in the paper. I really encourage you to read and to apply in your mission, that approach. In this brief presentation I think that’s I showed you that even there are a lot of challenges we believe that’s more missions could benefit from the on orbit processing.
We’ll be able to tackle and we’ll be able to tackle those challenges together. So thank you for the attention.
Hywel, satsearch: Great. Thank you very much. Helena and Michal, that was a, that was really interesting. Thank you. I just wanted to remind everybody that if you have any questions on that presentation or for the rest of the panelists in general, please feel free to use the Q&A function in the bottom of the zoom panel.
And then next we have Zoltan from Lombiq technologies. So it’s, I’ll tell you if you’re ready to share your screen, please.
Zoltán, Lombiq Technologies: Yep. Hi Everyone. So I am Zoltan Lehoczky from Lombok technologies. And I am glad the time here is because while we are not really a space industry player, yet we just entered or just have ambitions to get into the space industry.
If I’m not too far reaching, but I think we can provide a unique perspective from a software development stand standpoint. We are a software development company working on modern high level applications and are Hastlayer tool, can probably provide something useful for onboard data processing in such a way to because day-to-day, they’re actually doing web development, mostly with open source Microsoft technologies. There’s there’s an open source web content management system called orchard. There we are world wide market leaders and we work with companies like Microsoft itself live nation or the Smithsonian institution but we have a couple of R and D projects and one of them is Hastlayer. But before actually talking about, say it’s L let’s talk a bit about what we see is relevant here on on onboard processing in the new space sector. Well. There are FPGAs of course FPGA is, are proven when it comes to their power efficiency and performance advantages and they are widely available particularly I would focus here on the Zynq family of devices as you I’m sure most people here are aware that a lot of new space companies, KP labs included of course have some kind of onboard computer of payloads computer that’s are built around Zynqs, which couple ARM CPU with an FPGA, however FPGA development today and that’s also through, for also through for for ground based processing still the clients requires a specialist knowledge, I would say. There are pre-baked accelerated libraries. There are high-level tools, but still, if you want FPGA acceleration, you need to actually understand and be able to use FPGAs also when it comes to space specifically there are many SDKs every satellites or OBC manufacturer pretty much has their own SDKs.
What’s more to it is that SDKs are usually secrets hidden. You have to purchase the device and, or the SDK to be able to look at it atleast. Now compare this to how app development works otherwise, they are on the desktop in the web for a smartphone. You have all kinds of SDK. Mostly open source readily available. You get all kinds of resources, development tools for free. This is not really of what’s currently in the space sector. But probably we can provide some kind of solution if its the dot-net platform and with our Hastlayer tool and dot nets, if you are not that familiar with it is a software development platform, which is cross-platform around everywhere, including things it’s open source both the SDK and their runtime, because it’s it has runtime because it’s a managed environment. There’s a garbage collection and all kinds of things that make executing your application safe. The most thing that you can do is crash your app but that’s also quite hard and it’s easy to recover, but you can’t crash the operating system. And since it’s a modern platform the development is easy you can just do app development as usual and you get all the modern tooling, you got more than IDs debuggin automatic check, slack, static code analyzers, automatic testing, and everything, that’s in app development currently. And the Hastlayer you can also get automatic hardware acceleration with FPGA so you needn’t needn’t drop the performance requirements because of our Hastlayer is so a that takes a computer program and turns into a piece of FPGA logic.
So not just any computer program of course dotnet but dot net is a platform. It’s not a programming language, actually, a lot of programming languages are supported C sharp is the most popular one, but also C++ for example, or functional languages like F sharp or even scripting languages like Python or PHP, Java Script now I’m imagining writing your, your, you’re a synthetic aperture radar data processing code in PHP. Of course. I wouldn’t to do that though you might have got the gist of it that we are talking about in technical terms. FPGA high-level syntaxes. That is very much focused on software developers and for software developers, you don’t need to understand the FPGA is you just write the code pretty much as usual, but you still get FPG acceleration.
All. What we intend to do, or what we already have actually is that if your algorithm is highly paralyzed and compute bounds, you get to performance increase. You also get to higher power efficiency there, the benefits of FPGAs, but it’s still software development as usual with dotnet with all the modern tools.
I would add that this is not meant for mission critical systems, especially since it’s a managed environments. It’s it’s not determined the runtime, the execution time is not deterministic well of the software part. The FPGA implementation is of course. So a lot of thought, now let us actually switch over to a handson demo and what I’m showing you now is a bit of code.
I hope nobody is afraid of that. And what we see here is an example of an algorithm that would be suitable for FPGA acceleration with Hastlayer. as you all will see, it’s called now spoiler alert. It’s a massively paralyzed, it’s an embarrassingly paralyzed algorithm. It’s an exaggerated example.
It doesn’t do anything to useful. It’s just it’s just as a synthetic example it has some logic here which pretty much simulates that are computing stuff. And it does this in tasks by tasks. Dot net tasks, you can think of them a bit like threads. The point here is that we open or start this many tasks, 280 tasks, and there’s 280 tasks. We’ll run as 280 threads on a CPU, but not at the same time bacause the dot net framework will make sure that there’s no starvation of resources, but still you’ve got those two, four, or how many cores now only FPGA though. You look at a hard level hardware level, parallelism of 280.
Cause if you generate 280 copies of the inside of your algorithm, and this is all standard dot net so I opened visual studio, which is a standard development environment for dot net developers. This is standard C-sharp there are pieces of the Hastlayer API, but the language is the same. Everything happens from codes, you can debug it as codes is just dot net as usual. Except that you can automatically turn this into a piece of hardware with Hastlayer and let’s actually see how that works because I also have an at development boards prepared here. And this is at trends, electoral trends and actual development board here in the middle. They have as Zynq development boards built their boards, that’s built around the Zynq 730 and night opens a remote childhood because it transparently knocks off course. And I will run our demo. What’s happened now is that first that parallel algorithm that I showed you is executed as software as we go. See how the whole thing performs as simple software. Now, this thing has to do our core ARM CPU clock, their own 650 megahertz that’s once we get on the CPU side and on the FPGA, we have the 77 seventies FPGA cloaked at around 150 megahertz.
The whole thing happened. Let’s check all the results now. As we see the software execution was around 25 mil, 25 seconds is there, we do a lot of stuff that’s alright, now let’s check out the hardware execution time, which is down here and altogether it was around, 310, 300 around 313 milliseconds.
The hardware execution is about a hundred times faster than the software execution, which is not a big surprise because we pretty much caught at 280 core process or just for our application. Now, of course FPGA have limits. This is a simple algorithm. It will have, it will be able to have that many copies, but even for more complex ones, you can get a parallelism in the order of dozens, which is still a lot more than what you get with the two cores on the ARM.
By the way, if you are interested, what’s behind the scenes Hastlayer generates VHDL so this is a piece of the VHDL that has your rights. You can you can check off Hastlayer. It’s up on GitHub. I will share the link to it. You can also check out the VHDL code that generates you can inspect how it works, but it’s well, it’s a it’s commented code. And as you can see, it’s also formatted is still generated codes. It’s not that easy to inspect, but you should be able to get the gist of it if you are interested
alright now. That’s probably cool, but is there anything else? Well yeah,, oh, we actually support the Vitis environment of Xilinx. What this means is that Hastlayer supports every year, Xilinx FPGA with Vitis support with Vitis SDK support which includes not just all the Zynq boards, but also the Allwell cards, for example, the high performance, accelerator cards found in data centers.
So that means that if you are using Hastlayer you can write code for onboard processing in the high level, safe, convenient, environmental dotnet that will around on board of a satellite or a drone or a robots. And you can run the same thing on on the high-performance accelerator card on in the, in ground segment as well in the cloud or on premise the same code.
But of course when running in the clouds, you will have a much bigger, FPGA probably 50 times bigger. And those FPGA is that they support are available in every major cloud. It’s to give you a bit of an idea of the results. Apart from that single sample I showed you, and these are again, a simple algorithms that we have again, up on GitHub.
The benchmarks are, was up on GitHub and their details. LVL cards in ground segments. We get something between four times and 34 times speed increase, and then looking at the power efficiency increase that’s between 20 and 120, which parallel efficiency increases. Nice, of course, but various methods most is that this this corresponds to cost savings. On Zynqs we have actually nicer results. The speed increases between twenty four and 120 a times. The power efficient increases 20 something and 150 times, depending on the algorithms. We want to have more use cases and in-orbit demonstration as well. There’s the next step that we are planning.
If you have use cases, please let us know. I would be glad to talk about it, uh,we are also in a partnership with the Wigner research center for physics allows us to test some scientific computations and FPGAs is, are nowadays in every major data centers. It’s a diverse amount of technology to invest into zoom.
Pretty much that was it for me. If you are interested, please check out the SDK on git hub the source I’ve shown you and all the other examples and the results and everything is up there. And the be ready the, because I think this feels see a lot more about FPGAs both in ground segments and both for onboard processing too.
Thank you very much.
Hywel, satsearch : Great. Thank you very much Zoltan. And that that was a really interesting, it’s great to have a demo of the technology as well. There’s not many pieces of space hardware that we can have a live demo of with, on a webinar. So that was great. Thank you. Okay, so next we we’ll be hearing from a Mathias Persson from Unibap AB, and then just mentioned again, guys, if you have any questions for any of the panelists, please feel free to put them in the Q&A.
Mathias, Unibap AB: Thank you. Alright, thank you very much. And I’d like to also acknowledge my colleague here, Soren Pederson. I think also we’ll be around here during the Q&A session maybe supporting and any questions that you might have and I’m representing Unibap, and Unibap is bringing a cloud technology on orbit to the satellite and extending the possibility of the executing containerized applications on orbit on your satellite. We are a dedicated I would say pay to data processing technology. We don’t replace any onboard computers, et cetera, but could give input to control of things, but it’s purely to bring in sensor data do cloud-based computing using containerized applications, using Docker containers and we are proceed calls and handle the data on orbit as well as queuing up and download data for, to the ground segment. So what we allow them would be to have data preparation and meta tagging on orbit using AI and machine learning. And we can also create a full spectrum of very low latency data products.
The solution itself is next 86 days, heterogeneous architecture. So it’s a lot of heritage. Actually can be deployed on orbit to support your missions. And this is a kind of a schematic to show the different aspects of cloud-based computing in in space where we for instance, may have a satellite using a space cloud you’d find something of interest in the image or in the data stream captured by sensors on board could be optical sensors could be RF based sensors or whatever.
And then that data either could just be prepared and filtered out anything of not relevance. And then you queue up the data to be downloaded or meeting all the data that would be, let’s say, fully cloud coverage MTC or whatever that would be of no relevance or you could actually get very, let’s say low latency data product already manufactured or produced on the satellite using a processing pipeline. And that information could be forwarded using inter-satellite communication, for instance or just queued up as high prioritized, download to the next satellite pass and the readily available for the end user.
Another scenario we also heard earlier about the introducing autonomous operation and autonomous mission or parts of the mission, I would say one way would be to autonomous task, the next satellite in line, for instance, of something in the event of interest to provide tipping and queuing capability where satellites could continuously detect and monitor something on interest without the need of doing processing on ground beforehand, and then reschedule satellites after a certain amount of hours to take care of that in next passes, etc. And this would be of course, very much more important. If you talk about lunar mission or mission on mars or wherever it’s going to be a very low latency in the communication between an operator and satellite, eh, the other aspect of this would be the increasing amount of spatial and spectral resolution on sensors. For instance, I mean it’s a huge amount of data that they can produce with high-frequency and in order to download all that raw data and do the processing on ground, eh, if you have a larger constellation of satellites, it suddenly become a very cumbersome task. Of course, the ground station providers will be very happy about that because it would be requiring a lot of communication.
But on the other hand, we think, a lot of things could be handled on satellite with a smart way of distributing your, or segment your compute tasks. You could actually find yourself in a situation where you have a much lower cost for your mission and or you have data products that are much lower latency to your end users.
And so what we provide there to enable this would be the space flight on computers and the associated ground equipment for development and an operating system and framework SDK for the developers. And then we have a number of different application partners and the growing ecosystem of different applications were already pre let’s say, pre tested pre-configured applications could be used in the processing pipeline on orbit to provide different compute tasks and talk more about that.
The software stack is essentially a Linux distribution that is based on ubuntu. It’s a frozen one where we have some tweaks to the kernel and some specifics to the drivers that we that enabled this to work seamlessly on our implied hardware. On top of that, we have this space cloud framework that allows you to have these cloud computing capabilities to execute code and applications in containers on the satellite, and then a number of different applications or diverse of different applications from here.
We really think this is a key enabler for future developers to actually come from a traditional software development on ground for terrestrial applications, could be image processing programs or other types of applications that you would like to force to the space platform, and that could fairly straightforward, easily be done here using this framework.
This is an example where we are right now flying on the orbit Dauntless David ION wild ride mission. And just as an example, we, within four months from start from actually, when we designed it, where we’re in agreement of what to do, a delivery of hardware satellite and performing integration of the up to 23 different applications that, that has been running on, on, on the satellite.
We have been showing and demonstrating that it’s really possible to to have a very rapid deployment of software quite with our software on board satellite. And just to showcase the small form factor of a half a U size, a computer is called X I X five, 100 in this case.
And we are also in development of next generation of the onboard processing unit, having more than 20 times more capability up to 50 times, more capable than the existing one. So that is in process. So this is an software where we have actually ported the full full software suite of ENVI. And the ENVI /IDL has been put into the space cloud as a application meaning that the full software suite is there and one could write a small application of five to 10 megabytes of size, load and orchestrate that to perform on orbit processing of images captured by, by the sensor. And and this having a, quite, quite a long heritage of as a software on for terrestrial computing this is a example of what we did and it’s a hundred square kilometers satellite multi-spectral image from worldview three, this was canned data.
We did not have the sensor on board on this mission, obviously not the sensor capable of 30 centimeters of resolution, but the, they say image the task was to find the insight mid flight airplane in this image and a rounding algorithm to define, find that need in the haystack, as it was called the challenge to get with SaraniaSat one of our partners.
They developed the algorithm for detecting airplanes with our flights and this is what can be achieved within 10 seconds. Yeah, on XI five, 100, just to give you an example of what can be achieved on orbit. And I think with that, I would stop my presentation here now and maybe have a few discussion points later on and I’m happy to answer any questions.
Hywel, satsearch : Great. Thank you for your time. Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you. There were a couple of questions asked in the chat function for you. So maybe you could have a quick look or Soren. So yeah, really interested. And then finally we have Edwin from Xiphos. So Edwin, if you’re ready, you could.
Edwin, Xiphos : Yes mean, that’s good. So my name’s Edward Faier I’m the President and Director of business development for Xiphos. I’ll first give a little background on on a Xiphos and products. This is going to bring it the level in terms of the level of granularity right down to be the actual processing boards and some of the low level functions that you can do. Cause that’s what Xiphos does.
We’ve been doing this since 1996. I call us the grandfather’s of Newspace. The idea was to use terrestrial computing products and that’s where communication and bring them up into harsh environments. Of course, it’s difficult to get a much harsher than space.
So effectively what we do is we use industrial grade products components in a fault-tolerant architecture and we use them, our architecture allows you to use these in a space environment. Obviously a much smaller fraction of the cost of a space based solution. So our products are basically processor boards and FPGAs have been given a lot of press pressing this last hour and I will do the same. So our products are based on multiprocessors system on a chip FPGAs, and there are generic computing modules that would be used in a subsystem target applications, our target markets, obviously satellites and increasingly unmanned vehicles, in science experiments on the moon.
So I’ll just briefly go over just a few of the key products and then just to provide context to the rest of the slide in terms of data processing. But one of our products is the Q seven. So it is based on a Zynq a 7020 FPGA. So this is similar to what was mentioned by Zolten and this is a dual core arm processor.
We have some other supervisory functions on board, et cetera, to make this a space product it’s got everything, you need to have a processor, but we also leverage FPGA’s effectively. This is a very small board about a business card sized board weighing about 24 grams. And then effectively what we do is we take most of the IO from sink FPGA, and we bring it out to a what’s called a mezzanine connector on the bottom side of the board.
So they could be used with an application specific daughter board that is typically customized to the app. Another product that we have, this is based on the E theUltraScale+, which was also mentioned in this webinar. So it’d be theUltraScale+ the reason why it’s so interesting is that it’s got effectively seven processors on board.
It’s got four application processors to real-time processors and a GPU, and it has about five times the FPGA logic as the Q seven. So this is probably for very, higher compute requirements. This is an excellent product and it’s seen its way into earth observation systems, SAR systems software defined radio systems and so on. A close variant of the QA is the QA8J this is similar to the QA, except we brought out additional gigabit per second interfaces. Mostly for software defined radio applications. A typical project or a subsystem would include that the processor, which on the left and that would be installed on a daughterboard, which would have the specific IO, the specific connectors form factor functionality that would be required for mission.
Every mission is different at some missions might require mass memory on board, like a solid state drive or so on and different interfaces, different connector types for all applications. The daughter boards are typically custom, but leverage is the IO and the FPGA space and the CPU that are built process reports.
So to do a little tee time, everyone talked about what FPGA is and so on. And so why, what makes them so interesting and useful for advanced data processing. So on the left, you have the Zynq 7020 on the right, you have the UltraScale plus effectively what’s important here is the fact that you have the embedded processor core.
Two in the case of, like I said, the same and up to seven for real, for application processors in theUltraScale+ where do you typically run your operating system, like Linux and so on? As well as all the, you know, standard peripherals that you were required to build a CPU or not, you’re a FPGA.
And then the important part of course, is the programmable logic with built-in memory and with all the logic gates in that flip flops and so on that are part of the subsystem. And of course these subsystems also have embedded hardcores for communications, for gigabit, either net interfaces, USB candidates on, so that functionality can also be brought out into the subsystem.
It’s been touched on, but just to repeat it so why why do you need the advanced data processing?
Today we need an increasingly complex algorithms, sorry. increasingly complex algorithms on them on smaller platforms requiring low power, low space, and a with constraint power. Of course.
Today we have very high resolution sensors. We have software I’m fighting PowerPoint, excuse me, a high resolution sensors and so on. So the ability to pick that data and feed it to a processor you have to do some pre-processing and that’s where the FPGA comes in. So not only do you have to interface to FPGA, it’s a bit to the sensors, but you have to be able to pre process the data so it can be handled by the CPU itself and modern sensors today generate gigabits per second of data. So it’s impossible for process just to keep up. So you need that that logic and other application and software defined radios where you’re not talking about data processing per se, but you are actually processing very high speed, digitized RF, gigabits per second.
So you need that FPGA front end to do the preprocessing. Some examples of where this is used Like I said, interfacing with the sensors, typically earth observation, for example, type application. It looks like my my presentation as it might of tone those various various interfaces to the cameras.
These would include a CameraLink, SpaceWire, LVDS, Gbps transceivers. Then you need real-time process and it has to be performed in the logic of the of the FPGA before the data is processed, is provided to the CPU. So this allows us to use a standard non real time Linux OS combined with the real time front end, that’s happening the, a FPGA in order to in order to do this real-time application.
So some examples of pre-processing that we have done or data processing we have done.
So first I’ve at the very front end, you have to correct the imager. So at that’ll be include some gain and offset adjustment, maybe some lens distortion and correction of the image itself. Cause from the camera y’all might have bad pixels and you don’t want those bad pixels because you’re going to be doing processing on a day to day when you don’t want those bad pixels to infiltrate your data and and reduce the quality with data.
So you have to correct for those. Binning as a very common function where you’re effectively reducing the datasets by factors of four or eight reducing eight pixels into one to it reduces the resolution, but allows you to process in real time Coadding as function where you will you’ll add multiple functions, multiple images together to reduce the signal to noise.
Same with CDI Centroiding, we’ve done. For example, you have an image that you’re looking at looking for the central point of the image. We’ve done applications where we’ve been able to centroid at 30,000 frames per second, using the logic, feature detection, a very important thing for for rovers and so on.
And of course compression and for software defined radios we have the, all of the the building, the DSP building blocks that are required to interface to be the RF transceivers at the front end of the DDCs and decks. So I just want to talk a little bit about hybridization, so hybridization it leverages the tight coupling of processors and logic in the, in, in an FPGA in an MP sock of FPGA.
So it allows you so logic itself, excels in computing things in high volumes, like it was described result and where you have a lot of similar calculations all going on at the same time, CPU’s of course are good at other things. So when hybridization allows you to take a cue card and exploit those on an FPGA, so we’ve developed a methodology where we take conventional C code, we’re able to profile that C code and see where the processor is actually spending a lot of its time and then identifying those pieces that, that that are amenable to be poor to to, to an FPGA.
And then we will implement that in VHDL then that VHDL code is Th the software’s updated to access the VHDL code as opposed to be the software library or the software function. And then you ended up with an accelerated application. So as an example so the top part of the chart shows what CPUs are good for.
They do one, one, they do one app, one operation at a time. So for example, if you have three operations after the fourth cycle, you’ll have your open, whereas in a seep in, and the FPGA you can load that pipeline with data, every single clock cycle. So instead of having one result after the pipeline is filled, instead of having one result, every four o’clock cycles, you’ll offer result there for each every clock cycle.
So that’s just an example of pipelining and how it can be improved in an FPGA. If that works well, then what works even better is if you then expand that. And then so now you’re able to process multiple data streams at the same time. And that is the advantage of hybridization. So what we’ve done is we’ve taken various algorithms that for example, the space agency, our agency and Canada had particular interest in a variety of particular algorithms.
And what we did is we hybridized those algorithms and we compared it to their operation on the typical development environment, which is, you develop your algorithms on a PC running on an i7 PC and you test that your algorithm, but then the problem is okay, how do you get that running on a space processor?
That’s running two Watts as opposed to my a hundred Watts Intel I7 . So we’ve hybridized these as examples of these various algorithms and you can see their performance. If you look at the first column that shows the performance versus a, an i7 running at 3.46 gigahertz run running multiple hundreds of Watts versus running on a two Watts.
Which is obviously very applicable for either satellite or a row for applications. So you can see that in general. It depends on the application. It depends on the, sorry on the algorithm itself. Some are more amenable to the advantages of hybridization others, but you can see that in general performance can even meet the real-time performance can either be met with a two watt processor or we, in some cases, even multiple multiples.
And of course the big the big saving was, is on power. So if you looked at the third column that would show you the power savings. And I went running on a two Watt processor versus the i7 and effectively it makes the difference between a mission being here to to happen or not to give another example, this is a product that we have a system we have developed called EVO.
So it uses a hybridization of various algorithms. So it performs what’s called a visual Odometry so you’re on the moon. There’s obviously no GPS. You have to be able to know where you’re going and keep track of where you’re going. So that’s what embedded vision, that’s what visual Odometry is. So it acts as a sensor that gets connected to the rest of the GNC of the of the Rover to do to do local to tell the Rover where it is. So what on the right side. So it’s basically a stereo camera, which is connected to a Q7 board called a, a camera board, and we ran it through its paces, the cane it’s basically, as you ratchet with spaces and what in that graph. You see a chart of that ground truth, which is basically a GPS measurement of localization through a specific route.
And what green is the results from Evo. So what you have here, like something typically again, would run on a laptop. That’s sitting on top of the Rover. In the case of a terrestrial application now is able to run it in real time. This was actually operating at 11 Hertz able to operate in real time to be able to help localization.
We also did some other interesting things with this, with Evo. So that little video on the bottom is actually our hazard detection and avoidance algorithms that are running. So because we’re using stereo, we’re able to localize if there’s a hazard and it’s put into the GNC to actually stop the rover.
Before it does itself some harm. It was tested with various types of obstacles and we’ve also done runs an algorithm as well to do disparity map mapping and 3d point cloud. So you can actually get a 3d point cloud. For example, when the Rover’s at rest, you can get a 3d point cloud to be able to plan the science.
The whole idea for Evo is to get better localization and to support more autonomy because the more autonomy a Rover has the more science the scientists can do. So as you can see the average error was about 1%. And again, this is on that because this was using the Q7 and the performance would even be better the Q8 and we did testing with a Rover At six kilometers an hour, even though we actually tested up to to 10 and 15 kilometers an hour. Now there’s not going to be too many rovers, taking a joy ride on the moon. Six kilometers an hour is certainly much more than needed.
Just to touch on all the other elements. There’s been a lot of talk about AI and we’re not an AI company. But what we want to do is enable our customers to use AI in their platform. So we’ve poured it Vitis AI, which was mentioned as well to the QA. So if I say I support, various frameworks like TensorFlow and caffe and so on, and it provides the the the unified software platform provides the various elements that are required to develop AI application and get it running on the, for example, theUltraScale+ what’s interesting about the, about Vitis.
It uses something called a DPU, which is a deep learning processing unit fact that we, these deep user instantiated into the logic and they act as a, as an artificial intelligence co-processor to the application processors in theUltraScale+. So we, the compiled data, maybe this DPU has shared access to the DRAM on the board, along with the host CPU and then together. So this coprocessor will run the compiled code that is generated by the Vitis toolset within the, again, it acts as an AI coprocessor. Just as a, as an example, because again, we’re not the, you don’t, we don’t develop our own AI applications, but we have a company one of our partner companies out in Ottawa, but a couple of hours away from us and they’re developing some very interesting algorithms using AI.
And this is running a year on the Q7 and Q8. So he was just setting that example so effectively what they’re doing is they’re doing terrain classification. So in real time, the ability to use generally could be the navigation cameras, could be a hyperspectral camera, whatever type of cameras, onboard the Rover to identify and classify. So what on that?
For example, if you look on the bottom, the picture on the left is the image from the cameras. But what on the right is a real time overlay. We had used AI to identify the terrain. And so for example, whether it’s regolith, whether it’s a crater or the interior of a crater, exterior, and it’s color coded for the ease for the operator and the Intent here, just Evo is to accelerate the science.
Another thing that is that it performs is something called Novelty detection. You expect regular. If you expect a crater, you expect the bolder, but you may not I expect, a small meteor if that’s in the frame, so the novelty detector will provide that information to the scientists.
And so again to, quickly more quickly decide on the science that they want to do. Anyway. So they use various various networks, various algorithms for this, which are indicated here. So th they’re going to be running this this is actually going to be flying on a mission shortly the Emirates lunar mission on their Rover on a Q7.
So again, on that two Watt processor and as well, they’re doing work with our Q8 processor in Iceland right now in their own indoor own moonscape in their office building, which is always fun. And Now for them Vitis AI wasn’t enough because they wanted it to be a little more hardware and platform and cyst and processor agnostic.
So they’ve developed their own tool chain for this to make it a little more general, a generic it’s based on this, but based on this NNE F format I’m not certainly not an expert at this, but, please if you’re interested in any information, either about help with getting AI algorithms implemented on a space platform, a low power space platform, please reach out to mission control.
I have Michele’s contacts at the bottom of the screen either for if you need support with the AI algorithms or to access their tool chain. So just in conclusion besides realizing that I lost the battle against PowerPoint in conclusion, so hybrid processing. The hybrid processing that’s KPIs that you can do in a and an FPGA and multiprocessor system, FPGA can be leveraged to perform that fast data processing.
So in case of Q7, Zynq 7020,in the case of the Q8 that’s the UltraScale+ generally the real time processing is performed in the logic before the data is provided to the CPU. So that allows you to use standard non real time operating systems that eases development costs the easiest development and your builtin costs.
You can use tools like hybridization to to actually get very complex algorithms running in real time on the processor. And again, inference can be done very quickly and cheaply. I don’t know, FPGA so to get AI applications running. So whether it be through Vitis AI, custom tool chains from third parties, That’s it.
Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity. I apologize for my battle with PowerPoints, but thank you for your time, everybody.
Hywel, satsearch : Great. Thank you very much, Edwin. That was that was really interesting to see the results there and lots of those examples. Really appreciate that. Yeah.
Thank you to you and to all of our presenters. That was our final talk today. I’m just going to share my screen. Yeah, that was our last presentation today. But as I’ve mentioned, throughout the Q&A text function is active, it’s been running throughout. Bef if you have any final questions or any general questions you’d answered please feel free to ask our presenters today.
And just to give some time for people to ask questions based on, Edwin’s presentation there and for the rest of the presentations I’m just going to discuss a little bit, summarize some of the key points from the session today, and then talk a little bit about our work at satsearch and some things we have come in.
So firstly, today we heard from Helena and Michal from KP labs and they discussed that the reasons why we could have so many satellites per year with onboard AI that uses the requirements for that. The talk about the applications of the technology, deep space missions, earth observation, human space flight, et cetera.
The challenges that that the systems. Based, constrained resources, a certain amount of volume, power, et cetera, that’s required. And the process in pipeline, an example of the process and pipeline. So I was really interested to see how the stages that the systems must go through in order to access provide useful, valuable data. So that was really interested in, it was good to see a KP labs is a portfolio there as well. Next we heard from Zoltan of Lombiq technologies who had discussed the challenge of onboard data processing from a software development perspective. He talked about the benefits of FPGA and the contrast really between a space software development and web app development and also gave us a really good live demo of a Hastlayer, demonstrating the value of this form of hardware acceleration and what the system can achieve.
That was great as well as touching on a bunch of of other technical aspects there. And then we heard from Mathais Persson from Unibap who discuss them, the company space, clouds ecosystem, the cloud-based computing and data processing in space, including applications like meta tagging and autonomous tasking and intelligent ground tasking as well.
Yeah, it was really interesting to learn more about the space cloud ecosystem and the software stack or the different parts work together. And he also showed us some really interesting examples of data. The geo located in the aircraft mid-flight was a really interesting, I know that was managed on CAN data, but as it has been discussed is a case of radiation, hardened and testing and getting these things fly in.
And we’ll have applications that can be accessed on much shorter timescale than using CAN data. So that was brilliant. Finally, we Edwin from Xiphos,, one of the self-proclaimed grandfathers in new space who discussed with us some of the the technical specifications of the companies processing hardware, the use of FPGAs for effective preprocessing and in other parts of parts of the data processing chain, the FPGAs as you will have realized, came up many times through, throughout the talk today.
So I’m really interested to learn more about the technology. Edwin also discussed how logic is leveraged in order to process high-speed data and algorithm, hybridized, algorithm hybridization where computation is shared between CPU and pro programmable logic and what benefits this brings as well to applications.
And then he gave us some examples of those applications as well. Particularly with the use of data using AI processes particularly the rover navigation and research that can be carried out on rovers. That was fantastic. So yeah, I hope you enjoy hearing about all of these different applications in areas that you remember you will get versions of the different presentations, the slide decks available for you, and we’ll also provide the video recording of the session. So please look out for that in a follow-up email. And just before you, just, before you go, I want to share with you details of our next webinar. Some of the applications today touched on earth observation, in fact, quite a few of them in the applications discussed.
But of course the earth observation core technology in that whole set of application. Oh, the cameras. So the topic of our next webinar, which is on the 15th of December is going to be a guide to selecting earth observation cameras for satellite missions. As I say, 15 of the December, 2021 at three o’clock central European time.
And with all the different options on the market today and the complexities of using different subsystems, aperture sizes, satellite form factors, it could be quite a tricky task, possibly an increasingly tricky task to select the right payload for mission. So again, we’ll be hearing from experts while they’re all listed their Berlin space technologies, Dragonfly aerospace, Redwire Satlantis, SatRevolution, Simera Sense.
If you if you’d like to join us for that webinar as well in December, you can register at the link that’s should be provided there in zoom. Yep. Fantastic. And. Yeah, we would love to see you all again. And of course, in the meantime the satsearch webinar series is just one aspect of our work, trying to open up and develop the space industry as much as we can.
So here’s a few other quick notes on how the satsearch works and how you can get involved in the marketplace for space. Firstly, if you are a space industry supplier yourself, or you represent one and you’d be interested in listing your own products and services, please do take a look at the membership information and the process, the application process there to discuss how we might be able to help you access the global industry.
Secondly, and possibly more likely for the audience here is if you are an engineer, researcher or potential buyer in the space industry, then you can find out more about the technologies that we’ll discuss today. And about thousands of other products, services companies from all around the world, on our platform, satsearch.com.
The platform includes a free request system that you can use to request technical details, documentation, company, introductions, quotes, or information on lead time or anything else that you might need for trade studies and procurement purposes. And finally, just to stay up to date with our work that the content we put out in the market in that we carry out.
There are multiple different ways to get in touch with us, like any company online today, but just to focus on three quickly, we have a podcast called the space industry where you can hear in-depth discussions on space technologies and firsthand experiences from companies across the world. And actually several of today’s presenters have spoken on that podcast over, over the last 12 months, since we’ve launched it.
So that would be great. If you could, you can find that on at the link in the chat or on any good streaming platform. Of course. Then there’s our weekly newsletter. We share the trending stories from around the space industry and insights from our members and our work too. So that’s just a free email sign up there and finally, as well as social media, there is our slack channel where, which is open and you can register for that and interact with the satsearch community and discuss anything about the space industry that you’d like. We’re a, quite a friendly bunch there. Yeah, we would love to see you there as well. If you’d like all these links are in the chat and I think that’s thanks again for spending time with us today.
]]>Epsilon3 is a California, USA, based space software developer that creates tools to better communicate and manage operational procedures.
The team includes engineering and design professionals from Northrop, Google, and SpaceX, with experience that includes first-hand operational management of sending American astronauts to the ISS.
In the podcast we discuss how improved team communication and project lifecycle management can result in better engineering outcomes and help avoid mission failure. We cover:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to today’s episode. Today I’m joined by Laura Crabtree from Epsilon3. Epsilon3 develops operational tools, for space missions, and they’ve begun with web-based procedures.
The company supports project life cycles all the way from integration, right through to operations. And today we’re going to discuss a little bit about saving space missions from failure, using software-based procedures and communications systems. So Laura, welcome to the space industry podcast today. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Laura: No, that was a pretty fantastic introduction. Thanks, Hywel.
Hywel: Okay. No problem. You’ve had pretty extensive experience working with teams within companies like SpaceX, running operations for space missions. In your view, based on that experience, what sort of gaps do you think exists today in production or testing, you know, between engineers who design and develop a procedure and then the operators who will need to routinely use them?
Laura: Yeah, it’s a really a detailed question. I think there are a lot of different pieces that can be looked at. The first thing I would probably look at is what tools are people using. And, you know, I’ve spent a lot of time in the industry and I’ve talked to a lot of people, the tools that people use are tools that I use very early on in my career.
So, you know, you can ask anybody, you know, how do you collect data? How do you look at different datasets from different tests? And most people will say, you know, I have CSV files or I have Excel spreadsheets, or, you know, I take the data and I then create a report from it. So I think it would stem from that is kind of the start.
But then, the second part of your question, which was between the engineers who are designing and developing either a system or a part, and then the people who are operating or testing the system, um, there is a handoff, so I’ve seen a couple of different models as to how that’s worked, but very commonly you’ll have a responsible engineer that is designing a piece of a system.
And then that responsible engineer will write down a test procedure and hand it over to a technician. Now the test procedure, maybe it is on Word document. Maybe it is on a confluence page. Maybe it’s on a PDF. Maybe it’s on a different system. That’s an internal tool, but then there is something that happens when you hand it off and the technician maybe doesn’t have all of the supporting documentation.
Maybe there’s a breakdown in what they understand or don’t understand. So we’re creating this system where you can link other documentation. You can have supporting documentation sort of in line, and then you can also suggest different edits to your test procedure in the moment. Um, because as you are probably fully aware, you are always learning something when you were testing or operating a system and you’re going to learn something new.
And if you forget to write it down, if you forget to tell the person that actually wrote the documentation, now you have to learn that again and again, and you’re going to save time if you can just communicate that change the first. There’s also the operator group. So, you know, we talked a little bit just now about the technicians, but the same is true for operators.
You’ll have responsible engineers and many times, you know, at SpaceX, a lot of our responsible engineers turned into operators, but you have to take them from that responsible engineering mindset and teach them the operations mindset because operating your system in space is not the same as testing it on the ground.
There’s a lot more complication that comes into that. And so, you know, being able to translate from your test all the way to how you operate your vehicle, you’re going to learn things in your test. And so if you’re using the same system to do your tests and your operations, I think that’s where the value comes in and getting kind of everyone to come together and bring that information to the same place.
The best way I could see how the communication could be enhanced between the different groups of people.
Hywel: Absolutely. Okay. So it’s, um, very much about context, but also you need a technical solution to be able to capture and use that context. And then as you said, as well, the, the mindset is important as well.
Laura: You also want to take the different tools and make sure that they’re talking together. You know, you don’t want to gather information in one place, have to email it, rely on someone actually saving the attachment from an email to then create a report. You want something that is more localized, something that is automatic. I run a test and everything from that test is automatically saved.
You have timestamps, you have supporting documentation. You have any closeout photos, any pictures, any plots, all in the same. I’ve run into a lot of problems where, you know, you have a notepad where people are taking notes on things. You have an email, you have an instant messenger conversation and whatever tool they’re using.
And if you want it to play back and or look at what happened at any given time, it’s really hard to piece all those things together. And it takes a lot of time to do that. Especially if you have a team that is more than a few.
Hywel: And on that. How often do you think such teams end up, not just being slowed down by the process, but where it hits in a brick wall due to the lack of the communication that exists? Or the ability to track the procedures as they are in use?
Laura: I think a lot of people don’t like to talk about the problems that they’ve had. So you might not find a lot of them in the news, but in every operation, there’s this communication breakdown. If you have, you know, you always have some.
Some type of voice communication if you have more than one person. And if that voice communication is taken up by nominal tasking, now you don’t have open lines of communication if something was to go wrong. So the way that I look at sort of the, the types of communication that are needed and the timing at which you need them, there’s a couple of different kind of tiers of communication.
The first one is nominal actions. So things that you can take your time with things that are well planned out in advance, that don’t require you to react on a five minute basis or one minute or two second basis. And these things don’t necessarily need to be communicated via voice communications.
And so you should plan those out. You should do them. You should record that you did them, but you don’t need to be talking about them because everybody knows that they’re being done. Then there’s contingency things where they maybe don’t need immediately. But you have a couple of minutes to react and maybe you have time to call people in to evaluate the system.
And that’s the time when you want people to be communicating via whatever your procedure or whatever your operational system is. You don’t want people to be using instant messenger. You probably don’t want people to be sending random emails. You want all information kind of coming into one place. And so you still kind of have time on your side.
And that is when. Sometimes use the voice loops, and sometimes you can just communicate via electronic procedures system, lastly, but most importantly, there’s this hair on fire situation where you have to take action imminently. And these are the types of things that we do a lot of training for. It’s maybe less than a minute, maybe, you know, 10 seconds there.
Aren’t and there shouldn’t be many actions that you have in this, in the course of space operations that require that type of, you know, time period. But if the voice loops or some type of voice communication is taken up with nominal or like contingency actions that you have time for now, you can think about times when maybe you don’t have time to call your friend. And you just have to say, I’m doing this right now, but if the voice clips are taken up with one of the other tiers of, of actions, now you have a problem.
Hywel: Do you think you could give us any example or an example of when you know, this lack of communication and tracking ability is cause a real problem for a team?
Laura: There are a couple of situations that I’ve run into there’s one that was in the news a lot. Actually, I wouldn’t say it was a breakdown in communication, but I would say that it was one of those like needs of voice loops and all communication channels open for contingency, such that if the team hadn’t been trained and hadn’t had a good way of communicating and coordinating, it could have gone a completely different way.
And this is the mission known as CRS2, and in this mission, we had multiple check valves that failed and did not open. And the vehicle did not have control of its attitude. And we were unable to perform maneuvers in the first couple of orbits of the mission. So this was many, many years ago, but it’s one of those things that’s like burned into my memory.
So we got on orbit and we realized that we had a problem. And at that moment, we called in specialists and those specialists, you know, started looking into what to do, but the operations team, they were focused solely on sending commands to the vehicle to try to open the valves. And they had to send probably, I think on the order of hundreds of commands to try to open the valves because it was tumbling.
So we had to establish a connection, send a command. And at that point, The connection that acquisition of signal was coming in and out. So we had to send commands rapidly to make sure that they would be accepted by the vehicle. And you can imagine if some of the nominal actions were being taken up on the voice loops that may not have happened in the time period that was needed.
So there’s a good example of, you know, we had taken at this point, you know, multiple other missions to kind of like hammer out our operation. And a lot of those somewhat nominal or more automated tasks, we didn’t have to talk about them. We just did them. And it was communicated via, you know, electronic documentation to the rest of the team.
And so that’s a really good example of where things could have taken a different turn, had we not been really prepared?
Hywel: You know, you mentioned the, sort of the three tiers of communication that how you consider organizing this stuff in, when we talk about procedures, but does the size and all the scale of, of the team or the company as a whole affect their ability to communicate in these ways, um, based on your experience, you know, can smaller teams kind of get away with the product a bit more easily, or is this more rigorous approach, something that even they should?
Laura: And that’s something that’s definitely come up a couple of times, we’re supporting teams that are, you know, 10 all the way up to multiple hundreds. And it depends on what they’re doing. But I would say that teams that are, you know, less than five, they benefit a lot from having traceability in the system.
So if you think about, you know, an Excel spreadsheet or a word document, you have to remember save as record timestamp, record this, send an email and they have benefited a lot from taking out a lot of those manual tasks. You can think about it as the larger teams benefit a lot from the communication and coordination.
And so depending on the size of the team, the value is slightly different. And kind of increases as your team size increases, but it does hold a lot of value for small teams. I’ve talked to 5 person teams that are just tired of writing things in word documents, and then saving as, and then forgetting where they saved something.
With our system, you know, it’s always available. You have basically on a website, you go to the website and everything is there. You can search the historical reference of everything that you’ve done and see who did it rather than always having to remember the folder structure and where that attachment was and look through the pictures of the closeout photos. That’s the difference in value is grows exponentially, but it doesn’t start out near zero. It starts out at a very high value.
Hywel: I mentioned in the introduction that the initial kind of product suite you’re focusing on is, um, uh, a web-based procedure system. What are the immediate problems that Epsilon3, that you are looking to address and, and what types of teams are you hoping, you know, would benefit from the solution that you’re developing?
Laura: The first thing that I wanted to do was, take a look at what tools companies were using for their operation. And I heard a couple of things when I first started looking into creating Epsilon3, and the first thing was we’re developing tools in-house and those tools are developed by aerospace and mechanical engineers that aren’t traditional software engineers and the tools work, but they’re not amazing. We want something that, you know, scales easily that is tailor made for this rather than building a one-off in house. So that’s one thing I heard.
The second thing I heard was that you have software engineers and then you have your operations and integration and test engineers. And you either have to teach your software engineers how to do operations integration tests, or vice versa in order to get the right product for the application. And so, you know, you can think about teaching software engineers, operations, or teaching operations engineers, how to code both of those things are not the best use of either of those people’s time.
And so when I started coming up with the idea for, you know, really serving this portion of the industry, it became really clear that there aren’t a lot of tools that are strictly geared towards operations. And so that’s where we wanted to make a huge impact. The immediate problems that we’re looking to address is mostly in how we perform operations. And what kinds of tasks we have to do manually. So I want to take a lot of that manual action out of operations.
So you can think about, you know, creating a report, sending something to someone for review, and let’s say, I want to attach something in an email. Well, why are you attaching it in an email? Well, there’s no other way to do it. So I want to take a lot of those tasks out so that we can really look at operations as a holistic picture and really standardize and make everyone more efficient in that way.
And then lastly, you know, that the communication and the coordination piece. So how do you coordinate with other people? I mean, we’re all working from home half the time. I’m at home now and I work from home and how do I coordinate with someone that’s halfway across the world? How do I communicate right now?
We set up a zoom and we zoom each other. If I was to do something and without sending you a notice, you would actually get an update that says, Hey Laura did this thing on the satellite. I think that would be really powerful and probably easier than setting up a zoom or sending you a slack message.
Hywel: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Set it up. Zoom only to say let’s take this offline and do it separately anyway.
Laura: Yeah, exactly.
Hywel: Could you share a couple of examples or an example of the use cases where Epsilon3 is you know, made an impact on a team or a mission.
Laura: Yeah, definitely so I mentioned earlier that, you know, we’re supporting teams that are really small and also, you know, multiple hundreds of people that, um, a couple of really good examples.
We started supporting a couple of teams when they were really small and we started scaling with them. One of the first companies that we started supporting is Stoke space and they’re developing fully reusable rockets. And they’ve started using us for a lot of their engine testing and a lot of their integration.
And they’ve found that a lot of what they did previously, we’ve taken out a lot of the manual tasking for what they’ve done. We’ve also helped ensure that their vehicles and their people are safe because if you have a well-oiled machine in an operation, you can ensure that, you know, X is done before Y but if you have something that isn’t automatically updating, I have to call you up and say, Hey, did you close that valve? Did you make sure that this was safe? And you can imagine that this is going to make everyone a lot safer.
Similarly, a small team that is growing is Inversion Space. They’re doing a lot of their engine testing using our software and are just so happy that they don’t have to call each other up and they don’t have to edit on word documents anymore because a lot of the times they were complaining to me about formatting and editing and copy and paste and things that, we just accept are the norm, but it doesn’t have to be that way. We’re just trying to help them take a lot of those things out. And so we’ve been really happy to support them and help them grow.
Hywel: Finally, I guess I’m looking ahead. So where you see this aspect of the industry, you change it. How do you see the role of software? You know, when it comes to the management of procedures and communications sort of maturing over the next five years, if we look beyond the horizon of, uh, of missions already planned and in progress, And looking at both satellite missions and even human space flight or deep space, robotic missions, what sort of routines, do you think could be built into such missions by then or what sort of tools or paradigms might be in use?
Laura: We’re looking really hard at integrations with other software packages. We know that there are a lot of other software packages that people are using out there. And we want to encourage all of the software packages that are out there to be integrated together so that we’re building a whole suite of software that supports operational landscape.
I’ve heard so many times that people, again, don’t want to always build tools in house. So we want to build the entire suite of software to support these operational procedures that people are doing. In addition, you know, as we grow, we’re looking towards automation. Obviously when you build a spacecraft, you build in as much automation, you can think of, but as I’m sure you also know when you’re in space, there are things that happen that you may not be able to always build automation on the spacecraft. So we want to help on the ground either in automation for testing and automating procedures from space. So I can think of many times when I learned things on the ground.
That I couldn’t always upload to tell the vehicle to do. If I could automate the task from the ground to just send a couple of commands, check the telemetry, and then send more commands to reconfigure the spacecraft. Now I can get myself off console and not have to sit and stare or be called in to perform actions.
I can be freed up to do other things. So we’re looking at that. Obviously looking towards the human exploration and human space flight business, as it’s growing, we would love to support that industry and make sure that our humans, as they reach further will be safe and efficient, when they’re operating vehicles, you know, running tests, doing maintenance on their spacecraft or space station. Those are the things that I want to see us expand into.
Hywel: Fantastic. Well, I think there’s some, a really good place to wrap up. Thank you very much, Laura, for sharing all those insights and that information about how teams companies can communicate better and the track the procedures better, generally develop better missions, better technology.
On behalf of satsearch and Space Industry podcast. Thank you very much for spending time with us today.
Laura: Thanks so much for having me. It was great chatting with you.
Hywel: And to all the listeners at the end, remember you couldn’t find out more about Epsilon3 on the satsearch platform, and we’ll put all the links to the company in the show notes and on the platform, you can use our free request tool to make requests for documentation, uh, introductions to the company, further information or whatever else you might need for your, uh, procurement purposes or trade studies.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>This article is an introduction to Hastlayer, a satellite software tool built on the popular and accessible .NET framework. Hastlayer is produced by Lombiq Technologies, a paying member of the satsearch membership program, and was produced in collaboration with the company.
Although the costs of smallsats and nanosats, like many aspects of the space industry, are going down rapidly, satellite software development for such technologies is still not accessible enough for most developers.
Despite hardware platforms such as Xilinx Zynq becoming quasi-standards due to their widespread use, every On-board Computer (OBC) and payload processor manufacturer has their own set of satellite Software Development Kits (SDKs) that developers need to get to grips with to use the technology effectively.
Furthermore, programming such hardware usually requires specialist knowledge, along with tools that are far less convenient and user-friendly than those commonly used in modern app or web development.
In order to address these issues, satsearch member Lombiq Technologies has developed a tool called Hastlayer that enables developers to benefit from the .NET framework – a suite of tools and systems that can add real value to space missions.
As a well-established and widely used technology, .NET can provide some very interesting new capabilities for satellite software developers.
Even if the developers currently work in a highly specialized niche in the space industry, the tools and community that they are able to access are mainstream and widely available.
This enables a satellite software developer to be as productive as a web/mobile app developer. For example, they will be able to:
This also enables simpler transfer of knowledge between app developers. There are more training materials, resources, and technical documents available from a variety of sources that satellite software creators can use, and more people to help if needed.
This also applies to hiring and contracting developers – essentially, by using .NET a satellite team has access to more developers, potentially at lower costs.
Finally, it is important to note that .NET software enables the use of safe, managed code but that code is non-deterministic. This makes it suitable for app development, and hardware-accelerated on-board data processing, but not for real-time computations or mission-critical sub-systems.
Hastlayer is a software platform on .NET, the framework used by millions of developers around the world every day.
This means that users can access to a wide range of cutting-edge, highly productive development tools without compromising on performance.
Hastlayer can provide automatic hardware acceleration while still enabling users to operate within the safety and comfort of a modern, high-level programming environment.
Lombiq Technologies is relatively new to the space sector, but has significant experience in hardware acceleration.
The company is aiming to bring a fresh, developer-enabling viewpoint to the space industry, with ambitions to enable more powerful, efficient, and intuitive app development for satellites in a similar fashion to development for mobile devices.
Hastlayer gives .NET software developers a way to increase the performance and decrease the power consumption of their apps by accelerating them with FPGAs.
It essentially enables developers to speed up their programs while lowering the power consumption by basically turning them into computer chips.
They can write standard code, then instruct Hastlayer to process the computationally intensive part of their program. That part will then be converted to logic hardware, while the rest of the software interacts with it as usual.
Function calls work without changes, but behind the scenes an embedded chip is crunching the data. This can provide enhanced performance and power consumption benefit compared to CPU execution, especially if the algorithm is highly parallelized.
The entire process happens with FPGAs, which are chips that can be dynamically reconfigured to behave like any other computer chip.
Hastlayer is in a beta stage, showing promising results with highly parallelized computations. It’s available to be used in all major cloud platforms, so engineers don’t have to purchase an FPGA or run FPGA vendor software.
All of the development operations occur on a remote server, so developers simply need to write the code.
The system has been designed to offer space software and hardware developers the following benefits and features:
In this section are some basic performance benchmarks demonstrating how Hastlayer-accelerated code compares to standard .NET.
Note that when using FPGAs you’re not running a program on a processor, as when using a CPU or GPU. Instead, you create a processor out of your algorithm, therefore direct performance comparisons are difficult.
Nevertheless, the data below demonstrates an attempt to compare FPGAs and host PCs (or CPUs) that are approximately at the same level; e.g. it compares a mid-tier CPU to a mid-tier FPGA.
All of the algorithms are samples in the Hastlayer solution and are available for you to check. You can view the Zynq benchmark here on GitHub.
The test compares the Zynq-7000 FPGA’s accelerated performance to the ARM CPU on the same system-on-module. The benchmarks use the Trenz Electric TE0715-04-30-1C module connected to a TE0706 carrier board (with a form factor similar to a Raspberry Pi).
The technical details are as follows:
Trenz reported the typical power consumption as about 5W. Using an inline mains energy meter a power of 4.6 W minimum was measured.
The numbers below show the measured maximums. Two separate builds were repeatedly executed in loops during measurement. One build only executed the CPU version, while the other only the FPGA version.
You can find more measurements in the attached GitHub table including;
Hastlayer can be set up for full integration and testing, in a new or existing mission, in the following 4 steps:
If further calibration is required users should check the runtime details provided by Hastlayer to see which part of the application needs acceleration. Lombiq is also available to provide tech support and runs an open discussion board on GitHub for further information.
To find out more about the benefits that Hastlayer could bring to your technology, missions, and projects, further information is available in this talk at the Dotnetos Conference 2021 and in episode #4 of the Space Industry podcast by satsearch.
In addition to running R&D projects such as the development of Hastlayer, Lombiq Technologies is also a web software company working with open Microsoft technologies.
Clients include Live Nation Clubs and Theatres, the Smithsonian Institution and Microsoft itself. To find out more, please view Lombiq’s supplier hub on the satsearch platform here.
]]>SteamJet Space Systems is a small satellite propulsion system manufacturer based in the UK specializing in electrothermal water-based propulsion for CubeSats. In this podcast we cover:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to the episode. Today I’m joined by Marco Pavan, CEO and co-founder of SteamJet space systems.
SteamJet is a small satellite propulsion system manufacturer based in the UK. And today we’re going to discuss electrothermal water-based propulsion for Q2. Firstly, Marco, thanks for being here today. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Marco: Thank you very much for inviting me here. You did a pretty spot-on introduction Thanks.
Hywel: Electrothermal water-based propulsion. I wondered if you could first give us a bit of an overview of how such technologies have matured in, in recent years and why, you know, in some people’s opinions perhaps has it taken quite a long time to make this technology a reality for, for space missions.
Marco: First of all, it would like to just give perhaps like a very brief introduction about the electrothermal thrusters so just to make sure, basically we’re all aligned.We know what we’re talking about.
So electrothermal thrusters are very simple in principle, they’re kind of, uh, improvements from cold gas thrusters and cold gas thrusters are the really the simplest proportion systems that we can think of. Literally is pressurized tank usually containing gas which is connected to nozzle, through a valve and then opening the valve, releases this gas into, into space and that is creating thrust.
So cold gas thrusters are the easiest way to create propulsion, but obviously they are very inefficient. So in order to improve that then electrothermal thruster were created. And the main working principle this is we can heat up the gas before it gets expelled through the nozzle, in order to improve the efficiency. So electrothermal thrusters, do that by just using an electrical energy and warming up the gas in order to improve the efficiency of the system to create a, to create thrust.
Electrothermal thrusters have been widely used in the past, over the last decades. So they have a lot of flight heritage and it’s been used with many different propellants that have been used with pressurized gases, like Xenon and nitrogens, for instance, or even with liquid propellents. Now, if we look at electrothermal thrusters using water as propellant.
So water-based electrothermal thrusters then there’s been quite a lot of research in the years and, uh, this research, however, it hasn’t really created a lot of commercial options. Water itself is actually a very good propellant because as a very low molar mass, and therefore can potentially create quite an efficient propulsion system.
The main problem with water is that it takes a lot of energy to be converted into, into steam and eventually to make an efficient propulsion system. So what we did here is things that is, we find a way to basically convert water into steam by using very little power, and also by using a very compact design. So I think water being a propellant is extremely good.
However, as I say, it takes a lot of energy and a lot of times on these CubeSat and small platforms, you don’t have a lot of energy. What we did at SteamJet, we tried to make a propulsion system based on water, which is, which is actually feasible. It can, can be actually used on small CubeSats, and small satellites.
Hywel: Adoption took time because you needed the other parts of a satellite system to also be able to handle aspects of the propulsion system. So that’s really interesting.
And then also a lot of in the commercial sector, what we look at is, um, technology innovations that are driven by market requirements. Which, um, when it comes to the thrusters, is we talk about, are certain maneuvers or the different aspects of what the satellite needs to do. So I wonder if you could just explain what sorts of missions and maneuvers are ideally suited to fly in water-based thrusters.
Marco: Yeah, sure. This is a quite interesting question. I will say that, uh, most of the typical missions and maneuvers can be done using water-based thrusters, especially electrothermal thrusters.
And, uh, I would say we need to target mostly the low earth orbits missions. If we’re looking at LEO missions, then the main use case is the main maneuvers for propulsion, main use cases are station keeping. So keeping your satellite basically at the same altitude, and let’s say counteract drag, then obviously constellation management, which is becoming a hot topic because there are more and more constellation coming up. You need to make sure your satellites are positioned in the right spot in the orbit, and so constellation management takes care of that.
Then you can obviously do some small orbital changes, collision avoidance is also extremely important because there are more and more space objects now in space. And if you are on a collision orbit with another space object, you need some active propulsion system in order to avoid that collision. And finally the deorbiting is also quite a hot topic because we don’t want to introduce more and more space junk in space. We need to make sure that when the mission is finished, we can dispose of the satellite.
The main limitation, I would say in the use of, uh, specifically electrothermal water-based propulsion systems are, if, for instance, you need quite a high Delta V if for instance, you need to do like a massive orbital change going from low earth orbit to a geostationary orbit. Then I think electrothermal thrusters are not the best technology for that. You need more efficient technologies, which usually have a higher, specific impulse, and they can provide basically better delta V. But other than that, I would say, most of the maneuvers and missions that I mentioned earlier can be easily done by electrothermal water-based thrusters.
Hywel: Yeah, those key parts on the lifecycle of a satellite, you know, to correct orbital position, the deorbiting. Yeah. Well, very important that as you say, collision avoidance increasingly important as, as the traffic, uh, grows. So you mentioned there the fact that it’s water-based electrothermal systems sometimes don’t have, or can’t produce the highest Delta V compared to other systems.
Could you expand on the comparison between a water-based propulsion with other popular propulsion technologies, things like FEEP and Hall effect. And maybe give us a bit of the pros and cons.
Marco: Yeah, definitely. I would say starting from the pros, the main pros that we can identify are definitely high thrust, low power consumption and low pressure.
So just to expand a little bit on this, high thrust allows you to do your manouvers pretty quickly. And electrothermal thrusters can have 10 to 50 times more thrust than electric propulsion. Like the systems that you mentioned, and this basically reduces what is called the payload downtime. So especially if you are in a limited platform, like a CubeSat or a small satellite, if you’re using the propulsion system, you can’t use the payload at the same time.
Therefore the more you use the propulsion system, the less you use the payload. Therefore, if you have a system which has a high thrust that allows you to do the same stuff, but pretty quickly, then you can reduce the amount of payload downtime, and you can actually use the payload to generate revenues and to do the mission itself, which is a beneficial thing for the final user.
And in terms of power, also, if we compare, for instance, what we have been able to achieve here, in SteamJet, we can generate quite a good thrust using a half the power of electric propulsion systems, such as ion thrusters, FEEP, Hall effect thrusters.
Therefore, especially if you have a very limited platforms where like three unit CubeSats or even like six unit, 12 unit, still quite limited in terms of amount of power you can produce. Then obviously if you have a lower power consumption, you don’t have basically to design your EPS or your satellite around the propulsion system rather than the payload itself. So that is a very good, beneficial thing for also for the final user.
And finally, in terms of propelling itself, Water is a low pressure. Propellant is kept the pressure, which is usually below a hundred PSI or seven atmospheres. And if we compare that with the electrical propulsion systems, which in most cases used steel, highly pressurized gases, like Xenon a 70 bars.
Then we can understand that are really high pressure propellent tank, its way more tricky to be handled, especially on very small platforms and small CubeSats. So having a lower pressure makes everyone’s life easier at the end.
Obviously, there are also some cons, but if we can basically go back to what I said initially, the main, let’s say cons are related to the specific and total impulse. Obviously ion thrusters, FEEP, Hall effect, they can have very high, specific impulse and a lot of delta V that they can deliver to the satellite. So if for instance, if you need to do a very big orbital change, such as going from LEO to GEO as I mentioned earlier, then I don’t think electrothermal thrusters are the best option at the moment. So, yeah, this is more or less pros and cons of the two technologies.
Hywel: Just to follow up quickly. You said that you were able to reduce the power requirements are by up to half, is that half in order to produce the same amount of thrust – comparable thrust?
Marco: That is actually 10 to 50 times more thrust.
Hywel: That’s fantastic. So you also touched on the properties of water as a propellant in the system.
So focusing on that aspect of it, water is obviously, um, referred to as one of the green propellents.. I wonder how you thought it compares as a propellant to other green propellant in that area?
Marco: Yes. So I think here, we need to distinguish a little bit between doing proponents for electrothermal thrusters and potentially high performance green proponents for mono propellent systems.
So if we consider other possible propellents for electrothermal thrusters, which are butane ammonia and then obviously, water is still cheaper. It’s still easier to handle, it is nontoxic noncorrosive. So, and its also able to generate one of the highest specific impulse that you can have on this kind of technology.
So these are the most beneficial part of using water. And if we compare that with a high-performance green propellant using in a monopropellent system. Such as a S A MC one, five, or MP one of free, then it is true that those, those propellants are way less toxic than hydrazine. However, there’s still some risks associated to the fact that you’re using them at high pressure.
And they’re also highly energetic propellents themselves. So there’s a lot of energy stored. And so eventually water, which is kept low pressure and is non-flammable again, non-toxic is way easier to handle. You can potentially feel your propulsion system on one side and just ship it to another side without needing to any specific requirement or your not physically moving any dangerous materials. So it makes everything easier from this point of view
Hywel: Excellent and yeah. And as you said earlier, um, low pressure is good for everybody. And I think that applies not just to propulsion systems. I think that applies to everything we do. Right. Just to focus then a little bit more on your own work at SteamJet so, you know, we’ve discussed the technology in general to whilst technical terms, but, um, we’ve mentioned your, your own products and service.
So what sort of stage of maturity are you at in SteamJet and what sort of customers and services do you foresee providing value to?
Marco: Right. So while it Steamjet is quite a young company at the end, but we already have three products under development. Just to mention quicky we have TunaCan thruster, Steam Thruster One, and the attitude control thruster.
So in terms of technology readiness level, we are about TRL7. We, uh, both our TunaCan thruster and Steam Thruster One. And we are pretty excited because we have now two in-orbit demonstrations, which are coming up. One is actually for November 2021.
And so in a few weeks, actually, and the other one is Q1 2022. So this will allow us to test both technologies in space, the TunaCan thruster and Steam Thruster One. They have slightly different audience so that TunaCan thruster that is mainly targeting a small CubeSats. I would say up to three units or six units. The main, let’s say part of the, TunaCan thruster is that it has a very unique shape factor. That’s why we call it TunaCan thruster because it has like a tuna can shape.
So it can be installed in the so-called tuna can volume, which is available in CubeSat deployers at that means that especially if you have a smaller platform such as a 3U, you can just install the propulsion system outside the main CubeSat so that you still have all three units inside for your payload and subsystems.
But you also have propulsion capabilities as basically the propulsion system will be just installed outside and take the TunaCan volume of the deployer. So that is a major benefit for small platforms and the Stream Thruster One is based on our same, uh, steam generation technology. But it’s more for, let’s say, larger CubeSats or a bigger, let’s say still small satellites, but bigger, small satellites.
Basically it can fit different mission needs because we can just extend, customize the water tank to carry as much water as needed. And if we look about our customers, I would say anyone who needs propulsion but maybe to be more specific. Well, definitely satellite manufacturers. Also vertically integrated companies, which are companies, which are eventually creating everything in-house.
They usually the propulsion is still something that is outsourced and also agencies of course, and universities. So the plan is for us to make some features which is pretty simple to use and integrate into the satellite so that everybody can use it.
Hywel: Best of luck with those IOD missions in, in November and next year. Just a final sort of application area one, the, you mentioned, well, you mentioned in passing, there’s quite a lot of talk recently about sort of using servicing satellites in particularly in LEO by refueling them using, you know, fuel tanks that already in orbit, as far as you can see, I know these applications are emerging, but as far as you can see, would that sort of service be limited to propellents like HPGP or do you see water as a potentially viable option.
Marco: I think that water, it is definitely a valid candidate for that. Perhaps even a better one. Let’s say, you know, if we look about water, then if we think about water, water obviously is inherently safe. As I mentioned earlier is no toxic. It’s very, very easy to handle. And it is also a very abundant here on earth, but also on asteroids and other planets.
And it can be used to produce the good propulsion so it can, it can be a very good propellent for, for, for propulsion, of course. So I see water as a very good option, not just for, in-orbit refuelling , as you mentioned that if we look, let’s say a bit farther, I see that as a very good option for refueling stations, also on asteroids or possible other planets.
Because obviously with water, you can potentially use different technologies. You can separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, and that have a lot of thrust, which could be used to escape gravity, for instance, from other asteroids or other planets.
Hywel: Right. Brilliant. So just finally, aside from, you know, the examples you’ve just given, I wondered how you saw the market for, you know, electrothermal water-based propulsion technologies evolving in the next three to five years. If we look a little bit beyond the timeline of missions that are already booked for launch. I wonder how you saw things, things changing
Marco: Well, one, I would say common driver that I see in the next years is that, I believe water will become kind of a hot propellant will become more and more used.
And again, this is not just for electrothermal thrusters but used also by different technologies, as I mentioned. As you can have basically have a bi-propellent system with that, or you can use it with different technologies to increase the efficiency.
So, Water I believe will be the propellant of the future. If we specifically take a look at the market for electrothermal water-based propulsion systems, I believe that here, we’re going to see this as the, one of the best options for low earth orbit missions, as I mentioned earlier. The main reason is this. If we look back 10, 20 years, it was pretty difficult to put your CubeSat or small satellite in the orbit that you actually wanted, you were as secondary payload every time. And you were dropped off in the orbit of the primary payload, then eventually you had to make your way to the orbit that you decided.
And that required obviously big orbital changes most of the times. But if we look at the situation now, and if we’re looking also in the next three to five years, there are more and more small satellite launches coming up. There are more and more space stacks, which are actually able now to deliver your satellite exactly where you need it.
So you’re not going to be needing a lot of a big, massive army to change as it was 10 years ago. And this then opens up other possibilities for electrothermal thrusters because at this point that that the delta V budget for your mission is not that big anymore. So electrothermal thrusters can deliver what you need, which again, if I can just repeat quickly with the main use cases, which are station keeping, constellation management, collision avoidance, and deorbiting, those can be easily achieved with the electrothermal thrusters and at this point, electric trusters can actually provide you a budget compromise between performance and efficiency.
Because, as I mentioned earlier, you can have propulsion system, which is less intrusive in your satellite, can make sure that basically you’re operating your payload as, as long as you need. So for, uh, you can reduce basically your payload downtime, but can deliver you basically the performance that you need in order for you to maximize your, uh, your mission and your return of investment.
For this reason, I believe that a electrothermal thruster, especially water-based will be an extremely good options for. They are ready right now, but there will be even better in the next three to five years.
Hywel: Excellent. Well, I think that’s a great place to wrap up the conversation there, Marco. Thank you very much.
You’ve shared, you know, lots about today about the different applications of water-based propulsion, the technical aspects that make it such a potentially attractive technology for certain applications and missions. And, um, yeah. Look into the use cases in the future as well has been really illuminating. So thank you for sharing all those insights with the Space Industry community today.
Marco: Well, thank you very much. It was my pleasure. And if anyone is interested, please get in touch with us. Visit our websites, steamjet.space, and we will be happy to discuss about our propulsion systems further. Thank you.
Hywel: Great. Thank you very much. Thank you to all our listeners out there. If you’d like to find out more about the company, there’s also the satsearch supplier hub with the company’s product portfolio with all of the systems that Marco’s mentioned today.
And if you’ve got any specific needs for product quotes, technical documentation, introductions to the business or whatever else is required for a trade study or procurement purposes, mission design, but you’re more than welcome to use our free request system on the site.
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Space Industry by satsearch.
I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Oxford Space Systems is a UK-based manufacturer of deployable antennas for the space industry. In this podcast we discuss the opportunities that deployable systems can bring to new missions and services, and the challenges that their development and testing bring. Including:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello everyone. And welcome to the episode today. I’m joined by Lucille Baudet from Oxford Space Systems. Oxford Space Systems is a manufacturer based in the UK who provides deployable antennas for space. And today we’re going to be discussing a little bit about the challenges of creating deployable antennas and systems for CubeSat missions. Lucille, thank you very much for being with us today. We’re very pleased to have you. And is there anything else you’d like to add to that introduction?
Lucille: No, thank you. That’s a very good introduction. And thank you for having me today.
Hywel: So let’s get into this topic. Now when it comes to the deployable antennas, I think the word origami sometimes comes to mind. Could you provide an overview of how the need for deployable antennas on small spacecraft has emerged over the last few years and what advantages they can bring to legacy solutions that maybe people are more familiar with.
Lucille: As a brief overview, we can say that over the last few years, we have seen the size of satellites decreasing significantly, and this has actually enabled the possibility to get into orbit at a much lower price. And this is particularly true in the LEO environments in Lower Earth Orbits and the thing has given their low cost and launch opportunities CubeSat technologies as open as a possibility to deploy a large number of satellites as part of what we call constellation.
And I guess, you know, if you are familiar with constellations, and if you look at report like Euroconsult, they are predicting that over the next 10 years, commercial constellations will account for 70% of the satellite being launched. However, if any of the satellites tend to get smaller then the need for performance, doesn’t get smaller.
So it’s still have to reference the same level, like if not high, actually to have higher performance and traditional larger satellites. So then the issue is existing solution is sitting to be quite large, so they won’t fit any lines or required size and volume given by CubeSat technology. So then the only possibilities to use deployability.
So what we using Oxford Space System is techniques inspired by origami so that you can create antenna, that you can fall in a small and compact volume for the launch phase and as the rockets, right. And then once the satellite is in orbits, it deployed and then create larger structures. So, this is where the need for the deployable antennas came from where did you have this challenge of fitting a small antenna in a small and compatible in given by CubeSat technology.
Hywel: Uh, you ,mentioned there’s still a requirement for the high-performance in the missions that use deployable systems – from a performance standpoint, how do deployable antennas compare with legacy systems?
Lucille: Yeah. So there is no straightforward answer to this question, actually. So. because being able to fit a deployable antenna within a 1U volume. And when, I mean 1U is 10 by 10 by 10 centimeters. It does come with challenges. We are using a studio combination and a set of skills between RF, mechanics, and materials to address this challenges.
In that regard, it’s quite hard to compare the performance towards current solution. And when I guess you mean legacy solution that means fixed, rigid antenna, right? So it’s kind of hard to compare directly because there is always the trade off to be made. Trade between important characteristic, these RF, RF performance must budget, but also the volume available on this spacecraft.
So based on all these parameters and the information that we collect from the customer requirements, we have a technical excellence team who can quickly perform the trade-off analysis. And then that says the level of performance can be achieved using a deployable antenna that I would say can be kind of for a case by case basis right, and because there is all these parameters to be considered is quite hard uh, to compare directly to a legacy solutions. There is no single point of comparison when, when we talk about performance.
Hywel: If we tend to maybe applications then of deployable antennas, what kind of use cases do you see being enabled by the technology and what advantages to a service providers would be brought by, you know, the ability to stow and then deploy different antenna configurations on a, on a small satellite or spacecraft.
Lucille: As I was mentioning at the very beginning, I was mentioning about the emergence of smallsat constellations, which are going to be a major driver of the satellite industry and actually are concentrating a large share of the satellite clients. And the thing is, they’re bringing a new rationale where you launch a large number of satellites at a lower cost, but also with the short lifetime.
So it was then moved to smart constellations – actually enabling new applications on the markets, new applications, such as internet of things (IoT), but also my ratings cereals and tracking. You might have heard about AIS mission, which stands for automatic identification system, which is for basically tracking ships in the sea.
And this type of mission are usually part of commercial constellations and require fast deployment in orbit because we want to generate fast revenues by providing data as a service. So I actually our solution, our CubeSats deployable antennas solution. To offer a very cost effective products to fit this constellation needs and actually optimize also to, for batch production, which is a real added value for our customer who wish to the deliver services as part of the constellation.
Hywel: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to think we’ve got those applications, interested applications, like maritime tracking, where the need is already exists. The, you know, you don’t have to build anything on the ground in order to generate value and, and revenue from the satellites and launch. So, yeah, that’s interesting there.
But obviously the systems can only, um, be deemed a commercial success if the reliability is there and if the performance can be not guaranteed, but at least tested and qualified now, deployables are always tricky because a failure to actuate could be a single point of failure for the satellite as a whole.
How do you ensure reliability? Are there any examples, you know, you can provide on deployment process or once the spacecraft is injected based on some of the missions that you’ve worked on at Oxford Space Systems?
Lucille: This is actually a very good question. And this is usually one of the first questions we are being asked by our customers because reliability is one of the most important criteria as once you send your satellite into orbit.
You know, you’re not having a second chance right you cannot send a service engineer to repair and fix your, your issue. So reliability is very important and critical, and if I will need to mention our process. So in term of process, there is kind of a balance to be made between quality, cost and risk appetite.
And because, you know, you have an extensive development and testing campaign. This can drive the cost up. Uh, and the thing is our approach with our antenna that solution and the associated deployment system, I quite being made simple on purpose so that you kind of remove a bit of this risk and we also using flight proven materials and design to really reducing the risk of failure during the deployments and we want to be consistent with the simplicity of the CubeSat technology. So we’re kind of following a strict process, uh, with a high level of mechanical and RF design analysis. Design is being followed by a testing campaign so that we can ensure right level of tests and reliability to customer.
And as an example, what we can say is as of today we have flight heritage on a helical antenna, long enough would decline having three of them currently flying 60 fully deployed and supporting the IOT constellation and actually having flight heritage is now providing even more reliability to our customer because it’s now flight proven is currently flying into orbits and we have now currently a number of repeat visitors orders in our platform from various customers.
Hywel: So far we’ve discussed aspects of the applications and the trade-offs involved in the technology. I wondered if we could talk a little bit about the, kind of the state of the art or maybe even the features particularly with the materials, because I think deployable systems are antennas and other forms of deployable systems, the materials that are used to create them, uh, a lot of work I’m assuming it goes into the, because you know, these systems need to deploy and need to operate externally to the spacecraft with their own radiation, shielding and everything that goes with that
Where do you see, you know, current progress in, in new materials or other advances in technology that could be applicable to, to the sorts of technologies that you created Oxford Space Systems?
Lucille: Yes, material is quite an important component because I was mentioning, we are using a combination of skills between RF mechanical, but also with material we are using. So exploring new materials is definitely an important component of our solution, but also always part of our research and development roadmap.
As an example, I could say that we are using a metal mesh knitted from a very fine tungsten wire, which is a very lightweight material, providing higher RF performances, high reflectivity properties for this deployable antenna that we are using for antenna architecture and establish the new metal mesh facility with our own knitting machine in our facilities in, in Harwell.
People are always surprised when there is visitor coming, they are always surprised, like to see a knitting machine, you know, it’s not something you expect to see in a factory of antennas. Yeah. This is the materials that we use. And it’s very important because it just provides the right level of enough performance.
And the first application of is metal mesh produced at Harwell will be for our signature aperture radar antenna which is called the rapid antenna which is targeting for launching late 2022.
Hywel: Brilliant. You’re really looking forward to the future with some of the work being done on materials there. So I guess that leads into my next question and final question, just to put you on the spot a little bit, I wonder where you saw the market heading for deployable antennas or deployable systems in general in the next three to five years.
You know, if we look beyond the horizon of missions planned today, are there any specific segments or types of antennas that you see as gaining more traction over competing systems?
Lucille: at the moment, as I was saying before, in term of CubeSat missions, we see a high demands and development for IOT applications.
So internet of things, application and AIS missions. So these are markets that have been growing a lot recently. And again, if look at, uh, Euroconsult reports they will say that there is more than forty projects and potential constellation being announced. This type of market are really growing and having satellites, being a lunch in constellation, actually enables distributed data collection and which has a development of new applications, such as communication, remote sensing, as well as science and exploration.
Then now just moving a bit broader than focusing on CubeSats and going out smallsat solution with satellite a bit more than 50 kilo, we have as much and also in another architecture called offset is that both capable of providing a performance for sanctification for earth observation application and the upsets reflects I can actually be scalable and provide higher frequency suitable for telecommunication.
But we actually exploring potential solution for 5G. And so inter-satellite things, because. The reason behind, we are seeing a number of requests coming for customer for this type of application over the last few months. So this is something that we are currently looking at. And yeah, last point I would like to make as well is we are doing a lot of early-stage R&D work to adapt actually also all the deployable antenna, to terrestrial application as well, there is also actually kind of niche market for the terrestrial application, mine the defense and security application.
So, yeah, in summary, I think the deployable antennas can be really a game changer in many markets, um, and at Oxford Space Systems, we really aim to really keep innovating and be creative to our customer to deliver really exciting new services and, and mission where. staying in the affordable satellite technology.
Hywel: That’s a great place to wrap up. I think there’s a really wide range of different application areas. There. There’s some really exciting and interesting work that you guys are doing. Yeah.
Thanks very much. This has been really interested to learn about the use cases and trade-offs of deployables or testing requirements, advanced materials and so on.
Thank you so much. They’re spending time with us today on the space industry podcast.
Lucille: Thank you very much.
Hywel: Great. And for all our listeners out there, remember, you can find out more about Oxford space systems and the whole portfolio of technologies and services discussed in, in today’s episode, on the satsearch platform at satsearch.com.
And you can also use our free request system to make requests for technical documentations quotes, introductions to the company or whatever else you might need for trade studies, procurement purposes, and anything else required to develop your missions. Thank you for listening to this episode of the space industry by satsearch.
I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments and stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>But selecting the best ADCS for a small satellite isn’t straightforward.
The video is a recording of a satsearch webinar entitled a guide to selecting an ADCS for a small satellite mission.
It features experts from 6 different ADCS manufacturers, based around the world, each discuss their technologies and missions, and share how engineers can better integrate and use the equipment.
The 6 presenters at the event are all paying members of the satsearch membership program.
The individual slide decks for the presentations are freely available on each company’s supplier hub linked to below, alongside each speaker’s details (in order of appearance):
The following systems are all manufactured by the satsearch members who presented in the webinar and were each referenced in the talks, or are related to the products discussed:
[00:00:00] Hello to everybody. Who’s just signing in to view the webinar. We just going to leave it a couple more minutes until, until bang on, um, three o’clock just to make sure that people have a chance to join, but it’s great to see so many people sign in already.
[00:00:53] Okay everybody. I am, I think we, I think we will make a start there. I think people are still still join in, so that’s great. Hello to everybody, but, um, yeah, we’ll get going so we can keep this, uh, keep us to the time. So, uh, hi everyone. My name is Hywel Curtis from satsearch and I’d like to welcome you to a webinar, a guide to selecting an ADCS for a small satellite mission.
[00:01:12] Uh, in this event, you’re going to hear from experts from six different ADCS manufacturers, discuss their technologies, their missions, and share insights on how , you know, engineers can better integrate and use it, their equipment. I wouldn’t say much more than this because it’s it’s them that you really want to hear from today.
[00:01:29] I just want to let you know, three things quickly before we kick off. Firstly, we were not going to be running an audio Q and A during the event to try and keep things short for everybody. But instead, you know, we’ve asked all the presenters to respond to questions in the zoom Q and A function. So, um, well you should be able to see this on your screen.
[00:01:45] So please feel free to ask questions at any time, of any of the presenters, and they’ll try to try to answer them when they can, when they’re not speaking. Of course. Um, secondly, if you’ve got any questions or things to share with other members of the audience today, uh, not the presenters on the topic of ADCS solutions, then the zoom chat function is open throughout and you can use this.
[00:02:07] And we also share links to each presenters, satsearch supplier hub in the chat function. So you can find out more about the company and take a look at their products and services. Uh, if you’ve got any other technical or procurement related requests, more, you know, more specific requests, then please feel free to use the satsearch platform to, to make them.
[00:02:25] And finally we are recording the session and we’ll also soon, hopefully begin an access to the slide decks of each presentation. And so we’ll send you a follow-up email with that information, the material that probably probably next week. Okay. That’s all from me for now. Thanks to all of you for being here and hopefully we’ll have it.
[00:02:41] We’ll have a great event now. So without further ado, we’ll get straight into our first presentation, which is by, by Tjorven Delabie the CEO of arcsec so Tjorven, if you could share your screen, please. Yes. I hope you can see it now. Yep. Yes. Perfect. Okay. So then I guess we’ll just kick things. So, um, well, good afternoon everyone.
[00:03:07] So my name is Tjorven Delabie. I work at arcsec. arcsec is a spin off company of the KU Leuven university in Belgium. We were founded last year, so we’re still quite a young company and we developed attitude, determination and control systems for small satellites. So that’s basically all that’s our focus. Um, so we develop full attitude, determination and control systems, which autonomously take care of all the attitude, determination and control needs of small satellites.
[00:03:33] And we also develop, um, stand-alone star trackers and reaction wheels. Um, and it’s really our goal to deliver very high accuracy, attitude, determination and control systems . On the left you can see our larger star tracker, which is around 40 by 50 by 95 millimeters and right, one of our new products, the mini star tracker, the twinkle star tracker, which is about the size of a matchbox car and which delivers very high you’ll receive as well.
[00:04:02] We have flight heritage on Simba, which is an ESA IOD tree unit cubesats, which was launched one year ago. Uh, the ADCS, was fully functional from the start. It contains, well, all the components that we made ourselves, our reaction wheels work well, the star tracker, as you can see on the right. So this is the overall performance over the entire year.
[00:04:23] Uh, that one has a cross-border site, accuracy of 10 arc seconds, one Sigma, uh, and, uh, Sagitta that I just showed you. Um, we’ll go down to one arc, second one Sigma across bore sites. So quite high accuracy and all it’s proven to work in orbit. Uh, but so it’s, it’s not a sales talk, so I won’t go into a lot of details about our components.
[00:04:45] You can contact me or go to satsearch or our website. So I tried to make my presentation, um, quite educational. So I start, um, so I pick two topics to discuss. So rather than giving a lot of, uh, more generic ins on selecting ADCS, um, I’ll be talking one about determining the pointing requirements, which I think is an important point.
[00:05:11] Um, and two on integrating testing and calibrating ADCS components. Um, I could talk about a lot of things more, but, and then you can contact me and ask questions about it. But, so I selected two things to discuss in detail with point number one, being the one that I will spend most time. And the reason I chose this point is, is that, um, there are quite a few sources that can tell you what you can get in terms of ADCS.
[00:05:37] Um, and I guess everybody who presents here, we’ll, we’ll start our presentation at seeing what they can deliver, and you can find it on satsearch and on other websites as well. But the first question you have actually is what ADCS does my mission need. And I’m going to try to give you a bit of a framework to determine what you need in terms of the attitude, determination, and control system.
[00:06:01] And it’s an important thing, because if you under specify your, um, ADCS requirements, then your satellite won’t be able to do what it needs to do with all your ADCS overly costly, but if you over specify it, then all your satellite might achieve its point, but ADCS has over dimensioned costly.
[00:06:18] So it’s important to find, the right specifications for your mission so that you can select the right system. So the, the pointing, requirements that we typically get from customers look like this. So the ADCS’ll deliver pointing accuracy of 0.1 degree. And, um, it looks fine. Um, and I guess most of the people who are watching, the webinar will probably defined our requirements in this sense.
[00:06:48] Um, but it’s, it’s lacking a lot of stuff. So I’m going to try to expand this and give you a way of formulating your pointing requirements that will allow you to improve them. So good pointing requirements contains a specified error value. Um, that one is available. So at 0.1 degree. Um, but that should also specify in which reference frame you define it.
[00:07:11] So for example, on all three axis, or maybe you want it only on one axes and you have on one axis and you have less stringent requirements on the other, or you only want it on the payload line of sight. So as an example. I had to find an, it should be half cone along the payload line of site. Um, it should also have a level of confidence because if you just say that it should be 0.1 degree and in theory, it should be that all the time and your system won’t be extremely expensive.
[00:07:39] So here, for example, it’s two Sigma. So 95% of the time, it needs to adhere to the requirement. And you should also define which type of error it is. So here it’s for example, an absolute pointing error. It could also be a relative pointing error. There are some others, but they are, uh, I would say less common to show you what that actually means.
[00:08:02] So an absolute pointing error. So if you have a system that requires an absolute pointing error, um, then that’s the actual difference between the, um, true and the desired attitudes. So that’s the big black line in this graph. You can then over a certain period of time, take the mean of that. And, um, the find a relative pointing error, which is also called the jitter, which shows the fluctuation around that mean, and to show you what each of those things, uh, does, if you have, for example, a disaster monitoring mission.
[00:08:38] So there’s a forest fire somewhere, and you want to take a picture of it. You need to have your absolute pointing error low enough to ensure that you’re looking at the correct scene. Um, if it’s the value will be pointing off from the scene, you want to see, but even if your absolute pointing errors, okay.
[00:08:56] Um, if you have a high relative pointing error, then you will shake a lot. Uh, let’s say for example, that you take, uh, an observation time of one second. So at the particular integration time over your camera, for example, one second. Uh, it will generally be lower, I assume. Um, If you’re a relative pointing arrows too high and you will have a blurry picture.
[00:09:15] So you will also want to define a relative pointing error requirements, but you also need to define is the period immature requirements needs to be a followed. So for example, only an eclipse or only during a ground station falls, or only during the five minutes that you observe a star, uh, whatever. Okay.
[00:09:40] So once you define your, your pointing requirements this way, so if you use this framework to define what you actually need, then this way of thinking will force you to think about your requirements in a bit more detail, and it will prevent over and under specifications. Um, and in the end, you, you might end up with 20 pointing requirements instead of the one that you had before, but still it will be better specified and it will not be over specified. Um, this is something that we can, we can help you with. So we’ve done this for, several ESA IOD missions, also for several customer missions. So we can define pointing requirements based on the description of the mission. We can also carry out a pointing analysis to see which ADCS you can get, which, um, here, see we can do stability analysis.
[00:10:28] So those are all things that we’ve done before and have that we can provide as a service. The second point then is, um, so I talked about pointing requirements, which is something that you need to do. The arc of your mission, um, towards the end of your mission, once you have your ADCS, you’re going to want to integrate it test it, um, so commissioning, and, but the point that I would want to make here is that the purchasing costs is often an important driver in the ADCS selection.
[00:11:00] So, um, if two systems are almost equal then, um, especially for cubesats, and smallsats, the purchasing cost will have quite high weight in determining which system you choose. Uh, but what’s often forgotten is that there’s a substantial cost link to manpower, to equipment, to facilities for integrating testing and calibrating the ADCS.
[00:11:21] So once you, um, if, if you just get the ADCS as in, in a box at your office, then there’s still a lot of work to be done to integrate it. So what I would ask or what I would urge you to do is to ask your ADCS component provider. Um, not only to send your ADCS, but also to provide round support equipment or software graphical user interface software, for example, to facilitate the integration.
[00:11:46] So preferably you will not only get made ADCS or a star tracker or a reaction wheel, but also, , the supporting equipment so that you can just, in the ideal world, hook it up to your computer and have a plug and play system that you can work work with, or get some libraries that you can integrate into your, overall satellite systems so that you can easily start working with it.
[00:12:10] What I would also urge you to do is to ask for, um, the functional test procedures and the ability to replicate, replicate the acceptance test campaign at your site. So, um, the quickly ADCS provider will, uh, carry out a quite thorough health check test or acceptance test before they send the unit. So I would urge you to ask, uh, one for procedures, how to repeat that and also make sure that you have the ability to replicate those because once you can replicate them, then you’re quite sure that you can work with the system and you know, that you have a healthy system.
[00:12:43] And as a third one, um, it, it’s really interesting to have a reprogrammable system, not only in the lab, or if you see that some functionality is lacking or, or you would have, uh, prefer to have something implemented a little bit differently, but also in orbit. So we recently did a small software update on our ADCS to tweak some performances and it’s really useful, um, if that’s possible.
[00:13:10] So, um, those are three things that I would, uh, urge you to, to look out for, um, and also to take into account that this can greatly reduce our development time project costs, and also just make you a happier person. And of course, all of this is all standard included in what we deliver. So, um, I haven’t made it a very long presentation, so I just focused on two points.
[00:13:41] One is on helping you to determine your pointing requirements. Um, so yes, make your requirements less dumb is something that we hear a lot. Um, and the, the idea that I, that I want to give you there is that if you use the correct formulation for these requirements, um, then you will get your project right from the start. Um, and for integration, testing and calibration take into account that it’s an important, um, cost driver. So ask your ADCS components to give you as much support as you can get, and that was it from my side. So if you have any questions, you can contact me. Thank you.
[00:14:22] Great. Thank you very much. That’s a fantastic way to start.
[00:14:25] So, uh, yeah. How to make good pointing requirements very useful. And then really good advice on integration and testing there. Thank you. Uh, next up we have Gerhard Van Vuuren, principal ADCS engineer at CubeSpace ADCS based in South Africa. Gerhard, if you could please share your screen and, uh, and get underway.
[00:14:48] All right. My screen should be shared and everybody see it. That’s good to go. Thanks. All right. So what I’ll be talking about today is firstly to the quick introduction of our company, um, they’re not talk about which factors influence, which factors influence an ADCS system design. Um, there’s often this. Uh, decision that, that, um, that integrators of satellites face, whether they should buy off the shelf or build it themselves. Um, and I’ll talk a little bit more about the, uh, the pros and cons of each of those. Um, and then some lessons that we’ve learned along with some interesting real world examples, right?
[00:15:31] So first off our company is also focused on ADCS only products. Uh, our first flight was in 2014. We served, uh, more than 15 missions, uh, currently in orbit. We’re located in Stellenbosch, in the beautiful South Africa. We’ve delivered more than a thousand products to more than a hundred customers globally.
[00:15:57] We offer fully integrated ADCS solutions. So everything, including hardware, software, harnesses, ground support, equipment, everything that you’ll need even a simulation tool for your ADCS. And we also offer standalone components. If you prefer the bullet yourself option, those includes reaction wheel of we actually reeled off various sizes from two U up to small microsatellites.
[00:16:23] Same goes for our magnetorquers. Then we’ve got some fine sun sensors, infrared horizon sensors in our generation two product range, a star trackers and magnetometers. There’s a nice link about, um, our team to product range. Believe it’s a video. Please have a look if you recieve the slides afterwards, our facilities include an ISO class eight clean room and a dark room where we calibrate our optical sensors, such as the star tracker and our fine sun sensors.
[00:16:52] We’ve got an animal’s cage to calibrate the magnetometers vacuum chamber with thermal control, some thermal chambers in our production facility with, humidity control. We’ve got our own vibration, table, which was recently added, as well as, a couple of staff that are IPC class three trained that’s enough for, for the sales talk.
[00:17:15] I’ll get back to the engineering, which is I’m, which I’m more comfortable with. So the first thing that I want to talk about is how requirements influence your ADCS design. Um, what we’ve noticed is that different levels of requirements influence the ADCS design. Uh, so we’ve got the higher level, the mission requirements, then the derived system requirements, and then ultimately the lower level ADCS requirements and all of those can in some way impact your ADCS design.
[00:17:47] And what we’ve noticed is that the typical top-down requirements model doesn’t seem to work for the modern, smallsat or nano satellite missions. It’s not as simple as laying down requirements on a mission level, freezing them, moving over to system, freezing them, and then. Having a subsystem requirements and then just building a system or procuring a system that meets all of those requirements.
[00:18:10] There are very often trade offs and concessions that need to be made on all levels because the hardware just isn’t out there, or we just can’t build exactly what the mission needs. So ultimately you you’ll work your way towards the ADCS requirements. Come up with that with an ADCS design, but often you’ll find that what, what is out there in the market or what you’re able to build in the amount of time that you have won’t meet, uh, requirements A and C, but it will meet, you know, the most important ones.
[00:18:42] So we’ll, we’ll be willing to drop this one or make it less strict. Um, so it’s a, it’s a very iterative process. Um, at least in our experience, then when it comes to component selection, once you’ve solidified the design. It flows down mainly from your ADCS requirements. Um, you’ve got the decision of how many of each sensor, once you’ve, for example, identified the need for a star tracker.
[00:19:13] Do you want to add a second one for redundancy? Do you have the budget to do that? Um, when it comes to actuators sizing, your, your wheels and torquers need to be sized depending on your satellite size, uh, the type of orbit that you’re going to be in the type of deployables that you’ll have the direction in which they’re deployed, that that will determine your in-orbit disturbances at disturbances, which will affect the size of your torque rods.
[00:19:42] If you’ve got a very high slew requirements. So your satellite needs to be very agile, you’ll need larger wheels with more torque or more momentum storage capabilities. And then something that I, um, I’m very excited about is component placement. That’s where you get to work with, uh, the customers, uh, CAD, and really tried to figure out and a tailored engineering solution for their specific mission.
[00:20:09] So you’ve got, uh, let’s say five or six different ADCS sensors, but you’ve also got a satellite design with a panel sticking out in this direction and an antenna sticking out in that direction. And you need to find a spot for each one of those sensors, those and make sure there’s, there’s actually available panel area for a sensor to pro to, to protrude through.
[00:20:29] Um, you’ve got the sensory field of view to take into account, especially when you’re using deployable structures. And then you’ve also got to take into account, which ADCS modes does your payload require, does your antennas or your comms system require? So if you’ve got, for example, a star tracker pointing in. And a certain direction, but you’ve got an antenna which needs to face a ground station. Will that star trackers still see stars, or will it point at the earth when you point your antenna at the ground station? And those are things that not all customers seem to think of when they’re buying or procuring their ADCS, and, and we’ve often seen that, that, uh, satellite designs need to be changed very late in the mission, just because these types of things weren’t taken to, uh, into account early enough, When it comes to the buy versus build decision, uh, there are three main options. You can either buy the entire, fully integrated system from a third party supplier. You can buy standalone components and then build the system yourself. Then you’ve got to think about, uh, your software. That’s going to run the system that I believe can also be outsourced. I’m sure there are companies out there that do that, and then you can build the entire system yourself. So from the ground up, um, build everything or at least most of the components, yourself
[00:21:56] um, in this decision, there will be various stakeholders. So on the lowest level, you’ve got the technical stakeholders. If you cannot find an off the shelf solution to meet your requirements, you obviously want to go for the bullet yourself solution. If you’ve got the technical capability to do that from a commercial perspective, the company might want to push outsourcing rather than vertical integration, which will lean more towards the buy decision.
[00:22:21] And then you’ve got, of course the programmatic, uh, stakeholders, which will push timeline the most. And if your timeline simply does not allow a self-build option thing, you have to go for a buy option. But in principle, there are three main factors when deciding whether to buy or to build and that’s risk time and cost.
[00:22:43] Unfortunately, I can’t provide a nice one, answer one liner for whether or not you fire a bolt. Um, every mission is different and there are pros and cons to buying versus building. Uh, I’ll start with the pros of buying the first and most obvious, uh, pro there is that you’ll leave each years of ADCS experience, not only from the supplier, but also from other customers that have flown the suppliers. ADCS it’s in most cases, the shortest lead time, and there’s virtually zero development costs. There are cons to buying a system. Uh, it’s not always optimized for every mission. The suppliers generally build a, a generic solution, which can fit most missions and it’s not tailor made for your specific mission.
[00:23:33] And you’re going to be dependent on a supplier one or more suppliers, which is not necessarily always a good thing. Then you could argue that there’s a higher cost per system versus building it yourself, but then you’re not taking into account. The massive in are either nonrecurring engineering costs that you’ll have to incur when you build it yourself.
[00:23:54] There are good things about building a, an ADCS yourself. You can tailor, tailor, make the system for your specific mission. You’ve got no dependency on any certain party. If you choose to build everything yourself. And it, it’s a very, very nice, uh, uh, vertical integration strategy to get all of that development in house, if your company supports that strategy. But there are of course, cons to building it yourself. I’ve mentioned most of them you, you firstly require a whole development team, ADCS, engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and software engineers. Those are all the components that make up an ADCS um, the development time is usually in the order of years, if you, if you’ve got a, um, a very narrow solution that you’re working towards a could be less than a year, but it’s usually in the order of years to develop a full ADCS for a, for a larger mission, you’ve got massive investments or non-recurring engineering. And there is of course increased the risk because you’ve build something that’s new, which has a very low TRL.
[00:25:01] There are many options out there and you’ll be, you’ll be wise to choose carefully things to consider is reliability and what the TRL of the system is and whether or not there’s evidence, so qualification reports, uh, in orbit reports, the reputation of the supplier in the industry, which other companies are using this system or the supplier, if you can find information like that out there, how’s how stable is that supply chain? Um, how long is the lead time? Not only for one or two off, but if, if you expand your company and you’d start ordering 10 or 20 or 50 units at a time, can your supplier handle that? Um, will they still be around for your next mission?
[00:25:43] It’s also a question you need to ask yourself and then most important does does, does the integration into your mission of that system makes sense? You’ll have to take into account mechanical integration. Um, how does the system get bolted onto your spacecraft? Uh, what’s the electrical and the software interfaces, all those configurable at all.
[00:26:03] And how much effort is it going to be on your side to accommodate that system? Which ADCS has modes or available? Can that be expanded? If you’ve got a very custom control mode that you want to, can your supplier implement that for you and how easy is it to operate the system then something that you’ll thank yourself later for is, uh, checking the support structures of the supplier.
[00:26:25] How well is there documentation? Um, how much support, uh, equipment do they give you? Both hardware and software. Um, and, and how can they support you during commissioning and operations of your system? I listed cost here on the right, but I put a little, uh, uh, ban sign on it because even though costs of, of ADCS systems are fairly large and you want to go for something that’s cost effective.
[00:26:55] All these other, um, considerations are much more important than cost you’ll end up spending a lot more in man hours. If you don’t. Um, if you don’t pick a supplier that meets all of your needs in these other areas, then just lastly, some lessons that we’ve learned. Uh, in the process of building an ADCS and we were recently with our generation two product line come across this quite often. And that’s, if it’s new, it usually takes longer than you expect it. So it’s good to always add margins. And that includes when you’re building your own spacecraft, you know, adding margins for, uh, for lead time, from suppliers, adding margins for testing your ADCS and calibrating it on ground.
[00:27:41] Uh, if it’s something that you’re doing for the first time and lesson we’ve learned as well, hire a good project managers to make sure everything happens on time and everything is taken into account when you’re planning your project. You rarely get it right the first time. If it’s something that you’re doing, that’s new allow for mistakes to be made and add, uh, a margin or, um, extra buffer into your timeline for additional design iterations.
[00:28:09] And I cannot emphasize testing your system enough, tested, uh, for race conditions for age cases, uh, tested in a realistic in-orbit environment. And that’s that ties nicely in with my last point. You must have a simulation tool if you’re going to be building an ADCS. So you need to know how your algorithms will interact with the space environment, how it will interact with, uh, the satellite body, um, and, and having a proper simulation tool that can tell you what your mode and your configuration will do under certain conditions is a must.
[00:28:47] During the tests and integration, we’ve also learned a couple of lessons. Um, I’ll just quickly run through those. So there’s a very big misunderstanding. Um, in, in general, about the concept of an ADCS coordinate frame versus just your normal mechanical CAD frame. We often see, see customers not taking into account that the ADCS has its own built in coordinate frame, and it with its own sensors has a certain knowledge of how the satellite is oriented in orbit.
[00:29:20] And what, what does zero roll pitch in your mean to do the ADCS and that’s not necessarily the same as your X, Y, and Z definition of your mechanical CAD of the satellite. So make sure you know, what the translation between your frame and what the ADCS thinks, the frame. The most important sensor of your satellite is the magnetometer, except for your pilot, of course.
[00:29:45] Um, but in the ADCS so that’s by far the most important, if you don’t have something like reaction thrusters to de-saturate your wheels, you need to use magnetorquers to de-saturate your wheels. If you don’t have a proper magnetometer measurement, you can’t use your magnetorquers properly. Um, magnetometers are easily disturbed and disrupted by sources, such as solar panels, fasteners APS, electromagnetic valves, and which is why we normally recommend a deployable magnetometer as well as adding a redundant magnetometer.
[00:30:19] And important test spacecraft in all operational modes, they might be, uh, uh, a payload or a subsystem that’s only used in certain scenarios and it might generate a significant magnetic disturbance. And you want to make sure that you capture all of those operational mode when you’re testing your magnetometer on ground.
[00:30:40] And if you’re having a sort of moving on from the magnetometer, if you’re having a deployable appendages, such as antenna or solar panels, make sure that when you have sensors with a field of view, such as, uh, somethings are a star tracker, that you don’t have any of these sensors in their field of view.
[00:31:00] I know it sounds, it sounds obvious, but we often see customers that don’t take that properly into account
[00:31:09] and they lastly , for testing and integration. We’ve often seen problems with EMI. Those have to do either with ground loops where, uh, know different grounds either from the chassis or the structure, um, or from antenna, or just connected at random with other grounds. And you eventually form ground loops, which firstly disturbed the magnetometer.
[00:31:31] But secondly, causes noise on power lines, which can affect, uh, components like star trackers in terms of its measurement accuracy. And then for EMI, we’ve often seen cases where long harnesses or used and the notorious ice grid C bus of cubesats is especially susceptible to EMI. Uh, there’s a good example where a, a satellite designer had, uh, an ADCS on the one side and EPS sort of, uh, perpendicular to that, with a harness running from the ADCS across the EPS to a magnetometer and the magnetometers measurements were, uh, were continuously corrupted because of the EPS, current being generated and causing EMI interference interference on the harness. And they eventually, our solution was to shield the harness.
[00:32:23] So watch out for that when you’re integrating and planning your cable hoochie in the satellite. Um, some learnings from, from in orbit, um, adding margins to exclusion angle specifically for star trackers is, is a good thing. Uh, we we’ve learned from, from some in-orbit images that the atmosphere is clearly visible, um, in eclipse to, to start trackers
[00:32:47] it’s of course not intentional to take a picture of the. Um, but when you, when you do take, uh, exclusion angles of the sun, the earth and the moon into account, it’s always good to add a little bit of a margin in there. So with the atmosphere, instead of, um, having the Earth’s edge, be your, um, your calculation point for the earth, exclusion angle, rather use the atmosphere, which, uh, in, in the images that we’ve seen is roughly 70 kilometers, uh, from, from, uh, from the earth atmosphere that that’s actually visible in a star tracker image, very faintly, but enough.
[00:33:24] So to, to cause disruptions to the algorithms, um, it’s, it’s very necessary to have a safe mode, especially for high spin rates. Um, we we’ve seen cases where, uh, multiple cases of satellites being accidentally spun up either by an operator. Accidental firing a thruster and, um, having, uh, an ADCS with a safe mode, capable of tumbling from very high rates is it could be mission savings. So take that into account. And then lastly, but I couldn’t stress it more check the polarities of sensors and actuators. In the very early days of, of our ADCS expeditions, um, we almost had a case of, uh, a torquer, rod being, being flipped in polarity. And luckily that was caught very close to integration. Um, but make sure that, that you, firstly check polarities of actuators on ground, but then secondly, that you have the ability to, uh, to stop polarity in orbit, if that’s ever needed.
[00:34:27] That was it from my side. If you do have questions, pop them in the, in the Q and A section, I’ll answer them as I have time. If you’ve got more questions, feel free to reach out, um, to info at give space, and yet we’ll answer them as they come in. Thank you very much for listening. Great. Thank you very much.
[00:34:44] Go ahead. That was really interesting. I think that’s great. Take over the end as well. Spin up, not spin down really important for spin out.
[00:34:54] Uh, next year we have, uh, James Barrington-Brown CEO of a NewSpace System. So James, when you’re ready, if you could please share your screen. Thank you very , that’s perfect.
[00:35:11] Thanks, um, of meat and we see my screen. Thanks for much. Um, yes, I’m very wide spies words. The previous speaker, uh, I’m glad, or at least I’m hoping so far people have been talking about the ADCS control algorithms themselves. I’m an electronics engineer, not a control engineer. So I’m going to be talking a lot about, uh, hardware and electronics.
[00:35:34] Um, so, uh, yeah, just a couple of slides from NewSpace. Uh, we, uh, heritage goes back to 2008 where I set the company up in the UK, moved down to South Africa in 2013, started up, uh, 2014, uh, quietly a Cape town, actually not too far from CubeSpace. And we’re exporting also around the world, uh, 27 countries last year.
[00:35:57] And we are baseline on a number of what I call the current platforms, um, which means prime contractors, who are supplying different missions to different, uh, end customers who basically use the same platform architecture and they’re using our components for those kinds of things. Um, I mentioned it cause I’m around now just over 30 years in smallsat business.
[00:36:19] And it’s amazing to see the growth in the last last few years. I mean, back in the day, there was maybe only 20 primes you could bid to. And now there are several hundreds, I believe, especially including the, the university groups who were doing, uh, cubesats. So what do we do? We do ADCS and that’s why we’re on the talk.
[00:36:38] Um, so sensors, we’re looking at stars. We have a, a unique, uh, product who was Stella Charro, some senses the earth we take to using magnetometry, um, on the actuator actuator side, where the interaction with. And we believe it’s still yet to hear anybody contradict this to be the largest torque rod maker in the world.
[00:36:58] And we won the one week contract and a couple of other constellations. So we’re churning these things out a thousand a year. So very high volumes to know where you are and all that people haven’t mentioned that much yet have a part of an ADCS system. You need to know where you are. So we do GPS receivers and the antennas to go with them and we train our people up to the European space agency standards.
[00:37:19] Um, so we also have some people just using us for manufacturing. So I’m going to talk about scaling up because I see a lot of the talk, uh, that the presenters here are from the cubesat community. We’re very much in the microsoft community. So I wanted to talk about some of the issues when you scale up from the smaller systems to the larger systems, and you basically have a matrix of four different options.
[00:37:43] You can have integrated. Um, hardware with the algorithms built in. You can have integrated electronics without the algorithms. And I’m just going to do a little plug for this. You’re the first people to see this little box on the, on the right a box is a card it’s actually a magnetic control system for cubesats, which we’ve managed to get into a very sexy shape, mainly because we’ve come up with a way of generating magnetic magnetic fields using flat electro magnets.
[00:38:11] So the electromagnets and the XMR two buried into the structure, even a nice hole. So you can put your wheels, you can put a camera through the middle, but a star tracker through the middle. So yeah, that’ll be a, that’ll be coming out soon. And then of course we deal with components and I’ll show you some solutions components with the algorithms built in and we’ll say without.
[00:38:32] So in terms of scale up, we’re seeing a lot of our customers are starting off with cubesats to do some kind of payload, demonstration, or mission demonstration things that you can’t really do on the earth. Uh, and then they tend to be moving up when they move to operational systems into the larger end of cubesats 6U 12 U uh, and also into microsats.
[00:38:53] And of course there’s, as mentioned earlier, the actuators will scale, at a scale with mission size, the larger, the mission, the larger the actuators you need. And of course, when you get to a, a bigger volume, uh, if you need to have only coverage, for example, working at the sun and your sun sensors, can’t be put into the same box. They need to be mounted on the panels either side. So you’re getting to some of the harnesses use that just mentioned, um, maybe someone will talk about different architectures of ADCS, but you can have a single computer, uh, which does everything in the housekeeping actually control system controls the payload or distributed systems.
[00:39:30] We can have a dedicated computer just for your attitude control. Um, very much of the mind of distributed systems. If there’s many computers on your satellite, as you can each having their own tasks. Um, but some people now are, for example, taking their, um, starmapper algorithms and putting them on onboard computer rather than the algorithm sitting inside the star mapper itself.
[00:39:53] There’s a number of different architectures you can look at. And I wouldn’t get into the details of that, but fundamentally, a lot of people complain that don’t really standards in cubesats. There are even less standards in microsats. At least you’ve got some physical standards in cubesats. So microsats are very much a wild west, many different suppliers, many different architectures, many different system designs.
[00:40:14] And as soon as you start getting larger, I’m going to, I’m going to talk a lot about, um, total lifetime cost. Anybody heard by other podcasts with satsearch, I was talking a lot about total total lifetime cost. And when your satellite gets more expensive and the components you buy get more expensive and because your larger, your launch gets more expensive, you start getting driven towards, um, redundancy, cross strapping.
[00:40:37] Uh, and again, that, then you need to take that into account when you’re working on your,ADCS system is is difficult to cross strap, especially when it comes to reaction wheels. So not just size scaling, but a lot of people now are talking about constellations, both a cube sat and micro sat. Um, so you’re doing a one-off.
[00:40:56] In which case do you really need as was raised earlier, if you really need to do all your design yourself, but then you also start asking if I’m going to build a hundred units. Do I really want to be paying a license for actually control algorithms? Every time I launch a satellite? So there’s some trade offs to be made there.
[00:41:13] Um, interesting. Uh, brought up the, um, the vertical integration thing. I think this is, this is a myth now. I mean, I’m, I’m from UK and I have great respect for the SSTL guys. You were one of the fathers, or probably now the great-grandfathers of small sats, uh, and they couldn’t get hold of components. They were there, they were so new to the market.
[00:41:34] So they did everything themselves. A lot of people have been trying to copy the success they had. Um, but the market has matured and there are now people like ourselves and other suppliers who are making units by the tens or the hundreds or thousands. And we’ve invested in the manufacturing capability, the design for manufacture design for tests, the processes, ERP systems, unless you’re building a thousand satellites, your non-recurring is always going to be greater than just buying components or algorithms from a third party.
[00:42:06] So I’m a big fan of having a value chain where you depend on other people’s investments to offer products. And again, it’s down to the total cost of ownership. If you look at the price of one torque rod and you say, wow, that’s expensive for a bit of wire wrap round tube of metal, then you’re really looking at the system from the wrong point of view.
[00:42:25] You gotta think about, uh, um, how long it’s taken someone to develop that system to achieve that. And then there’s a great part, uh, paper, which I hope some of you have seen the early, if not come off to the massive website. So paper called reliability of zero. It’s written by the name somewhere, bill 30. Um, and that was mainly aimed at not overdesigning spacecraft to achieve a very high reliability, but it also applies to buying things off the shelf.
[00:42:55] If your mission is to deliver a communication system, IOT was to deliver images to the ground. And you’re a year late because you spend all that time developing your own components and algorithms. During that year, your mission has zero reliability. You’re not delivering any service. So, and you’re also not generating any revenue.
[00:43:15] So I’m a very keen bid proponents of buying things off the shelf. If they’re available. Also, if you have a very specific mission, you have no choice, but to develop your. So, if you’re looking for solution, here’s my kind of go-to list of what I think should be your drivers. And of course, this is open to discussion, but I believe in scalable architectures.
[00:43:37] So trying to keep a similar spacecraft architecture, whether it be cubes that size 12U 50 kilos, 500 kilos, 5,000 kilo, um, basically things need actuator control system. They need a communication system. They need a, a power system, a computer. So try and keep your architecture the same, um, because all companies are moving up the food chain and building bigger and bigger satellites.
[00:44:01] So try and avoid redesigned time by having scalable architectures and likewise modularity. You want to be able to change out your actuators and the next mission, um, technology moves on suppliers disappear. Um, so keep a modular system that allows you to chop and change. And then, um, yeah, lessons learned and mistakes people make.
[00:44:23] I mentioned there are standards, but I mean, people do use, I squared C people do use as 42 in space, wide things, make sure it’s the standard standard. Um, there are people running, um, URLs at non-standard speeds. There are people using canvas with different cooperates and, um, a mistake, lots of people make is they assume if they buy five different suppliers, can bus interface to components to they’re gonna work on the same canvas.
[00:44:51] Everybody uses different protocols. You put the address fields in different places. They put a big Indian, little Indian, they put the DataBank different. Um, so you really need to take into account that and buying two things with the same interface. You can’t put them on the same bus. Vendor independence, I think is really critical for the reasons I mentioned.
[00:45:10] So I’m just going to go through a few solutions. I have to say, despite the years I’ve had in the business, I’m not quite seeing where the market’s going. So we’re hedging our bets. And working in a number of different areas. And again, it’d be great to get some feedback of which areas people are looking at.
[00:45:27] So I call those modular systems with our algorithms, built in modular systems, without the algorithms, and then a kind of catch all which is a hybrid between the two. So a good for instance, choose space. You have just, uh, just been talking, uh, we worked closely with them and the nice thing that they’ve done is they’ve taken their heritage computer from there, cubesat system and their heritage algorithms, put it in a different type of box, added some modularity of the physical level, which they will cubeconnect because they call everything cube something, uh, and that allows you to then basically be vendor independent.
[00:46:02] You can plug in anybody’s wheels or magnetometer, so it doesn’t have to just come from them will just come from us. And then it gives you a standard interface back to the onboard computer. Um, they also offer the service of doing the simulation of the mission for you to make sure everything is sized. So it’s a very easy way of coming in and buying a microsat sized system.
[00:46:24] The downside is that, um, yeah, it comes with these algorithms. Um, there is some modularity, so you can develop your own, uh, but you basically are stuck with, with the, the computer that comes with it. And, uh, not too much flexibility in the algorithm development. So that then comes the hybrid version. Um, we’re working at another company in Germany called spin.
[00:46:47] They have a nice box called magic, which, uh, is based on a Juul called Geisler , which is, uh, a rad-hard, um, processor, the have developed a number of drivers to talk to a number of different vendors, uh, components, including our own. Um, but they leave the ADSS the ADCS software. To yourself, or you can work with one of their partners to develop the algorithms and then put it onto their machine being jewel core, it’s quite easy to integrate because you run the HDCs on one core and their drivers on the other core. And potentially you can actually use it as the, the overall onboard computer for the, uh, for the, for the mission. Uh, and then the, the, the, the way I’m betting things will go just because the background, uh, anybody who’s not familiar with the ESA speaking RTU is a remote terminal unit.
[00:47:40] And the traditional way of building a big satellite is you choose your actuators and your sensors. And then you build a dedicated box that interfaces, all that complexity of different interfaces to a single interface that talks to a computer. So we’ve come up basically with a, with a bit of hardware, which doesn’t have a processor in it, but it is a packetising system.
[00:48:03] So you can talk directly from one end of the. Uh, systems the other in the native language of what you’re talking to and the reaching and the packetisation takes care of all that. So that’s transparency. And because it’s a rating system, you can have multiple sources and multiple targets, um, and automatically reread those.
[00:48:25] So that if you have a redundant system, you can choose which processor talks to which system on which port. Um, so it’s a very, very flexible piece of hardware that, um, well, again, lean means your vendor dependent, modular, and a scalable architecture. So in conclusion, yeah, to look at total ownership costs, I don’t just look at the cost of the individual components.
[00:48:48] Look at how that fits within your non-recurring costs. Your launch cost, your mission cost for payload. Everything should be balanced. You shouldn’t save money in one area because it’s going to cost you more money somewhere else. Um, Because scalable not just, look at modularity, which means independent particular vendors.
[00:49:08] Um, forget about this myth that you have to do everything yourself. Um, the market is mature enough now to have good supply chains. And if you need to buy something, you will find someone, uh, competitive. Cause there are a lot of people entering this market. Now think about time to market. If you’re an operator or you’re you’re, even if it’s a science or even if it’s a university mission, you know, you want to get your mission out there as soon as possible.
[00:49:30] Otherwise your PhD or your thesis will be over by the time you get, you know, with data. So constantly think about your total cost of ownership, both financially and schedule wise. Thanks very much. That’s all I have. Great. Thank you very much, James, some really interesting insights on the challenges of scaling and the opportunities of scaling up to larger satellite sizes.
[00:49:51] So that’s great. Thank you. Uh, next we have, uh, Jacob Nissen listen, Chief Sales Officer of Space Inventor. There you go, yeah, Jacob. You’ve already shared, so thank you. You can see my screen. Yep. Find a way how to operate. There we go. So I will not talk about too much about space in venture itself. Uh, we are based in, uh, in Olberg in Denmark.
[00:50:21] Uh, we are specialized in both cubesats and microsatellites, and we build complete, uh, satellites, including the ADCS systems. Uh, we are, also very much involved in, in, in projects and missions were very accurate, uh, pointing requirements exists, and also with very low jitter applications. One of the other things that we are working on is also a little bit more challenging, uh, ADCS systems where you also, where you are going to geo where you need propulsion system to do your orbit, uh, transfers and orbital, uh, maintenance as well.
[00:51:04] But, uh, we’ll go directly into most of the interesting points. And if you want more about space events, that they can go to our website and have a look at, uh, at our products and our history. Um, I think one of the things we will go through is all the different aspects of designing, uh, the ADCS system. And as, uh, some previous speakers has talked about is, uh, If you want to do to this, right, then you always start with your requirements and make sure that you are actually are defining the right requirements for your mission.
[00:51:40] And you are not just taking, uh, the best opportunity or the best numbers you can find on the internet and then put that into your requirements. So I think as a like cube space said, uh, this is an, a kind of an, an art where you are balancing, uh, the requirements with the, with the system requirements and mission requirements, and then try to make a good balance with your mission operations and your, your ADCS system as well.
[00:52:11] One of the things we see quite often is that people are putting quite strict requirements to your pointing, but if you haven’t, for instance, Uh, communication mission, uh, with, uh, an antenna with 80 degrees of, uh, opening angle or beam width of your antenna, then there is no point of making a 0.1 degree accuracy of your pointing that will just add a more cost to your mission as such.
[00:52:40] Uh, and I think also one of the biggest mistakes when doing the, the, the requirements and specifications is to talk about, you know, is it, uh, one segment or segments, uh, because these kinds of numbers will have a kind of big impact on actually the cost of the, of the AGCS solutions at the end. So from, from our point of view, uh, as, um, as James talked about it’s, uh, that the ADCS system. Needs to be a kind of, uh, a generic approach, which we are taking with an very distributed, open act, uh, architecture with the distributed software components that we can program in, in orbit. But for our point of view, ADCS is the most complex system that you have on the satellite bus. I’m not talking about the payloads, but for the satellite bus itself, the ADCS is, is a critical point.
[00:53:44] Uh, and also what we hear also today and mainly in the, in the entire, I would say cubesat industry, everyone is so focused about the hardware and what are the different performance of the hardware. And. Actually in an ADCS system, the software is the most critical item you have in the system. You need to have reliable, uh, software that, uh, robots for different sensor, errors, errors in your, your actuators, et cetera.
[00:54:18] So you will actually have, uh, maintain and, and mission operations, uh, during the lifetime of the satellite. So I can only point out that yes, software is a very critical, uh, topic or, uh, point in the ADCS system. Uh, so when you are scaling your system, of course, you need to figure out what kind of pointing requirements you ha you have.
[00:54:45] And for me, and for us, we, uh, we are more or less determined whether we need to star trackers is in the system or not. So if you are going below zero or around one, one degree pointing accuracy with one segment, then, then you should consider having a star tracker into your system. And if you have really strict requirements, then you probably need two star trackers, I guess, uh, if you need a accuracy on all three axes, uh, also it’s not only the size of the satellite, that that will scale how, how large reaction wheels you’ll have.
[00:55:24] Uh, it is also what as mentioned before, what kind of maneuver. Uh, do you want to do with your satellite and how fast are you doing all the maneuvering? So the faster you need to do the maneuvers the larger wheels you will have also pointing modes for your software is also quite critical for this, uh, designing your ADCS system.
[00:55:51] Uh, and also how does your ADCS system actually also work together with your power intake? Uh, we do solutions where we can do not here pointing while we are doing power optimization with the, uh, free, uh, uh, what’s called access. The last free degree of freedom. Yeah. And new. And then finally, also propulsion systems, uh, is something you should also consider when you’re doing system.
[00:56:22] I need to do some orbital, uh, maneuverings and station keeping in your orbit. Then it might be worthwhile doing a propulsion systems. Otherwise you need to go into drag management as well, which is also a possibility. So we provide all kinds of, uh, products, uh, for star trackers down to one arc seconds. We do big range of, uh, reaction wheels from very small for a one U or three U satellite up to a hundred kilos of a satellite. So big range for our reaction wheels as well. Uh, some of the, the performance, uh, we are looking into is, uh, stability and jitter of the entire. Uh, mission and ADCS system. And of course, as I said, software is quite important to actually control the ADCS system and make sure that you actually also can combine how the ADCS system works, uh, with, with also the different payloads.
[00:57:34] So you can actually control that you run in a very stable mode while you are taking images, so you will reduce your, your data. And then of course, one of the biggest contributions to jittering your satellite is the reaction wheels. So make sure that, uh, your, uh, reaction wheels are, uh, being balanced, uh, very precisely.
[00:57:59] Uh, at Space Inventors, we are balancing our own wheels. Very precisely. When we are plannings in the wheels, we are actually putting some pen markers on the wheels and we have to compensate how, how these thoughts are made on the wheels, because if they are not equally spaced around the wheel, then we can measure that, uh, just a weight of, uh, the ink of the pen, uh, and also what the other people has said, you know, regarding the performance.
[00:58:33] Uh, it’s very nice to have simulation tools that actually can simulate. How is the ADCS system working in this specific orbit? Uh, so you can actually see how all the maneuverings is is doing and how your control control loop is, is compensating for the different disturbances. One of the things we’ve done as well and seen as a very nice feature is that we can actually also run our simulation tools on the hardware itself that will do the calculations.
[00:59:07] That means that we also, uh, eliminating different implementations that are done on the escalate, the physical hardware that will fly in space, uh, conscious cessation errors, et cetera, that will exist on, uh, on the, on the computer itself.
[00:59:25] Uh, some of the, uh, business line as well, when we’re going into the integrations. I think it was also mentioned before that, you know, field of view, uh, of the different sensors need to be taken into account. Uh, and also that reflections from solar panels or, or deployable solar panels are not, uh, being, you know, making distortions into your sun sensors for instance.
[00:59:53] Um, otherwise, uh, we need to make sure that, uh, that different stones, uh, offer the, uh, the mission. So sometimes you need to make sure that the star tracker is not in the sun. Uh, yeah. And I think finally, uh, I can’t remember who mentioned that as well, but one of the things we’ve seen is a coordinate systems, uh, is also very, very important to keep track of.
[01:00:27] It’s basically, if you are integrating everything yourself, you need to make sure that the different sensors that you put on the different panels are registered and make sure that the coordinate systems are being aligned with the, your software also. One of the things we’ve seen, uh, for selecting an ADCS system is actually how easy is it to do the commissioning of, uh, of the ADCS system?
[01:01:00] Uh, how quickly can you get it and how can you tune it, uh, during the orbit uh, so having the right system, uh, with, uh, with a very open and, uh, you can say easy access to all the parameters in the system will actually save you quite a lot of money and time. Uh, when you’re doing the in-orbit, the assistance.
[01:01:25] One of the things we also done is, uh, to make sure that the commission is done more easily is to make sure or actually automate some of the calibrations we have, uh, especially our magnetometers. Uh, and then also we have done. Quite a big, an effort of, of making it very easy for, for doing in-orbit, the tuning of the ADCS systems without uploading new software, but just, uh, changing the parameters of the systems, uh, with the system we use with the pyramid, a pyramid system, we can actually also during an orbital change, uh, you can say how fast the, uh, the, uh, ADCS software should react, uh, on, on the different maneuvers that we are doing gains and everything like that, uh, easily.
[01:02:24] Yeah. So. Also on lifetime. Uh, I think we have some of the usual suspects for the wheels that you, the more you use the wheels, the shorter lifetime it will have. So if you have quite a lot of maneuverings that requires a lot of, uh, talk, then that will also impact your, your lifetime. Uh, one of the things we are doing for, uh, expanding the lifetime, uh, above the five years that we normally have is to run the wheels as momentum wheels.
[01:03:04] That means that we are biasing, uh, the wheels. So we will only operate, uh, without, uh, having any zero crossing off the wheels that will have an extremely impact of, uh, of the lifetime of your, of your wheels. Then, uh, then also for the star trackers is, uh, sorry. Uh, we, we, we actually, for the star trackers is, are using rad-harderned components and that’s actually the only component that we have in our geostationary satellite mission sets let’s for the star tracker.
[01:03:44] So all the optics we use is for rad-harderned. And so it will not get darkened by the, uh, by the, by the light and radiations, and also the sensor is a rad-harderned component because it is exposed to quite a lot of radiations. Uh, since all the electronics are more, uh, shielded by, uh, alloy in inside the spacecraft.
[01:04:12] So. Uh, be aware of, uh, the optics for the star tracker and a sensor as well, especially if you want to have a longer lifetime of your satellite mission. I think there was a very short introduction and, uh, go through some of the experience we have. Uh, if you are getting more interested in the products we have, you’re more than welcome to send me an, uh, an email and I’ll be happy to answer all your questions you might have.
[01:04:42] And of course we’re available in the Q and A system as well. Yeah. Thank you. Brilliant. Very much. Yeah, that was great. very interesting, uh, next up we have Thomas Yen, CEO at Tensor Tech. Hello. Hey, Thomas is sharing. There you go. Great.
[01:05:05] So, uh, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor today to be invited here, to give you a sharing about a guide for selecting an ADCS. For your satellite mission. And, uh, so what is the objective of, uh, engineers and here an engineer? So I’m referring to the people who are working for the satellite owners, then the company who own the satellite and they have to build a satellite and operate the satellites.
[01:05:37] So I believe their, uh, first, first priority is to extract value from this satellites so these engineers should be focused on the payload and how to utilize the satellite buses to get, uh, the payloads to have this, uh, optimal performance. So, uh, this comes to an important, uh, question that, uh, I think many people are managing and explaining for it is about how to, uh, determining the pointing requirements for your mission, because it is very important to get the best use of your, uh, your, your payloads.
[01:06:16] So, uh, criteria as including like the pointing knowledge of your individual components, such as star tracker on the pointing knowledge of your whole ADCS. So here are a little bit different because, uh, the, like if you have a star tracker and the while star Trek is installing on your integrate ADCS or yourself, built ADCS, there will be some misalignments of these components.
[01:06:44] So, uh, usually the, uh, pointing knowledge of your ADCS will be lower than the component lab. And then while you are installing these, uh, ADCS uh, into your spacecraft, there will be another misalignment. So the, the overall pointing knowledge of the spacecraft will be lower. And if you are installing a payloads until this spacecraft, and then the pointing knowledge, oh, and the pointing accuracy of this payload will be lower.
[01:07:15] So these are things, uh, uh, users should be keeping in mind by or making your criteria’s. And then the absolute pointing accuracy and relative pointing accuracy where, uh, relative one is usually referring to, uh, the jitter. So people are, are maybe less familiar with relative pointing accuracy. So actually these is, uh, of thrift of attitude divided by uh, by a period of time, for example, like, uh, like 30 seconds or like one a milliseconds, depending on the user’s, uh, application. So usually we have best scenario that’s, uh, uh, optical payloads that are taking images, uh, to, to, to earth. So these, uh, image or these cameras, they have exposure time to capture the image.
[01:08:05] So if the satellite attitude is say is shaking by via taking images, then their past resolution will be of the image will be some degradations. So, uh, while you are building a remote sensing satellites, the related pointing accuracy is a very important criteria and there are also still rates that’s. Uh, how fast can your ADCS, uh, to, to change the angular velocity of your, of your satellite?
[01:08:35] So, uh, let’s break down to different types of satellites. So they are all a remote sensing satellites. If you have a narrow field of view, then the absolute pointing accuracy will be very important because if you are a satellite is tripped too much away from your target, its uh, object. Then you’re target, objects will be out of your, uh, the field view of your, uh, camera.
[01:09:03] And, uh, there are communication satellites. Usually they require, uh, less, uh, uh, less sophisticated, uh, uh ADCS because the pointing requirements are, uh, usually lower than a remote sensing satellites. So for example, if you are using a USAA app antenna, and usually these antenna omni directional so you didn’t need to have a, uh, a good, uh, pointing requirement.
[01:09:29] And so even if you were installing X-band antenna on, your satellite, and then the, if you have four degree of, uh, uh, angular deviation, and the only costs a 0.1 DB of loss is for the antennas and, uh, the higher, the communication frequency you are using. And usually these antenna requires a more, uh, more and more, uh, uh, more requires a better pointing, accuracy.
[01:09:57] Before most of the cubesat satellite mission, people may use a S-band or X-band antenna. So you dont you maybe don’t need a, uh, sub, pointing accuracies as a pathogen, uh, or one degree or 0.1 degree. And, uh, if your cube set has something like a deployable antenna and the , you should be, uh, watching that, uh, if you were as, uh, these ADCS should be able to provide a maneuver to let, uh, the solar panels to capture a sun.
[01:10:35] So, uh, after knowing they’re pointing requirement of permission, here comes to, several different methodologies of building an ADCS so traditionally people are used to, uh, designed and built manufacturing every component from ground and then to integrate their whole system. So this is. Uh, the, the old days, the space agency driven days that, uh, people cannot find available vendors from market.
[01:11:03] So they build everything from ground. And then, uh, since the, the space industry becoming more and more mature and then the dividens of, uh, laborers are getting more and more professional. So there are some vendors provide a commercial off the shelf, uh, components, so people can pick up the reliable components and integrate their own ADCS.
[01:11:27] And according to our investigation, that’s, uh, most of the, uh, cubesats are built by the second methodologies. Nowadays, but there are also another, a trend is popping up. That’s, uh, people started to, uh, purchase integrated ADCS which, uh, the vendors help the people to integrate everything all together from the components and then help them develop the firmware, the algorithms, and then also operation.
[01:11:57] So the, uh, so-so, the users does not require to, uh, to, to build the ADCS, uh, everything by themselves. And I believe this is a trend for the market because every, uh, every things are getting more and more professional. And then there are also always the fourth method that you can always hire a contractor to build your satellites.
[01:12:22] And these contractor could purchase components or prejudice. They integrate the ADCS and build the ADCS for you. But today’s talk, I will be focused on method two and method three. Uh, major. So, uh, if you, you are adopting methodology two that, you’re buying components as integrate your own ADCS they are a couple of things you should be aware of that, including when you are picking up a reaction wheels, and there are some specific specifications that are other than the angular momentum or the torque is, are learned magnetic disturbances, specification, and those solar imbalance of the water, which is a major contributor of jitter.
[01:13:06] And then, uh, when you are choosing your attitude sensors, uh, especially you are choosing the image based one, like a star tracker, and then they usually have a lower update rate. So, uh, these sensors are usually limits your bandwidth of your control system. And if you wanted to have a better update rate, then your power consumption with it gets a larger and so while you are implementing your own ADCS yes, there are system errors are quite occurs to, to for these, uh, self ADCS builders, uh, because you are where you are trying to align the different component trends there, even you are using more cutting pins. And then, uh, the sensor will have some deviation or misalignments while installation.
[01:13:55] So, uh, this causes, uh, the, that, that degradation of performance and those are the nature of the components. They are random errors for these, uh, attitudes, sensors. And then if you are implemented algorithm by yourself, and then there might be some human error, that’s your algorithm may have some price parts or may behave not, that’s not the way you just think it will be in space.
[01:14:24] So it’s important to have a software in the loop simulation, and then also the hardware in the loop simulation. But, uh, both of these two massive is taught to read the, uh, the relative uh, uh, pointing accuracy. So it requires people to take efforts to get to those things, uh, to, to be done with the way that I, by the way.
[01:14:48] So, uh, here’s the introduction of, uh, uh, the pros and cons of using integrate ADCS that’s. They are usually more expensive than, uh, your, your, your, your, your purchase individual component and integrated system by yourself. But of course, there are also benefits because you don’t have to, uh, develop algorithms by yourself and do a calibration, and then, uh, and then save a few manpowers
[01:15:17] so, uh, uh, but if you count these equipment costs or the manpower costs and time cost, in fact, maybe, uh, ADCS, uh, integrated ADCS would be a more reliable and the economical for you and here I divide the, uh, the ADCS into three, a category by its pointing accuracy. And there are a purely a tracker based ADCS.
[01:15:41] They are just say around 10 degree of pointing accuracy. And then there are a reaction wheel base, but without star tracker and the one was star tracker, which is the most expensive and the most sophisticated one. And this, these different ADCS at different pricier as a cost. Of course. So, uh, finally I would like to introduce you, uh, with, uh, several, uh, findings that’s, uh, that I observed on the trend of this ADCS industry.
[01:16:12] There are some, some people companies are developing the, like the system identification, methodologies, uh, uh, like, uh, to determining the mass properties, uh, information on orbit are using their developed softwares and then they are Adrial Southwest utilizing CMGs control moment, gyros to have a better a slew rate compared to a traditional solutions.
[01:16:38] And then the other component is always driving the technology to go to go further. So they are attitude sensors with higher optic rates. And then the I’m going to introduce you with a Tensor Tech a unique offer, uh, a control moment gyro that is based on the sofrito promoter. So, uh, these, uh, Sabrico motor base CMG is a comparatively smaller than a traditional CMG because they utilize it. And multi-access actuator, which can provide people with a smaller Barden weight, uh, with, uh, compared to the traditional solution, which is the one you see in the picture here. So, uh, yeah, this is, uh, this is my presentation today. And since for your listening, Great. Thank you very much, Thomas. That was great.
[01:17:29] Great insights there. Thank you. And then, uh, finally today we’ve got, uh, Arne Broeders, Embedded Software Engineer at VEOWARE SPACE. This perfect , sharing on your screen. Thank you. Yeah. And that should have popped up. So hello everybody. Today I look value the technology and efficient, fewer control moment gyroscopes.
[01:17:54] So something that was briefly mentioned before. Um, so we will try to educate you about what control moment gyroscopes are for those of you that don’t know what they do already function. We will briefly go through how’s and but’s uh CMGs uh, before we focus on what Veoware has to offer as solutions. Uh, CMGs. So Veoware is a company founded in 2016 developing core skills and competence in, in orbit mobility.
[01:18:28] So as a young company, we started with our focus on satellite attitude, control technologies, more specifically development of CMGs for small satellites, small satellites. We understand small satellite, smaller 500 kilograms. Um, I am, I’m a Buddhist. So as mentioned before the embedded software engineer, uh, of Veoware, and currently I am mainly busy with, uh, firmware for our CMGs
[01:18:55] so what is a CMG? Um, the CMG mainly consists of a wheel, a wheel that. It’s mounted on, a certain axis that can spin this we will go the spin axis. Um, the core functionality of a CMG lies within the ability to control the direction of thisaxisaccess. Uh, so we need some kind of rotating platform that can reorientate this spinning axis
[01:19:28] um, in real life, we didn’t get something like this, which is the CMG that was used for the, as a space station. Um, and obviously this would not fit a, um, Yeah, small satellites. So we came up with this, um, and as you can see, we are spinning wheel, uh, which we can reorient with a small platform. Um, now how does this work?
[01:19:53] So when we spin a wheel, uh, we create a, uh, angular momentum, which is held by the wheel that is spinning. Um, by reorientating this wheel. So by turning the spin axis or the flywheel, the gyroscopic torque perpendicular to the angular momentum will be created in the plane of rotation. Um, the amount of torque is determined by the rate of change of the angular momentum does the speed with which we rotate the platform on which the wheel is mounted by controlling the direction of this angular momentum. We can interact with the Dodo angular momentum of the, of the satellites, uh, which allow us to influence the attitudes of a spacecrafts. Um, and here you see, uh, What this looks like in action. So we keep track boss. Well, here we have, uh, four CMG. So as with reaction wheels, we need four CMGs to create a full momentum envelope.
[01:20:58] Um, and we can see here so the wheels spinning on top of the rotating platform, uh, which are reorientating the direction of the spin axis on the wheels. And then in this case for a earth observation mission, we can reorient the, or, or yes, we can control the attitudes of the satellite, um, in it’s orbit um, now our sales team has noticed that the awareness of the existence of CMGs on the market for small satellites is not always present.
[01:21:33] And when searching for actuators, uh, often the search is done with reaction wheels as a keyword. So we’ve made a small overview with two technologies to compare how they work and what they do. So CMGs and reaction wheel both rely on the principle of momentum conservation. Um, with a reaction wheel, this momentum is fixed in the direction of the spin axis.
[01:22:02] Um, while with a CMG we can redirect this, uh, direction or the momentum by turning the rotating platform um, um, since the. A change of angular momentum creates torque um, the change of magnitudes of this angular momentum makes or creates the torque in a reaction wheel while in a CMG. Um, this is done by reorientating the wheel.
[01:22:35] So by moving the direction of this moment, um, for those of you involved with electromotors, uh, you can directly see that, uh, in, in terms of power consumption, um, a CMG, so rotating, um, a wheel at a constant speed will be much more efficient than, uh, spinning a wheel up and down constantly. So, uh, yeah.
[01:23:04] So what did we do? We had a good look at the. Bigger example, we miniaturized it. Um, uh, this is what we came up with. Um, we believe that the CMG is, uh, the most performance actuator type for attitudes control in small satellites. Um, for example, to reach the performance of a CMG, you could boost a reaction wheel to, uh, playing with, uh, input voltage of your reaction wheel.
[01:23:31] But even with that reaction wheels, uh, will not suffice to reach the, uh, potential of a CMG. Um, Also, uh, we have a small lead time and thirteens idle free. Um, currently, where are we with this technology? So we are almost ready to step into the market with two CMGs we are currently, uh, planning an IOD for the second quarter of 2022.
[01:24:01] Um, as you can see the technologies de-risked with the support of, uh, the European space agency, um, in these. So most of these pictures are also from, uh, the test facilities, uh, of aesthetic in the Netherlands at east. Um, our approach also involves modularity as already mentioned by James. Um, so we approached the CMG actually as a scalable building block.
[01:24:29] This means that, um, for performance requirements that not, uh, that cannot be met by a cluster of four CMGs, um, we can equip bigger satellites with multitude of, uh, CMGs that are similarly oriented. Um, so yeah, for example, we can fit up to 16 CMGs in a big satellite. Um, you also see mentioned in the slide that’s, uh, weak targets satellites that are from 50 to 500 kilos, and you can ask why, why won’t we go smaller than 50 kilos, our modular, um, approach involves that we have some, um, components that will not change when we, um, make the CMG smaller. So for. Starting smaller satellites, you would only need a smaller room, but the rotating platform and the control electronics, which are part of one module, uh, with not Trent. Um, and that’s why we believe we found a sweet spot with our micro CMG.
[01:25:38] One of the two models I will introduce, um, where we found a good balance between the mosque module and potential torque, uh, it can deliver. So, so this is, um, our micro CMG, which we like to compare with, uh, a 1 ms reaction wheel. Um, for those of you familiar with, uh, reaction wheel, you can see for the Moss and the peak power, uh, and the momentum in the wheel is holding we can create a lot of torque. Um, the same can be set for its bigger product, uh, which we call the mini CMG and compare it to a four MMS reaction real, um, Where for the same story for the Moss big power and the momentum and tools we can lot of torque um, both CMGs are equipped with a common interface. Uh, you work can be implemented, uh, on requests.
[01:26:39] Um, and currently we have two, uh, engineering models available, um, or the both, the both, uh, models are available as engineering models, uh, and flight models will be available close to our IOD. Um, in the second quarter of 2022 to now, what do you get when you combine, uh, four of each model, uh, to have a full attitude control system.
[01:27:10] Um, well, along the pitch roll, pitch roll and yaw axis, um, who didn’t get four, four micro CMGs almost two NMS and four, four mini CMGs, uh, above six NMS, um, which then can create, uh, one Newton metre uh, along each axis for micro CMG um, more than 3 Nm for mini CMGs, um, the big power mentioned is, uh, if we do a, um, a maneuver, um, at, uh, or maximum speed along or around one of the axis um, for, for one second, um, And for a cluster, you will then come to seven, approximately 7 kilos for micro CMGs and 11 kilos for mini CMGs
[01:28:03] um, um, we also want to mention that CMGs are not, or it’s not a technology that shouldn’t be exclusive to your, uh, or if you choose for CMGs that it should not be exclusively CMGs in your attitude control system, but that CMGs can be combined with reaction wheel. So they both rely on the same principles so you can combine them.
[01:28:28] Um, Yeah, a discount, for example, be the case in missions where you have your, or your need, you need, uh, more agility along one axis than another one. Um, our modular approach also involves that you can, uh, arrange, uh, these, these modules in your satellite as you want, um, so I’m going to, on the left, we have an array approach on bottom, we have a linear approach, uh, and the right top is actually demonstrating that, um, every CMG can be placed in a different location in your satellite. Um, so every module holds its own, uh, communication, , control electronics. So, um, it’s perfectly possible to scatter through your system. Um, yes. Um, this is the end of my presentation.
[01:29:32] I want to thank you for your attention. And I am here for questions or require more information by CMGs or what we can do for you. Uh, you can always, uh, pop a question in the Q and a, uh, or contact me by email and, uh, I hope you learned something more about CMGs and, uh, what they paid me for your control attitude system.
[01:29:56] Thank you. I know that was, that was great. Thanks very much. Um, I’ll just say a few brief words to finish up, but while I do, please do feel free to submit any questions you might have for Veoware where based on that presentation that you’ve just viewed, um, or indeed for any of the other presenters today. So firstly, thank you to all six of our presenters today.
[01:30:14] I think you’ve done a great job explaining how an ADCS works in space missions and what engineers need to take into account when selecting and using them. Just to go through a few of the highlights quickly. I think we we’ve learned about how to develop better pointing requirements, advice on the trade-offs in components, selection, the buy versus building for the ADCS integrated ADCS.
[01:30:35] Testing and integration. Sorry. Put my teeth back in testing and integration and the importance of, um, simulation tools in particular scaling up to larger satellite sizes, uh, trends in the ADCS sector, CMG technology, we’ve you really guys really packed a lot in, and we actually are almost bang on the 90 minutes, which is great as well for everybody’s time here.
[01:30:58] Now we’ve all had to get used to more online events over the past 18 months. And hopefully you agree with us that the format can really bring huge value. I think that that, and the quality of the information you’ve heard today demonstrate that, and you didn’t even have to leave home to hear it. So if you have any further questions or feedback for us or the presenter. Um, after the end of the event, please feel free to reach out to them or contact us at info@satsearch.com. We’ll make sure every message gets a response. As mentioned. We’d also follow up with you with the footage and the available slides soon by, by email, too. And if you’d like to hear more insights like these from people working at the cutting edge of the industry, we also run a weekly podcast called The Space Industry.
[01:31:42] James mentioned it in his speech, so he was, um, the, the most recent guests that we’ve published there. And you can find it on all good streaming platforms and on the satsearch blog too. And, you know, we have a weekly newsletter that shares trending news stories in the industry and updates on both our members work like the, like the developments you’ve heard today.
[01:32:00] Um, and some of our own work as well. The link to sign up to this should hopefully be in the chat box there. Yes, it is. Um, so yeah, that’s it. Uh, thank you very much to everybody. Thank you to all the presenters and to everybody listening with us today and, um, have a great rest of the week and the weekend.
DCUBED is a Germany-based manufacturer of actuators and deployable structures for nanosats and smallsats, and the wider commercial space industry. In the podcast we cover:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host. Hywel Curtis. And I’d like to welcome you to the space industry by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode. Remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to the episode I joined today by Thomas Sinn, CEO and founder of Deployables CubeD or DCUBED for short. DCUBED is a Germany based manufacturer of actuators and deployable structures for nanosats and smallsats and as well as the wider commercial space industry. In today’s episode, we’re going to discuss some aspects of testing and qualification for deployables and other similar technologies. So Thomas, welcome to the space industry podcast today. And is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Thomas: Thank you for having there is nothing to add you, uh, summarize that quite perfectly. I’m very happy to be with you.
Hywel: Well, let’s get into this topic of testing and qualification. Now deployables kind of need to work first time when they used. They’re often mission-critical can you provide an overview to, to begin with just of what sort of testing and qualification, what do they mean in the context of deployable systems?
Thomas: Fine, because you’re right. Deployables need to work for the first time and they’re often mission critical and that’s why a lot of companies or satellite builders go away from deployables because they are just afraid of them not working in space. But when you’re looking into where a space industry is heading towards a NewSpace constellation, it needs high performance computers onboard. We just need to have bigger structures. And then we cannot go around the use of the deployable structure because the satellites are standardized, packed quite nicely for launch, we had space at least deployables there, and this also means that the reliability and the checks that we can do here on the ground need to be approved.
And this specifically means how can we prove that the deployables work in the space, and we are trying to simulate all the conditions that are on the way to space and in space on these deployable structures.
So we often do a test as you fly approach. So we start within the start configuration where the deployable sends objectives to the launch vibration and also it’s a shock that it will see during a launch normally on a shaker table. And then when we are up in space, we’ll have thermal cycles that we get through the orbits.
If you go to the LEO there is one orbit every 90 minutes. So, we have to go through a thermal cycling. Preferably in the thermal baking chamber and then most predictably it’s the deployment that needs to work after all, just a launch and, uh, orbits here ideally, we want to have it in zero gravity, but it’s very hard to do here on the ground.
So we need to figure out how can we do a gravity offloading system or maybe flight on a proper flight. Or other methods to offload this gravity as much as possible. And the next thing is also okay. As soon as it’s deployed, how will we’ll be acting in a space environment? What will happen over the lifetime of this deployable? So there’s lot of testing and analysis, uh, being involved in may increasing this reliability. And that’s what you’re also working here at the huge, to still trying to improve on how we can make it more accessible and also a shorter timeframe. And therefore also decreasing costs for this testing still increasing the reliability.
Hywel: Lot of aspects that need to be really analyzed deeply in the nature of those analyses. Obviously relate to the missions that the deployable has to be, it is going to be used on. So maybe just to give the audience a better understanding of that when, and if you could provide some examples of different missions scenarios in, in the context of new space, perhaps where deployables are emerging as a key requirement.
Thomas: Right now we are developing a deployable solar array for new space nanosat constellation, but also it can be used for a small sats and here the idea is to enable 100 Watts of deployed power or just fitting in the 1U cubesatellite application for these are especially for a communication missions where we need a quite high power as we can then transmit more data, but there’s also many applications where we go for electric propulsion as we need more power there and then cost.
This is that before the computers that are on these small satellites are getting bigger and more advanced. So we need more power there. Most of the missions we are working on right now for our newspace customers are actualy in low earth orbits so between 400 and 500 kilometers. But we’ve been also tasked with submission, not only from the pros, but also more for the actuators going outside, LEO, going to the GTO, going to the moon, but also to the ground points. So there is always something that we need to keep in mind. Yeah, new space right now is mostly in a deal for just more and more applications that are looking outside of deal. And here we need to see what kind of requirements are a more constrained allotments that are then outside the deal.
Hywel: Quite a range there. Again, obviously, as you’ve mentioned, the testing is vital for such missions and then the different standards and the different organizations you have to work with will dictate which sort of, uh, standards and qualification aspect that you need to adhere to. Now, there are various established space agency standards for testing, such as ECSS and GEVS et cetera. Do you adopt these standards sort of straight away or, you know, what other approaches do you take in using the existing standards for testing and qualification?
Thomas: We started with ECSS and NASA GEVS. To look at or to get tired where we want to go, but we realized quite early that if you would follow it completely, as it’s described here, we would develop a product that is much too heavy and it would be ridiculously expensive.
So we are working together with NASA and ESA to figuring out, especially for new space application, how these standards that are developed for manned mission for Redis one, two ton, three ton satellites that are flying to Mars and flying to achieve can be adapted for a new space vacation. Cause there’s some things that are undiscussable, like, uh, reliability, uh, proof of our actuators here. We need to show that we have to reliability proven in ECSS to be even considered to fly on any kind of mission.
When we are looking now on the deployable structure where it’s more advanced concept than especially some of the easiest as sign rules don’t necessarily apply to them because yeah, it would get just too complex and it would have a constraining factor. So here. It’s a learning on both sides on the new space companies like us and also on the agency, ESA European commission, how these standards could be adapted to fit a more commercial goal. Because at the end, if we are not flying humans, they’re flying small satellites, then we can gD discuss on the safety factors and all the necessary testing to make it a more viable product that we can also compete here in Europe.
Hywel: When it comes to the use of the deployable systems and actuators that you develop, are there any specific challenges in the final assembly, integration and testing that need to be considered?
Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Quite some challenges, but with our experience that we have over the last decade now in deployables, we got quite good in technical. The deployable is a quite complex structure with often many mechanisms on there. If we look at our powercube solar array, it’s a origami folded solar array that needs to fit in with the one U uh, box. So, uh, one of the biggest challenges is to manufacture it as much as possible in one piece. So to really reduce the assembly steps, then to fold it in a controlled matter into this, uh, deployment box, uh, ensuring that we can always order the same way.
So that’s why we could also qualify it before, because we knew exactly how it was for that before how we fold it every time when we build a flight model for it and we went through the test campaign, but then we also need to, of course, showed that it’s frying probably with each of the products that we are delivering, because yeah, we need to show it on the grounds that it’s the deploys in a space.
And we are going here to approach for making it as simple as possible. So we say if the deployable device and a round close, so one G of gravity, then it will deploy for short in space. And then after just a deployment, a test round, we need to pack it again, prepare it one last time for height. Uh, so there’s a, quite a long process involved with every deployment.
But we are making good progress in making this very standardized because at the end, we want to enable a commercially off the shelf, uh, mass, uh, products. And if we are every time spending, uh, once doing these, uh, deployment tests separately for each product, that’s not feasible.
Hywel: Right. Actually. So it’s really about ensuring reliablity as efficiently as you can. I think you know people some people in the industry may have different opinions and experience of deployable systems. And I’m sure in the discussions you have with prospective customers or current users, you come across some common misunderstandings or misconceptions. I wonder if you could just discuss a few of those, you know, particularly when people thinking about the decision-making when it comes to the use of deployables or, or integrating them into a design.
That is a good question because we also face these misunderstandings, uh, quite often when we talk to our customers that are in the nano, smallsat world, when we say we are developing deployables, they always say, ah, we don’t need deployables because they are too complex, too expensive, and they don’t have high reliability. Cause they think often of like these deployables that are developed at almost every university right now, uh, which are more used for educational purposes.
And then when you go a level higher, as you think of these deployables, that are on the big satellites, the big solar arrays big antennas, there are many people that just see just a huge price like a related thing that we are trying to do is really endeavour, um, the trust back into a deployables that people see the deployables as a reliable means to overcome, uh, launch vehicle constraints. Because if we really want to have a small form factor in a satellite as possible was using commercial off the shelf, uh, electronics and computers.
We also need to not limit ourselves to a small form factors and we need these deployable structures in space. And as we want to produce them in mass production, there should be also a significant decrease in price and availability of this deployables delivering more trust in the whole concept. And we hope at one point we come to a conference and we say, ah, we are working on deployables. And that then people don’t say, ah, it’s too complex.
We don’t believe in the working of deployables anymore that they say, yeah, this is the way to go put the deployable on our satellite. That’s obviously on the, on of the technology side from your point of view.
Hywel: Now it just as a final question, I wouldn’t know how you also saw the, the mission requirements evolving for deployables over the next, you know, three to five years.
If you look beyond missions that are currently slated for launch currently booked for launch and what sort of capabilities deployables can provide missions and where, um, the needs for those missions are coming from the commercial sector.
Thomas: Yeah. So we see a clear need for a deployables, especially in the area of, uh, power generation. So, uh, solar arrays. And then of course the deployable radiators to get rid of all the heat. There’s so much power can generate. Then on the other hand, It’s clearly a deployable antennas on the communication side, as well as on the earth observation x-ray antennas here. We also need to have a bigger plane than, uh, as possible with the, uh, satellite.
And there is, uh, ideas using the orbit sales and, uh, solar cells for, uh, propulsion and, uh, space debris removal. So there’s, uh, quite some applications are in the pipeline for the coming years, especially for these nano and small sats. When we look at, uh, requirements for any of these structures, we will probably see change from especially the lifetime of these structures, because right now we are building them that they can last for five to 10 years.
But if we really look at how many of these new space constellations are applying the business, we are not talking about mission lifetime of five or 10 years more and maybe one year or a one and a half years, or even a shorter idea would be to the rise of the launch and also of the whole satellite, that it can be replaced more frequently with the newest technology. And with that, there is a lot of, uh, testing, no longer required, uh, to really prove that that needs to survive these many years in space.
And this was really greatly decreased the price because at the end, a long time, uh, testing is what is driving the cost here of the deployables who make really sure that after the deployment, they stay in the, um, configuration they should for the whole mission time plus X.
So I think this will be, uh, one of the main changes in requirements and this influence almost all the outflow, uh, into many other requirements. The only other thing, I also think that. More centralized interfaces would be a great to have to really make it possible to F uh, commercially off the shelf products.
Right now, we are, uh, offering most of our products with adaptable, uh, interfaces to fit many different, uh, satellite provider, rocket providers guidelines. But I think also in the future, having them more standardized, through to companies put crazy, decrease the costs as well for deployables, for mechanism, and then for the whole satellite and the service, is there a link to each other.
Hywel: Excellent. Well, thank you very much, Thomas. That’s a great place to wrap up and yeah. Thank you for all the insights you’ve shared on, on testing and the use of deployable systems. Um, I think this really, uh, taught the audience quite a lot about what goes into the preparation of such technologies and, uh, and the uses of them in today’s missions and tomorrow’s missions.
Thomas: Of course, it was really great to speak with you. Yeah, thanks very much for the invite and always happy to talk to you about, uh, newest trends in space. Already looking forward to our next talk.
Hywel: Great. Thanks. If you’d like to find out more about DCUBED’s work and product portfolio, the links will be in the show notes and you can also find out more on the satsearch.com platform.
Do you have any specific needs for product quotes, technical documentation, introductions to the business or whatever else is required for your mission design trade design or procurement purposes? You’re obviously more than welcome to use the free request system on the site too. Thank you for listening to this episode of the space industry by satsearch.
I hope you enjoy today’s story about one of the companies taking us in orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media. If you have any questions or comments. Stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google play store, or whichever podcast servers you typically use.
EnduroSat is a nanosatellite manufacturer and operator with headquarters in Bulgaria.
EnduroSat has built a strong brand in the space sector since being founded in 2015 and has worked with customers all across the globe. In the show we discuss:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host, Hywel Curtis and I’d like to welcome you to ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to the episode today. I’m joined by Victor Danchev, Chief Technology Officer at satsearch member EnduroSat. EnduroSat is a nanosatellite manufacturer and operator with headquarters in Bulgaria.
The company has quickly built quite a strong brand in the space sector since being founded in 2015 and has worked with customers all around the world. Today, we’re going to talk a little bit about how to solve some of the common integration and operational challenges for shared and dedicated satellite missions.
But first Victor. Hello and welcome to ‘The Space Industry’ podcast. Thanks for spending time with us today.
Victor: Hello Hywel, Nice to meet you and for the opportunity.
Hywel: Okay. Let’s get into the technical information. We still live in a world where planning for payload interfaces is done in quite a non-standardized way.
In some cases with the CAN, UART, I2C, RS485, all of these different hardware interfaces, and then with even more custom protocols on top. In your view, is standardization a good thing or a bad thing?
Victor: In my view, standardization is always a knife with two edges. On the one side, it’s really nice when we have something like the USB. When you think about it, people who are users of a PC, they never think about USB and they never think is my USB stick going to be okay for this computer or that computer. All computers that have the USB, they support it. And on one side, standardization is awesome because of this, but on the other side, it also slows down progress.
So the way that I see it, if you standardize too much, you are constraining and leaving people less room to do some innovations and to optimize in some way. If you go the other way, it’s the extreme that we have right now in the space sector, which is almost nothing is standardized. There’s so many protocols, probably every payload provider out there and every supply provider out there has their own.
And at some point, any integration is not just sticking areas be it in the PC, but it’s writing all the drivers from scratch. So there is pros and cons, but definitely a situation where you’re in one of the two extremes is always negative for one reason or another. And I think in general, what I’ve seen is that most standardizations, they come up when someone has become really tired of having to customize all the time and when they just decide, oh, I’m just going to take all of this and I’m going to make it into something really compatible.
But guess what? Usually the person who starts this or the company starts this, they’re not the only one. Usually a lot of these are flowing around. So definitely some form of standardization is good. Being flexible is good. And in the end, it’s a trade-off between being able to have more flexibility on the payload side and being able to be really optimized and focussed.
Hywel: Is there an impact on cost and timings in terms of the engineering, if you spend time on different routes, standardized or not standardized?
Victor: There is a lot of difference because if you try to be one key that fits all locks usually means that there’s going to be a lot of overhead on top of you. So if you try to support everything all the time, it really puts a lot of difficulty on a system.
And the way that we approach this at EnduroSat is that we have set up on the hardware side what we consider to be really needed by 95% of the market. We’re seeing most commonly in the market and what most people are looking into. And then on the software side, we try to be as flexible as possible because the truth is that we live in a world where hardware change is not so necessary if you have the right software running on top.
So this is something that we’ve learned and tried to use and to impact our customers by giving them something simple and something easy to integrate.
Hywel: And obviously the teams building payloads and companies building payloads are looking to work seamlessly with platform providers. You provide satellite services for shared and dedicated missions. What do you do at the company to make sure that payload teams can work seamlessly with you and remotely, which has been such a challenge over the last couple of years?
Victor: Regarding the actual integration, one of the things that we have undergone in the last year is we have launched our protocol that is called SPS-1, which is really made to simplify the customer’s life.
So one thing that it does is it allows you to automatically generate the full set of drivers from our platform to a payload by describing the functions of that payload in an ideal, in an interface design language. So a customer at this point, as long as they integrate this protocol on the very basic level with their payload, and we provide libraries for the most common operating systems like bare metals or RTOS, like Linux versions.
And as long as they integrate this, they don’t have to write from scratch all the functions of their payload and to give them to us and to lose literally in some cases months to try to be able to use their functionality and to try to use their commands. What they need to do is just describe in a very simple file, these interfaces. And then the full driver on top is automatically generated so that you literally send us a file. You integrate this very basic layers of the protocol. And as soon as we plug this file into our system, you get off the shelf integration with the platform and you get off the shelf integration with the graphical user interface that we have for it.
So you literally can command your payload from the graphic user interface we give for our platform, which in our review and in the feedback we’ve obtained so far is really a time saver. Because in most cases, the customer needs to spend months developing something like this themselves, which is not always compatible with what the platform provider does. And it can take an even longer time to integrate it.
Hywel: Testing and qualification is so important though, in that process. So in the system that we’ve just described with such protocol automation, how do you do tests such as hardware in loop, software in loop or AIT. How do they work in this environment?
Victor: In the shared sat context, what we do is we expose a flat sat. Basically a satellite assembled on the ground for the purpose of testing. We expose a remote connection to it for our customers, and we integrate their payloads in the same hardware configuration in which they will actually fly. We don’t really focus on emulating the satellite because the assistant like this, you always miss something if you try to emulate it all, fully on the software level, but we actually connect the real hardware or equivalent hardware, like the one which is going to fly with an engineering model of the customer payload, or simply expose the payload remotely to it. And the customer is able to connect to it and to literally play with how they would operate their payload.
And one thing that we do there is we introduced this whole system to a hardware in the loop simulation, which is integrating it the way that it’s going to be in space or things like the ADCS and the orbital position. It’s simulating what the different sensors are going to experience so that we can even play on the operational modes.
So we can simulate situations where the satellite is tumbling. What the sensors are going to measure, what the temperature is going to be. Of course, measurements of the sensors really give a complete end-to-end simulation of the system in order to track any ambiguities in the operational modes, in any situations where this is not going to be the way that they’re formulated is not going to be optimal or going to be dangerous so we can correct them.
Hywel: Do you have a sense of net effect on engineering time and costs, and even lead time for systems are with GUI based interfaces for remote integration and testing, like you just explained?
Victor: One estimate we have is from one of our customers that is flying a payload computer. They have their own device for performing high speed computations on the satellite and processing data on the satellite.
And they’re based on a Linux system. And one of our estimates for how much time was spared is literally in their case, they had about three days from getting the driver and integrating it in their device and being able to actually call functions, which are integrated in our onboard computer. And to send files to their own computer, to execute call on their own computer.
This literally something which would have normally taken months as opposed to a few days. Now this is not always going to be the case. Of course, it depends a lot, in this case, we had the driver for the exact architecture of this device, but the point is that even with the full adaptation needed to modify the protocol to a different architecture, We are looking at weeks as opposed to months.
So at least a few times fold the decrease in integration. In terms of ease of use, something that we’ve noticed is that, especially with some of our academia and agency customers, in many cases, they have a lot of equipment available to them in universities and large agencies, of course, but especially for smaller startup companies, this may not always be the case.
They may not have the most expensive spectrum analyzers, or they may not be able to have the full set of equipment they need to test something like a power system. And when delivering complete platforms, the benefit of this GUI approach is that you don’t need additional ground support equipment.
You really need your computer and the appropriate cable to connect to the satellite. Everything that you need is information from the satellite. Everything that you need to measure is already provided there. So it really saves a lot of time when it comes to having the full AIT performed, especially when you’re a startup, because things that would normally take you a lot of specialized equipment, a lot of effort and costs can be done really quickly and easily.
Hywel: What about teams and companies that are developing payloads that have an element of proprietary technology that they really want to protect. And they are most likely looking for privacy while developing the payloads and AIT both on the ground and while operating the system in space, because you’ve discussed, the systems with a lot of remote access and sharing.
How do you address the issues of privacy or payload, operation and data protection? And also as a bit of a follow-up to that, does this work differently for shared satellite missions versus dedicated satellites?
Victor: That’s a great question. It’s one of the things that we always start with, especially with commercial customers. The full system, the way that we have designed it has several layers of encryption. The most important one when we’re actually in flight is the encryption on top of the RF channel. So any data that the customer wants to get to their payload or get down from their payload, goes through a fully encrypted channel.
And on the ground immediately after it’s dumped on the physical ground station, it gets sent to a cloud account, which is also fully encrypted. It’s end to end encrypted from the moment that the customer wants to send data to the moment they receive it. And this thing is just our encryption. But the customer can actually encrypt their data on top without us having to understand it.
So a payload that’s integrated in our shared satellite platform or in a dedicated platform, doesn’t matter. It can inherently encrypt any data which it transmits or so uplinks or downlinks. I’ll give you an example. If you’re doing sensitive information, if you don’t want your data telemetry to be understood by the platform provider, even though you have all of these assurances, if you want to be absolutely sure that there is no physical way, or if you have images that you really need to encrypt, what you can do is any such data stream that comes out of your device, you can already encrypt it in your device. So we don’t need to know what the data is when you transfer it.
So we’re acting like transparent provider of data channels up and down to the payload. Of course, to command the payload we must be able to know its functionality in this type of idea that I discussed. We must know what the payload can do, but we don’t have to get any of its information. So you can just send commands to it.
And then as soon as any data is generated and it needs to be downlinks, it can be fully encrypted by the customer. So not only they can decrypt it on the ground, in their secure account. This is something that I believe we’re going to be seeing more and more in the future happening. The good news about what I mentioned as a ground architecture for the AIT and the remote integration is that, we’re actually using the exact same architecture we use for the in-orbit operations, as the one we use for this type of testing.
In fact, we even use UHF or S band, depending on the type of payload channel. So the flatsat is not actually connected directly to a network it’s RF device, S band or UHF/VHF, is connected to an RF cable and attenuator to what is the ground station computer let’s say. And on the ground, when we do this kind of testing the system level, testing the integration tests, we actually do it with an RF connection. We don’t do it by having the full satellite connected over a cable. We do it in the same way that you would do it in space with the only difference that the satellite is on a table and you have an attenuator instead of having the satellite in space and the free space attenuating the signal.
So they can benefit from exactly the same reliability and exactly the same encryption, so that even if a rogue employee goes through to take out their payload from the table, only they have the encryption in their own premise. And this is not physically possible to touched.
Hywel: You touched briefly on the future there, the sort of approaches that you were expecting to be seen in terms of ensuring the privacy of the data, et cetera. I wonder if you could just explain a little bit about, just as a final follow-up, how you see the future of integration and operational challenges such as those we’ve discussed today in general, evolving in the next three to five years?
Victor: I think that the smallsat sector is maturing really quickly. One of the things that we have noticed is that two, three years ago, encryption was very rare in the subsystems. And now a lot of customers want it. A few years ago, they were considered really still on the toy level. And now, I don’t think anyone is doubtful that you can have hundreds of these satellites generating a tremendous amount of data and actually doing better than one large satellite for certain applications.
So I see a lot of maturity and I think that this maturity is going to go two ways. On one side, there is the people who try to approach small satellite segment like classical satellite segment, and they try to push all the regulations and all the, I would say bureaucracy of a large satellite segment, which I don’t think is going to work because you’re just pushing complexity in a place which is good because there is no such complexity.
I think such companies that try to push too much regulation and too much classical satellite know-how in small satellite, they’re just going to make one generation of nice satellites and then be scared to innovate like it is with the bigger satellites, but the alternative is to really always stay ahead from the edge of what’s possible.
So I think that the integration challenges are mostly going to be related to having more digital twins, to having more places to actually run and test, to have really completely remote satellites. When you think about it, even if you have subsystems in different countries to be able to integrate them completely remotely and to test that this thing works as a single system and to really show how it would work at some point in space, even if you don’t have them physically.
And in the current era where I would say we are decentralized and cloud oriented, companies that ride this wave of digitalization of technology, I think are going to really benefit tremendously on the long run and produce the best.
Hywel: Brilliant. That’s a vision that would really democratize and open up the space industry across the world by removing the barriers during integration that can exist.
So thank you, Victor. That’s great. I think that’s a good place to wrap up. Some really interesting insights there for our audience into how different integration mission design challenges have been solved today, which is great. Thank you very much for spending time with ‘The Space Industry’ podcast community.
Victor: Thank you!
Hywel: And to all our listeners out there, thank you very much for listening and hope you enjoyed the episode too. Remember that you can find out more about EnduroSat on satsearch.com and we’ll share the links in the show notes to the company’s pages. On the platform, you can find out further technical details about their company’s portfolio and make requests for technical information and documents, ask for introductions to the company, quotes or whatever else you might need for your trade study or procurement purposes.
Thank you for listening to this episode of ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit.
We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google Play Store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Leaf Space has a major focus on the Ground station as a Service (GSaaS) business model and has served a range of clients across the industry, running both single and multiple missions.
In the episode we discuss some of the lessons and insights from this experience, including:
Leaf Track – a fully-managed Launch Vehicle Tracking as-a-service with real-time autotrack and telemetry reception deployed on-demand with the additional support from Leaf Space’s worldwide distributed Leaf Line network.
Leaf Line – a ground segment service in which Ground Station (GS) time is shared between different customers and missions using a high-efficiency scheduling algorithm, optimizing the GS use while satisfying customer needs constraints.
From the operations point of view, Leaf Space carries out all management of the ground segment, therefore the customer will have the important advantage of focusing more on his own core business. To interact with the Leaf Line network customers can use a dedicated API and a real-time data transfer interface through which a proprietary control center or ground segment manager software can be easily integrated.
Leaf Key – a dedicated ground segment solution, suitable for missions that require compliance with stringent requirements for capacity, latency, data transfer paths, and cost-effectiveness.
The deployment of the network backbone is carefully designed following the development plan of the customer’s constellation, guaranteeing the right performance at the right time.
Basing technology and infrastructure on the Leaf Line service assures high reliability, lower deployment time, lower production and maintenance cost that is directly reflected on a better service paired with the cost-effectiveness typical of the Leaf Line service.
Leaf Space takes care of the operations and maintenance of the Leaf Key network, guaranteeing service level agreements allowing the customer to focus on their core business.
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host, Hywel Curtis and I’d like to welcome you to ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined today by Giovanni Pandolfi of Leaf Space, a ground segment as a service provider with headquarters in Italy and sites across the world.
Today, we’re going to talk a little bit about the ground segment as a service business model and how it can improve procurement processes, particularly for satellite integrators and companies that have multiple missions. Giovanni, welcome to ‘The Space Industry’ podcast. It’s great that you’re with us today.
Giovanni: Hi there. Thanks for having me here.
Hywel: Fantastic. Let’s get into our discussion. When we talk about the ground segment as a service business model, what are the common bottlenecks that you see when it comes to access to ground stations for satellite operators who have multiple missions, particularly with different customers, who they need to serve on different timescales and in different ways?
Giovanni: Well, there are a few. Let’s take a step back by the way, maybe focusing on what these players need to do. It’s typically what we refer about as mission providers or in general as constellation operators. So I will divide the two things. Mission providers are third parties that build satellites for a certain customer and in major part of the cases also they operate the satellite mission of from the ground up.
So they actually schedule the satellite, task it for having for it to imaging for example, or they operate the telecommunication payload or whatever. But the fact is that they control the entire mission from satellite manufacturing, launching, LEOP and commissioning, nominal operation and then the commission it. And they do this for a third party. They just commission the entire mission to them saying, okay, I want this kind of data, or I want you to integrate this payload on a satellite bus and then to operate.
The other part is actually always satellite operators, but in that case, maybe they own their satellite and they operate it directly, but they manage a constellation or multiple satellites to be operated.
In both cases when you handle multiple missions, there are a few bottlenecks. In the first case for mission providers, the fact is that every customer has different requirements. Every payload has different way of operation or tasking and scheduling. So you need to take into account of all these different things when you’re actually providing a solution.
The way for you as a mission provider to make it economically sustainable is to make it as modular as possible, or try to put all the common things together and find solutions for those common things. And the same kind of thing applies for the constellation operators, but maybe there they have much less issues just because typically at least the constellation are based of similar satellites. So similar satellite, similar systems. The way of operation could be much more similar to each spacecraft.
As I said, one of the bottlenecks for examples is mission operations. We need to understand to make everything together. If you are, for example, using different communication boards or transceivers, because you have different data requirements, you need to find for example, ground segments as a service solution for each one, interfaces are a little bit different, the way that you schedule your contracts is a little bit different. Also the price could be quite different because of this thing.
Having a way to do all of these on a unique level and just stay focused on how to better streamline your process saves you I would say a lot of money, some time, but definitely will save you a lot of time. And same thing for constellation operation. If you have an idea of a streamlined process, defined interfaces, defined pricing structure, et cetera, that’s a way better. And your process is much more streamlined.
What we try to do in Leaf is that you define what we call a partnership program where we can partner actually with our customers to define a common framework agreement where we can have different things all put together. And so when they have a new mission, they don’t need to sign or negotiate a new contract. They just need to emit to us a service order. Like they will have to buy a certain component for a satellite. And then we know that we already test everything, that we already compatible. So I would say the bottlenecks are both technical, management or procurement wise, but also regulatory wise.
Hywel: That makes a lot of sense why you’ve split up the customers in that way, the constellation that maybe operates in one way with multiple satellites and then an individual company that manages multiple satellites doing different things for different customers.
You mentioned there your sort of standard framework agreement or the partnership agreement that you have. And you obviously touched on some of the benefits of that. From both your point of view as the ground station service provider and from maybe the satellite operators’ point of view, what advantages does such a standard agreement bring for where there’s a case of requiring to service multiple missions?
Giovanni: Definitely for us, these automatically reflect advantage for our customers. We give them the possibility of this discussion for multiple missions and really understand much more deeply what our customer’s needs for more than one mission. So in case we need to do any development or any integration, knowing that we do it for multiple missions, we can push it much more in our pipeline in general so develop it to much faster.
Our technical advantages are referring to the standardized interface, tested and integrated once, for example the interface between the mission control software and our service, where they assessed once we know that all the other mission that you will activate, if they are not really changing too much they will be already compliant with that.
Any kind of compatibility testing with the baseband processing, being sure that the RF signal that you’re sending actually will be received correctly, decoded correctly, and then the data will be transferred correctly. So there, we have an advantage because we have a system that we know already that is working and then having more and more missions we do use the kind of troubleshooting that you need to do every time that you have a new mission.
Another thing is that of course, having this kind of partnership and having a constant collaboration or discussion with our customers, allows us to know what are their needs, maybe not today, but their need for tomorrow. And so we plan accordingly our expansion of the ground station network, for example, or maybe expansion to other frequency bands that we can use because our customers see a natural trend in that use for the coming years, or even adding a certain feature while because the customer needs to have monitoring and actual metrics that they need for.
So all of these things is more of a partnership model instead of just a provider customer model and makes much more sense for us. It gave us a little bit more of a view and the customer or the mission provider can also plan their missions according to what we have already developed, what we are already operating, the kind of operation that they know is working.
Hywel: So they may change how or what they’re going to downlink for a mission in two or three years time based on the ground stations that you have available, for example, and likewise, you may change the setup at those ground stations and where they’re located based on what your customers need.
And you mentioned, the answer to the first question, that regulation is such an important part of this. So aside then I guess, from the technical benefits that the standard agreement brings, if you could explain how they could help you take care of regulatory requirements that the satellite operator might be obliged to meet, because they’re such a big part of getting a satellite into orbit?
Giovanni: Definitely. A lot of times is a part that is, I would not say neglected, but maybe it’s not considered as well as it should be. But this I think is for the ground segment in general. Particularly about regulations, let’s take always the example of the mission provider. So you have multiple missions planned and you have different customers coming to you saying, okay, I want to put this mission to fly in this orbit, with these specs and so on.
If you don’t have a natural product or product, I think about the fact that you will have multiple missions, multiple customers, what you will end up doing is actually have one license where satellite or permission that you will launch. And these of course reflects in a lot of time because every license takes a lot of time for just the ITU API preparation, submission, notification, publication, and all the other steps through.
And and you need to repeat that same process every time. And every time, for example, you need to also interface with us to understand what’s your ground station network like right now? What will be like in two years? What are the specs of your ground station network again.
You need to do this every time, but if you think it is about more about an efficient process, what do you could do instead at least if you have a plan for multiple missions is actually filing a single satellite network to the ITU in which you input maybe different frequencies that you are going to use. Maybe you’re not using for the first mission, but at least you have an outlook what you’re doing. And in this way, process is much more streamlined for you because you just do one filing process for your entire satellite network.
And then when you need to launch new missions you just launch them. Then it gets notified. And on our side, this is streamlined because we need, of course, to do one license for every ground station that we have in every country for every mission that we follow. But if multiple missions are below the same satellite network, we just need to do it once. And in this way, it just helps reduce not only the time of filing, but also if you need to launch one satellite in the next three months, because we have an emergency, or you have a customer that’s wants to launch as fast as possible, we can directly operate your satellite from the day that you launch instead of waiting for the actual approval of the license.
That in some cases it takes even up to several months. And in general, this process helps for the coordination at the country’s level with other operators in case if you’re using a frequency band that needs to be coordinated. So in general, I believe the base concept is always try to plan as much as possible your future needs, maybe not specifically the single mission needs, but specifically in terms of business. And doing this together with us, we can do it once together and then we are okay, let me say for the rest of the life, at least for the rest of the life of the contract.
Hywel: For the satellite operator, it’s a case of trying to think like a network operator, try and be forward looking and prepare. And that’ll help things. And then obviously you’re working with the ground station network partner in yourselves or alternative companies.
Giovanni: Right now, I believe it makes much more sense in the kind of market, the NewSpace market that we are right now, because the market itself allow for this kind of thinking.
So if I was doing this few years ago, maybe it didn’t have the outlook so far to build up all these things. So it was better to focus on a single mission each time. But now the market is a little bit more mature. Let me say, the mission providers are also more mature. Their offer is more mature, so they can have an outlook on actually the missions that have already as backlog or the planned missions. And so have it is future or forward looking approach definitely pay off.
Hywel: I wonder if you could talk a little bit about things on the commercial side. I wonder if you could maybe elaborate how the volume and the pricing structure can work for operating in a standard framework agreement across multiple admissions for a satellite operator?
Giovanni: Let’s start from the basics, as a service provider, we need to have all our ground stations running efficiently and this means try to increase the duty cycle or the number of contacts per day that one single ground station does as much as possible. Because in this way, of course our costs are much better amortized. And then the price that we can provide to our customers is much better. So what we came up with for this partnership program is actually built a volume-based discount in our pricing structure.
So we have our pricing model that is based on a price/minute of contact. For example, depending on the data rate that we are transmitting or downlinking to or from the customer, from the satellites. But then we have different ranges of specific price, depending on the volume of minutes that we are handling day by day with a specific customer and a specific context.
All this complicated thing to just say, of course, as much missions we are handling under the same contract, the more volume we will actually provide of contacts per day, and then the lower the price per minute will be. And this is really good for economics of scale, because it’s really fixed. This is our standard volume discount that we have, and you can actually directly see your projections in terms of how many missions you will have one day and that you can see what will be the price/minute for you. This applies to any active mission that we have for a single customer under the same contract.
So even though you will have slightly different missions. So for example, one mission just doing a TT&C and another mission doing X band downlink at high data rate, it still counts as as the same volume of minutes per day. And since we do it daily, also you can actually have a favourable pricing structure.
Hywel: Interesting. So you’ve really broken it down to the core of data per day, minutes per day. So that’s brilliant. Apart from streamlining pricing, based on volume and helping to meet the regulatory requirements as we’ve discussed, what are the sort of improvements, do you think, do you foresee, adding to a ground segment as a service operation like yours in order to keep adding value in the future to satellite operators?
Giovanni: One thing for sure is what we discussed before. So doing a one-time integration, so we have really simple interfaces. Our customers are integrating with our system quite quickly, in the matters of hours. I will say it’s really easy to do that. But one thing that is really important when you’re handling multiple missions is not to rebuild the interface or re-test it every time. If you can do it once and then using that as also your benchmark, then you save money because you don’t need to redevelop or any integration every time, you save time because of course integration time, but also testing time and so on. And also you can better address your operations to be aligned with the kind of interfaces or metrics so that we provide.
In addition to that, let me say this type of operational mission management process that saves time and money. Another fact is that with this kind of partnership, we really want to discuss with our customer what they want us to do in order to improve the service.
Having these framework agreements in place give us a better outlook to work on their missions and so we can say, okay, this customer is asking us to develop this and this feature that we can put in the pipeline, because it makes sense for us to put in the pipeline. And also because any feature maybe that is needed for customer A can be used also for customer B, C and D. So it’s really more as I said, as a partnership than just as a provision of service, because we want to improve our service as our customers need us to do.
Hywel: And that makes a lot of sense from a business perspective. Thanks for explaining that. And I guess my final question builds onto that. Please, only share things you’re allowed and you’re comfortable sharing, but maybe based on the emerging requirements of your customers or the future requirements that you think your customers might have and the trends and changes you’re seeing in the industry, I wondered if you could explain to us a little bit about where you see the ground segment as a service market moving?
Giovanni: That’s a good question. I know it’s a question that to find an answer and you need a crystal ball I would say. There are a few trends that we see quite strongly, internally talking with our customer, et cetera.
Let me say some common trends that we are seeing is getting to use higher and higher frequencies to enable a higher throughput in downlinking for Earth Observation missions, but also uplink and downlink wise maybe for gateways, communication for constellation or broadband communication in general. And this is not just higher frequencies in the RF, but it means also quite a lot of higher frequencies to get to optical communication.
And that of course there is the need to evolve the ground segment as a service not just to support LEO missions, but also to support the higher orbit missions in MEO, GEO in some cases, and also cislunar, deep space. Really to evolve some kind of method to support other orbits, hardware, kind of spacecraft, not just to NewSpace or small satellites.
One thing that we really believe a lot inside Leaf Space, it’s not just that these kind of trends, but actually, and I believe this is a partnership that we’re building really that direction, is to see a more and more interconnection between satellites and the ground segment. Just because right now, technological point of view, but also from a service point of view, we can handle that. Before, and it’s still true for some ground station as a service provider, the satellite operator is actually the one driving also the kind of views for the ground segment. And that’s definitely true but it also means the satellite operator needs to book, for example, specific passes over a specific ground station, at a specific time.
This is a method that we are using from the start of the market and makes sense to till a few years ago, when the number of satellites was, or the number of station was much higher let me say than the number of satellites. Right now it’s totally the opposite and so we need to have more interconnection between satellite operation, ground segment operation, and overall mission operations. For example, to push autonomous scheduling algorithms that can do the scheduling activity of the network to supply the actual service that is needed by satellite operators, without them to do anything manually. But also getting more and more lower level of kind of automation of operation on both sides.
So apart from let me say technological perspective, RF-wise or frequency wise, there is also a lot of innovation that could be done on the actual network operation scheduling and service provision.
Hywel: Oh, brilliant. We touched on some of those points actually in our previous podcasts back in March, when we spoke about the importance of flexibility and versatility and compatibility between different companies and with emerging things like the optical wavelengths and stuff being used.
A lot going on in the industry. And I think we’ve covered quite a bit of it today. Yeah I guess it’s a good place to wrap up. Thanks very much, some really interesting insights into the ground segment is a service business model and what it can really bring to companies that have this challenge and opportunity of managing multiple missions. We really appreciate you spending time with us on ‘The Space Industry’ podcast today.
Giovanni: Thanks to you for having me here. And I’m really glad to participate in this and I’m following all your other podcasts. So it’s really good to know to have this way of talking in the market. I believe it’s really. And it gives us a lot more understanding of what’s going on.
Hywel: Thank you. We appreciate it. To all our listeners out there, remember, you can find out more about Leaf Space on satsearch platform at satsearch.com.
You can find out about the individual aspects of the company’s ground segment as a service business models, make requests for more information, technical information or commercial information, as well as introductions to the business. And we also have various other pieces of content we’ve produced in collaboration with Leaf Space. Be sure to check that out on our blog, podcast and the website.
Thank you for listening to this episode of ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit.
We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments.
To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google Play Store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>KP Labs is a Polish NewSpace business founded in 2016 that develops autonomous spacecraft and robotic technology.
In the episode we discuss creating a hardware and software ecosystem to bring AI-powered algorithms for autonomy in space missions. We cover:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host, Hywel Curtis and I’d like to welcome you to ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello and welcome to today’s episode. I’m joined by Helena Milevych and Jakub Nalepa from satsearch member KP Labs. KP Labs is a Polish NewSpace business founded in 2016 and it develops autonomous spacecraft and robotic technologies.
Today, we’re going to be discussing how to create a hardware and software ecosystem in order to bring AI-powered algorithms for autonomy, into space missions. Really a timely topic, a topic that a lot of businesses are grappling with and thinking about for the future.
Helena and Jakub, welcome to the podcast. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
Helena: Hello, thank you very much for this introduction. I think you perfectly described what we are doing as a company.
Hywel: Okay. Let’s get into today’s topic. So from your perspective, how mature do you think AI systems are today that can be implemented in space missions? Could you maybe break down what AI powered algorithms for autonomy are, what this phrase really means for missions today against existing capabilities, against the operations that were more accustomed to?
Jakub: Yeah, I think there’s a very great question. So probably we can break this AI algorithms into different specific parts, because it’s very much depends on the mission that we are trying to target.
So we have quite a bunch of different missions. Like for instance, for Earth Observation, we may employ AI at different levels. For instance, we can think of capturing a very huge amount of data onboard the satellite. Given then the huge amount of data, it’s nice because we can try to extract some useful information from raw data.
It is also difficult to transfer and to analyze onboard and to take some actions based on this data that is captured just in orbit. So this AI for I’ll say non-critical missions like Earth Observation might be used for extracting knowledge from raw data onboard the satellite. And basically you can quantify the maturity of AI using for instance, TRL, which is technological readiness level.
And also you can break down AI into different parts and different algorithms are at different maturity levels. For instance, if we analyze image data, we are pretty much advanced because we’ve been doing this for years for different imaging modalities. And now we are in the process of deploying such algorithms on board, which is not obvious because we are in a very extreme execution environment.
We need to make sure that the algorithms are robust enough to be deployed in space missions, which is very different from the ground applications. We are actually getting there, but there’s still some things to do depending on the mission and on the characteristics of a specific mission, if we are just about the target.
Helena: And I would also like to add some examples while we’re speaking about missions, there are also some other examples of how we can use AI in space.
I would like to bring here a few examples that are not only mission-related for example, in 2018, German Aerospace Center (DLR) launched Simon to the ISS, to the International Space Station, which was a crew interactive mobile companion. And it was able to see, to speak, to hear, to understand, and of course, to fly.
It stayed for 14 months and then it was followed up by the Simon-2. I think it’s another example of how we can use AI in terms of assisting people and to support astronauts.
And there is another example related to the ISS, but this time by JAXA, the Japanese space agency, and it is called Int-Ball. As you can imagine, it is a ball. It is supporting the astronauts on the international space station with taking pictures or taking videos. So I think we already are experiencing this AI in space but not only missions, but there is a wide range of different scenarios how we can use it.
For example, NASA also cooperated with Google to train AI algorithms, to search for a new data from the Kepler mission. Or for example, we have the project that is called artificial intelligence data analysis that aims to search data from ESA, from the European space agency and from NASA, from all around the solar system to bring new discoveries, to reveal different anomalies.
I think it’s already happening. Maybe it’s not a mass scale, but it’s already there. And maybe we will also bring a few examples from our company, from our activities, what we are doing. With Antelope, an onboard computer that aims to analyze the telemetry data, and we submitted our idea via the website for ideas by ESA. We wanted to analyze the telemetry data from OPSAT to search and to train, to understand whether we can predict the anomaly in telemetry data. As you can imagine, the more satellites we have, the more difficult it is to get these anomalies for an operator.
This is one example. There’s also a few other examples, like super solution reconstruction for a single or multiple images. There’s also hyperspectral image segmentation. And I think there are more and more examples, but maybe the real scale we’ll see in the upcoming missions.
Jakub: I can add something on that because Helena brought an interesting example of Antelope, which is this system for detecting anomalies from telemetry data, because it’s not only about training and deploying them onboard satellite, but also how can we trust that kind of algorithm operating onboard satellite.
We definitely don’t want to lose a satellite. We need to prove that it can actually work in the wild and for this reason where verification and validation process is like super important in the deployment chain because we need to prove that things will ultimately work in practice. That is a critical component in space missions.
Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. We talk about this all the time from the hardware perspective, but as you say, it’s equally as important from the software or the, or even the algorithm level and a very interesting concept that you mentioned there discussing the TRL of the individual algorithms.
I think we break things down to that level of granularity, but if the algorithm is so critical to the success of the mission, then of course it is vital and important. And thank you for sharing all those examples as well. I think quite often we discuss, uses of onboard AI and onboard process in earth observation.
But there’s many examples out there, many more different types out there. We’ve discussed individual missions there, perhaps if you wouldn’t mind touching on some of the types of missions and in particular, the technical requirements that you see in the industry that would require autonomy or would benefit from autonomy based AI onboard.
Helena: I think it’s a very interesting question. Probably at this point we are mostly thinking about the earth observation missions, but what we also see in the industry is that more and more companies are looking for different types of AI based missions like in-orbit servicing, space debris removal, asteroid mining, maybe this is a very future concept.
We already see missions that are working towards this direction, or for example, deep space missions. For example, if a satellite cannot be reached easily, then some level of autonomy and some level of AI is really useful. For example, we have more and more lunar missions we are speaking about and Martian missions.
And this is the point that it is really useful and it’s really helpful. But in terms of requirements, this is a very interesting point, I would say. And we are looking for a trade off between the power availability and one hand and computational power on the other hand. For example, in terms of in orbit operations, like manufacturing, printing in orbit.
We have to think about this balance. What do we expect and what we can have in terms of hardware and software. And I would also say that at the moment, our company’s looking at the CubeSat format but of course we are also thinking about bigger satellites. If it goes for the requirements while talking with different partners or clients, we see this sensor-specific approach because there are different types of sensors.
Of course there is multispectral, hyperspectral, RGB, lidar, radars, and all the different types of payloads that you have. So we also have to think about this to take it into account. And this is another issue because we have a lot of different interfaces that we have to create, to develop.
I would say that at this point, it’s very much about trade off between what we can get at this point and what industry wants from us. But of course the huge advantage that we see is to the reprogrammability, thanks to the FPGA. The thing is that our computers, our hardware is based on the FPGA. So when the satellite is already in orbit, we can reprogram it.
It means that the same satellite to us before, different actions, different mission goals within the same mission. So for example, half of your orbits, the satellite is doing earth observation and for example, shipment tracking. So there are different things that we can work on. Thanks to the AI. Thanks to this, let’s say agile approach. What else I can say here is that in terms of mission types, we are first of all, thinking about the missions that are looking for fast response, or maybe near real-time data. And this is where this onboard data processing is really useful and helpful.
Jakub: Yes. Also, it’s important to understand the benefits of employing AI on board, because we are bringing that kind of data-driven algorithms onboard.
And what can we actually get out of this? Helena brought an important point of real-time processing because in specific applications, it might be the case that for example, the data that is old, it is not useful at all. So we need to get this data as fast as possible to actually extract some value from this raw data. And that is where AI could help. It could accelerate the process of downloading important information from the in-orbit operation.
Hywel: Right. Great. So this is the reason why, as you say, time and effort is invested in ensuring that it works on board, as opposed to on the ground, which is really interesting. We hear so many times space about trade-offs. And that’s important to remember at every stage of mission design and development.
Now, at KP labs, you’ve developed something that is described as the Smart Mission Ecosystem. I wondered if you could describe this just briefly for us and explain what the parts of the ecosystem are and how it ultimately delivers valued to space missions, accounting for these trade-offs that we’ve mentioned, maybe some of these use cases that you’ve discussed earlier?
Helena: So maybe let’s start from the explanation what’s the Smart Mission Ecosystem. It is consists of five elements. Software part and hardware parts. So let’s start from the, let’s say very top.
This is Oryx, which is onboard computer software. And then we have Antelope, which is onboard computer with the DPU module that already was mentioned today. And there’s also leopard, which is a data processing unit. There is also Oasis, which is EGSE and unfortunately will never fly and we’ll never see space by its own. But it’s supporting the mission integration and checking the whole system, then everything works fine. And of course there is the Herd. It’s a bunch of different AI algorithms for the earth observation, but not only.
We’ve already mentioned the telemetry data for this analysis, and maybe let’s speak about the motivation behind it. So the thing is that while building our own mission Intuition-1, we mentioned that there is NewSpace and there is a CubeSat format, but the delivery chain is very fragmented. And even if you buy different components, different sub-systems from different companies, at the end, you still have to do some work from your side. You have to adapt the software for your mission.
You have to get these additional efforts where everything works correctly. So we came up with the idea that it might be a good idea to create an ecosystem where everything works with everything. And that’s why we call it ecosystem. And we think that the crucial thing here is that thanks to these components, we can bring missions faster and cheaper, which is quite important in terms of constellations.
And then again, you spent less time. And the missions are safe because there is no need to create everything from the beginning. It’s like a puzzle. You just bring different components and they are already developed the way that they interact with each other and they speak to each other.
Jakub: Yes. The idea is to just keep the brain very close to the eye because we are capturing the image data, which is huge. It might be difficult to downlink as Helena just mentioned. And the idea is the process as much as we can onboard satellite to extract value, and this value might be very different than maybe dependent on the use case.
And it actually will be dependent on the use case. We’ll extract different value for agriculture, for object tracking, et cetera. So also the idea is to uplink the pre-trained models back to the operating satellite. So we can perform training on the ground and the uplinking the model straight to the satellite because we’ll be ready for using deep learning onboard.
And then we can use pre-trained models onboard to actually process the new data that’s coming from sensor, which will also mean that we can be decrease the amount of data transfer. As I mentioned, it is important because we want to get this data as fast as possible, in the real time if possible. If this is happening we can take faster actions in specific applications, which might be crucial because otherwise the data would not be useful at all.
If it’s for instance, delivered too late back to the ground. So that is why we are bringing the operations onboard satellite, and we want to not transfer the entire data. Just the important bits extracted from this data onboard Intuition-1.
Hywel: That’s great. And that’s a critical challenge that as you say, definitely integrators face when using their components from different suppliers. So thank you for describing the ecosystem there. And I love the names of the individual names of the products as hard, the Leopard, the Oryx, the Antelope, and then the Herd, where it’s coming together.
Alongside the development of this hardware and software ecosystem, I know KP Labs is also developing this mission Intuition-1, in order to demonstrate some of this technology. Could you just describe to us some of the key features of this mission and what you’re looking to achieve?
Helena: Maybe I’ll start with an introduction of our mission. It’s a hyperspectral mission with the onboard data processing and the idea behind it was that while we have 150 bands, it is quite difficult to downlink all the data to ground station. So we came up with the onboard data processing chain that later on became the Herd and Leopard.
And the thing is that it is a 6U cubesat and it is about launching in the very end of 2022, towards the very beginning of 2023. It might be considered as a flying lab, because thanks to this reprogrammability, we’re able to check different scenarios like agricultural scenario or any other scenario where the hyperspectral data is required.
Thanks to the Leopard, that could be easily reprogrammed and thanks to the algorithm. It could be pre-trained and uplinked to the satellite. I think it also important from the other perspective, because some of our products will get the flight heritage, thanks to this mission.
Of course, in terms of Oryx, it was already tested in orbit in the end of 2020. But for example, the Herd, it will be fully deployed on the Intuition-1. Of course we have smaller projects with ESA the moment and we prepare for this.
But anyway, for the first time, the Antelope will fly in full let’s say size on our own mission. So I think it is very important for us and it is challenging project in itself, but I think it’s also quite fascinating and we’re gaining a huge experience while developing it.
Jakub: I could actually add that I liked the flying lab Helena mentioned because it is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to build the satellite that is application-agnostic. So we can uplink any algorithm given that we have the data to train on and we can deploy any type of deep learning algorithm on board the satellite, which would be, I think exciting because we could target different applications that are mostly related to earth observation. We can actually do anything with the hyperspectral data we’ll be capturing onboard.
Hywel: Brilliant. Well, best of luck with the mission. It’s an opportunity to demonstrate the system that could potentially have more value during the mission’s timeframe, due to the ability to upload the new models or the new algorithms or retrain the algorithm and uplink them.
So the value in year two of the mission could be higher than year one, which is great. Because normally a satellite is launched and it is launched. So that’s great.
On that, I think the sort of value that you’re talking about, where do you see that being utilized in the industry? You know, what are the typical profiles of customers that you’re looking to service with the smart mission ecosystem?
And you’ve given us some examples already of the types of missions, but yeah, maybe if they can use AI on board and novel processing, et cetera, but maybe just to focus a little bit on, on the smart mission ecosystem itself.
Helena: First of all, we are looking at the NewSpace market. And right now we’re focusing on CubeSats. Of course, in the future, we want to expand the product line and we want also to cooperate with bigger satellites. And this is the idea, but at the moment we are focusing on cubesats and it might be, cooperation from different levels, from different angles, but we are very open to the cooperation with the commercial missions, but from our point of view,
Europe may not be at the level that we would like to have. So I would say in Europe, we are mostly focusing on students missions and on agency projects. This is the European reality, but we’re also looking for different mission types.
As we mentioned here, it might be, some feature extraction for the Earth Observation. It might be missions where near real-time data is required. For example, in terms of crisis management or flood monitoring, forests, Jakub already mentioned, might be agricultural use case scenario when we’re speaking about soil mapping. It’s a wide variety of different mission types. So I also think that it’s a huge advantage of this ecosystem that it might fit to different mission types.
And of course, the idea that in terms of earth observation, while I found such data that tried not only 5 to 15% information or data that is sent to to the ground station is useful. So it means that we have a lot of satellites, but their data that is sent to the earth, it’s not that much. So the idea that we want to have a better quality, for example, thanks to the cloud detection algorithms, instead of sending all the data to the ground station, we can send only data and pictures that is useful.
Instead of having all the pictures in this chain, we can focus on preprocessed pictures that would be really useful. So I would say that cloud detection or bad pixel mitigation, it’s a great example on how we can use this technology right now. Not in the future, not in 10 years, but right, right now, it is already available and I think it will bring additional value to almost every mission.
Hywel: As you say that it’s about increasing the value of existing missions and existing technologies simply by increasing the value of the data. So that’s fantastic. You spoke there about the customers you’re looking for today and the shape of the industry and the market today.
Just to finish up, if I could put you on the spot a little bit and ask where you see the market for AI-powered autonomy in space missions, the sorts of use cases, examples we’ve discussed today, where do you see it going in the next three to five years?
Helena: I think in terms of space, three to five years is quiet a short perspective. And I would say that most of the missions that we’ll see in this timeframe they’re already planned and they’re under development. And if we look at the different agency strategies, then we can see what’s about to happen.
And there’s different interests in AI missions. And there is also another statistic. They found that over 10,000 satellites will be launched within next 10 years. Around 1000 will require the onboard data processing.
So we can see that there is a huge potential for such applications and in terms of how our own missions and our own let’s say products, I can highlight Phisat-2 mission. This is an earth observation mission where our algorithms, the Herd will fly on there. There is also the Opsat mission that I already mentioned today before. We submitted this anomaly detection scenario with to ESA, but there is also a hypothetical scenario where we can use our Leopard in space debris removal.
We see more and more missions also European, but not only that are interested in cleaning, let’s say the space and making space more safe. And I would say this is crucial because if we have not operated spacecraft, it is quite difficult to maneuver. It is quite difficult to use space. This is another example and what more we can add here is PW-Sat 3, a mission in cooperation with the Polytechnical University for Warsaw. Our Oryx on board computer software and an Antelope computer with the algorithms are about to fly that.
Hywel: Fantastic. Well, I think that’s a great place to wrap up. Thank you both for sharing all these insights with us today. It’s been really interesting to learn about how KP Labs is developing this ecosystem and looking to bring onboard data processing into more application areas and obviously best of luck with the Intuition-1 mission to be your own demonstration purposes.
Just wanted to thank you both for being with us on ‘The Space Industry’ podcast today.
To all our listeners out there, you can find out more about KP Labs on the satsearch platform satsearch.com. Feel free to use the request function on the platform for any questions you might have in any expressions of interest in the company’s technology or for documentation and whatever else might help your procurement journey.
Thank you for listening to this episode of ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit.
We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments.
To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google Play Store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>Unibap is a Swedish firm that creates artificial intelligence (AI) and automation technologies to improve industrial processes and Simera Sense is an optical payload manufacturer based in South Africa.
The two companies are currently working together to improve Earth Observation (EO) capabilities through advanced on-board processing, using AI techniques, which is the main topic of the episode. In the podcast we discuss:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host, Hywel Curtis and I’d like to welcome you to ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello and welcome to ‘The Space Industry’ podcast. On today’s episode, I’m joined by representatives from two different satsearch members who are currently working together to improve Earth Observation capabilities through advanced onboard processing.
And that’s what we want to discuss with them. Our guests are Søren Pederson from Unibap, a Swedish public company that creates AI and automation technologies in order to improve industrial processes and Thys Cronje from Simera Sense, a South Africa based manufacturer of Earth Observation cameras, and other optical payloads.
Welcome Søren and Thys. It’s great to have you both with us today on ‘The Space Industry’ podcast. Is there anything you might want to add to those introductions there? Søren, you first?
Søren: No, it’s a very nice introduction. Thank you for having me.
Hywel: Great! Thys?
Thys: No, from my side, there’s nothing I can add. Thanks for having me on the show.
Hywel: So let’s dive into the questions and hopefully we can cover a range of different areas, because I know you guys are working together. Your companies are working together on a mission, which we can touch upon.
Firstly. Søren I wondered if you could give us a little bit of an overview of how intelligent satellites are today and how mature you feel AI is for missions?
Søren: I think in general, there’s not a lot of intelligence being put on spacecraft already on orbit today, but it’s definitely one of the things that we’ll be seeing and that’s going to be launched over the next many, many years on many different missions going up into space.
The level today is low, but it’s a rising need and trend going to support say almost every aspect of the downstream business in space. We’re starting to see more and more AI go into space and the maturity for that reason is also still getting there.
Hywel: Excellent. So it’s early days, but there are clear paths forward perhaps. One of the major areas that the use of AI for onboard processing has been targeted at is, unsurprisingly, the earth observation sector.
Thys obviously, this is your world. I wondered if you could give us a bit of an overview in order to begin with of how earth observation data is captured in cameras today, and what are the areas of improvement that could add value to end users tomorrow?
Thys: Yes. Thank you. You’re hundred percent correct. So earth observation is today, as we see it is still quite what we call linear. You get an instrument, usually either optical or radar or any other kind of technology, but it’s an instrument integrated into a satellite, usually nadir facing towards the earth and it catches photons in an optical payload.
So it gets photons translated into electrons, and that’s translated into a bitstream stored in mass memory, on the satellite. And when the satellite passes over a ground station, the data is downloaded to the ground station and in the downstream network the data is corrected, calibrated and maybe archived and then distributed to the various role players that use this data to make decisions.
So what I mentioned there is quite a linear process and within that process, there is lots of bottlenecks. And when we speak about AI and those kind of advanced processing onboard, that’s where advanced processing at this point in time can add a lot of value.
How one can address the bottlenecks, reduce the data, make the whole process smoother, just get the data that you need on earth. And make it interactive, make it autonomous. That’s in a nutshell how the earth observation data stream works today and the way we can add value.
Hywel: I think manufacturers and service providers in space across any sector are very familiar with the bottlenecks that this unique environment could present us with.
And that is surely got to be, Søren to you, this surely that’s gotta be the case for the development of systems that you’re talking about. The use of GPUs and high performance computing hardware in space is as you say, quite a new trend in the early days and the environment that space presents surely throws up certain challenges for the creation of architectures that involve high-end processing devices like this. How are the manufacturers overcoming these issues in order to make these systems functional in orbit?
Søren: Well, at Unibap, we had to sort of come at that problem from a new sort of approach because we initially looked at the different architectures out there available. We have a very strong background on the space environment and specifically the radiation environment. And we had to sort of take that into account as everyone does when designing the systems for space.
And we could see that a lot of the GPUs out there were not well-performing on radiation and on different types of radiation also. So this is both on TID and sort of the different elements you have there. And what we ended up with was going for an A&D based architecture, that you get on an SOC, an x86 CPU architecture, that’s definitely not been developed for space.
So in that we had to come up with a new way of managing the system, micro-managing and monitoring the system in space so we were able to detect if we have hung kernels, if we have a different latch-up, and that sort of thing, and then mitigate that and monitor the system. And through that, we’ve developed something called a safety chip and safety boot.
This has been done with a high support from the European Space Agency. And that’ll actually allow us a high degree to monitor all of the different processes, ongoing in the GPU and restart parts of the processes or restart the full GPU if that’s the issue.
So you can say onboarding some of these COTS components and flying them in space is not a straightforward thing to do, especially not if you’re looking to have a high-performance and super stable system. It’s okay if you just want to process for five minutes and then shut down again. I guess you can use a lot of different options that’s available out there. But if your target is to manage these things, manage the risk and design a system where you have a super stable performance, it’s a non-trivial task.
Hywel: But it is the sort of solution you need to smooth out the bottlenecks that Thys is talking about. You’ve had to really build out that from the ground up in some ways then. If you could maybe discuss a little bit about Unibap Space Cloud product, and in particular, the process through which the product is used to integrate with satellite mission developers, are you primarily working with payload manufacturers, such as the project that you’re doing with Simera Sense or is about another part of the value chain?
Søren: We try to work in multiple directions at the same time. One of them is to direct our Space Cloud interfacing towards the different sensor providers out there, being optical sensors, like Simera Sense is providing, or it can be high performance SDRs. It can be basically any sensor that provides an electrical interface, which is what we have and can be as high as 20 gigabits per second input into Space Cloud.
So that’s sort of on the sensor side. Then we have a Space Cloud ecosystem where we are working on the basis of what the Space Cloud OS and framework is to offer a number of different tools that we can use to do both data preparation. So when we take in the images from Simera Sense, like in the project that we have with them, now we can take in the raw data we can in this case Thys and his team are good enough to do the ortho rectification to the data, but then we onboard it into Space Cloud and we do the band registration, we do the geolocation on the individual hypercube.
So this is a sort of a processing intense task because there’s a lot data to sort through here and get aligned in how you want it to be. So you sort of bring it up to an L1 and from there we hand it over to, in this case, just applying CCSDS compression algorithms and downloading it to ground, but you could easily apply tools like in the NVIDL, which is a part of Space Cloud, or you could apply a tool also provided from Spacemetric, that’s also an integrated part of Space Cloud where we can develop and run all of these smart algorithms to detect different objects and then send the metadata to ground basically.
Hywel: Fascinating. There’s lots of different ways of making this thing more efficient, making the data transfer more powerful, more useful for the end user and the sort of AI capabilities we’re talking about Thys, maybe if I could ask you, where are we in terms of integrating earth observation payloads with these sort of capabilities and what steps do companies such as yourselves (camera manufacturers) are you taking or do you feel you need to take in order to better support the development of the AI based onboard data processing, which could help your business and your customers?
Thys: Yes, that’s a very good question. And to be honest, it’s early days, it’s very early days, but we are already seeing a lot of progress is made, but a lot of the progress is still on what I call it experimental side. But if I can take this example that Søren just mentioned, that’s where we are working with a client that’s wants to fly one of our hyperspectral cameras in space and they want to capture a lot of data as much data as possible per day, and downloaded to earth.
When we started the discussions with the client, we soon realized that the client’s expectations and what the satellite can do is not aligned. So we needed to think a little bit out of the box and tell the client they can capture this much of data, but how are you going to get it onto the ground? How are you going to move that that big amount of data in as efficient and cheap possible way to your servers so that you can start the process?
They had quite high expectations on the daily data, within a limited timeframe, they wanted the data from the satellite to the ground and it comes at a cost, downloading data from the satellite to the ground is not cheap, if you actually need high priority, high bandwidth and all that. At that point, we realized that we needed a strong partner that can bring advanced processing to the table and do all those number crunching in space for us, reduce the volume of data to acceptable levels and do some advanced processing and get some insight already on the platform that we can stream to the customer and then they can make much better decisions on the ground and much quicker.
So the value proposition is, the sky is the limit, but it takes time to convince the customer to convey that message, to convey that value proposition. It’s not easy, but our task, and that’s where Unibap is also great with this, is to do assist the client to make that whole process as easy as possible, to let the complexity disappear. And I think that’s way the Space Cloud is significant. It’s not only about what’s happening onboard and the processing that they do on board satellite, but it’s also how that whole framework is integrated. Lots of satellites or mission operators forget about that. It’s not only happening on the satellite, but it’s a whole integrated framework that you need to look at.
And you need also a little bit of autonomy to do this process. But that will come later. So it’s early days. Yes. And, I think getting that whole infrastructure set up and then we can build up on top of that with our partners like Unibap and I think it’s like computers in the 80s. We pretty much thought about computers as pieces of hardware. Nowadays, we think about a computer as a piece of software. The hardware totally disappeared in the background. You don’t know if you’re talking to the cloud or if you’re working on your own PC. It’s a whole integrated framework system and that’s where we hope that this whole onboard advanced processing, with applications like Space Cloud, will take us.
Hywel: As you say, early days, but there’s a willingness there to solve these problems that are cropping up. And the great thing that you guys have is it is a commercial opportunity, a commercial imperative to solve these problems and to work on this project together. And that’s important because that’s a real driver of a change in the marketplace.
I guess on that, Søren, if you’d be willing and able to share a bit. I wondered if you could provide a bit of a sense of the cost-to-performance of legacy solutions versus implementing AI-based solutions for onboard processing in the manner that we’re discussing here, or at least about the factors that are involved in such a comparison.
Søren: Sure. And I think this is going to be an important question to ask and I think cost-to-performance, I mean the dollars are always driving whatever it is that we’re doing to some extent, at least. So I guess this is something to focus on. And this also has been quite a high focus part as Thys mentioned on the mission that we’re putting together here. There was a downlink limitation in terms of how much data you could sort of get from the spacecraft to ground. And we had put up or design a data processing chain that would on one side maximize that. And on the other side, ensure that we could get the best quality data to the customer as part of this setup.
As I said before, we’re doing some image data preparation. I unintentionally left out that we’re also doing cloud masking. Then we are doing CCSDS data compression or image compression on board and then sending it to ground. And if we try, we can add a step more before we send it to ground, which is applying smart algorithms and then filtering out metadata. That’s not a part of this mission, but for the cost saving or cost to performance example here, it’s a relevant thing to discuss also.
So I guess the first thing you can say, when you go through this, you need to bring the data up to a state where you sort of minimize and focus on what it is that you want. So you have a data set that you can actually use, and that’s sort of the first step. And then the next step here is to remove data that can’t be used.
And this is just a very simple way of doing that is by doing cloud masking, onboard the spacecraft. So it’s nothing new in this sense of artificial intelligence. It’s just a very effective way of doing that. I think the cloud masking example has been talked about by many different vendors and users and all of that. We were working with Craft Prospect from UK to provide their algorithm set into the Space Cloud and so you can sort of use that and reuse that in this context.
If we want to quantify, what does that do to the cost of performance, or how does that affect the data said, well, you’re probably looking at anywhere between, I guess, 4 to 60% of data reduction there. Because there’s a lot of clouds out there and it’s seasonal dependent. There’s some geographical dependencies there. There’s other dependencies in that processing chain. But that can really allow you to just, I mean, if you’re looking at stuff on ground and there’s clouds in between, well, let’s get rid of the clouds because that’s data without any value. That’s one way of doing it or that’s sort of the first step to take in that content.
So once you’re up to the state where you sort of made that first, very crude sorting of data, you’re at the stage where you can start applying the smarter algorithms before you start to compress and send to ground. But let’s just keep that the smarter algorithm box in the talk and take that at the end. We’re working with Metaspectral from Canada to provide image compression algorithms. In that, they can do lossless compression of the data set up to about 60% and near lossless to above 90%. So you’re really looking at a significant scaling of the data that you need to bring to ground in this context and contact any sort of ground station provider and get numbers and sort of work around what that actually means.
But it also means once you have the data on ground, it’ll cost you less to maintain and mine that data on ground, because there’s less of it, but it’s only the valuable stuff you have there. That’s sort of the processing chain we have established or are establishing for this project. But if you then add the smarter algorithms to this, so if you’re looking to detect ships, maybe correlate that with AIS data on orbit. And once you’ve done that on orbit, you can really relay that through a real time text link.
You don’t need a lot of spectrum to sort of link that information to ground. It’s just a position. It’s verification. It’s nothing big on the data side. So you have that information, but you can do that for buildings, for cars, for ships, for aircraft. I mean, there’s people out there that’s coming up with many more examples that I can give here. On the data reduction side, it’s not just about reducing data, but it’s also about latency. Making that data available at a very short timeframe and the cost of performance there is really, really big.
Hywel: Excellent. There’s a number of factors which I guess are important to think about in terms of processing the raw imagery as it is. What we’re doing is changing the location of where that images and the data is processed. And then as you say, the idea of compressing it and sending it, but also the idea of combining it with things like AIS data.
I know various guests on our podcast have talked about this emerging concept of whole domain awareness, total domain awareness, different terminology, combining data sources from on the ground and in space and with the quality of the data that’s used in those processes is going to be very important. The relevancy, the size, how compressed it is and how much processing has already gone through.
So that’s really interesting. The example you gave that obviously is really relevant to earth observation and especially with the clouds. It’s really relevant to earth observation applications that we’re all used to. Thys, I wondered from your perspective, do you think we’ll see AI integration in earth observation industry first happen in certain bands, such as RGB, and then move into more of the complex data. I know you mentioned you were working with a hyperspectral camera there. There’s thermal, there’s SAR, or do you see these things happen in parallel and almost the onboard processing is a little bit data agnostic as maybe it should be?
Thys: If I can quickly add something, just to throw a number on the table, if you look at this, it depends on who you ask, but it’s anything from 5 to 15% of the data downloaded from satellites are actually used. So you talk about an 85% of wastage. And if you can reduce that, you will save a lot of money because you’re using a lot of spectrum, a lot of time, a lot of resources to get that data on the ground and then you never use it.
Let’s do something like a sorting machine on your spacecraft that can sort the data for you, capture that area of interest. Compress it as much as possible and get it on down as quick as possible. As Søren mentioned, reduce that latency. If you need to download all the data and just think about it, if you are interested in the coast lines, then more than 50% of the data that you will capture is the deep sea that you don’t want. You only want the coastline, so reduce that data and get it on the ground as quick as possible. And then your latency will also go down.
Hywel: Brilliant. And as you say, a lot of it will be market-driven, which is always what you want to see in the commercial space sector. You guys have mentioned a lot of the potential missions and types of applications that the combination of really advanced earth observation systems and onboard processing could bring into fruition.
So I wonder if there’s anything, just to wrap up, I wonder if there’s anything else, Søren, you first, are there any particular mission types that you’re most excited about that we could see coming on board in the next three to five years or any missions, processes, anything using AI based on board processing in that timeframe, maybe?
Søren: Yeah. There’s lots of things coming that’s going to be extremely interesting to see how they play out individually. I think it is very realistic to do this within a three to five-year timeframe. Once we’ve sort of aligned a global effort to sort of get things up there and get it working, being smart, but then starting to see our data on orbit, as Thys is also talking about so that we can actually autonomize the task operations from spacecraft to spacecraft without necessarily having an operator on the ground in between is one of the things that I see as a huge potential.
I’m not saying it’s an easy task, but it’s definitely going to change things and the building blocks are there. So it’s just a matter of having enough good engineers, I guess to get it working. That’s that’s one thing. That’s sort of on the earth observation side.
In terms of our applications, I’m personally looking forward to seeing the use of artificial intelligence and autonomous operations being put to use in deep space missions. Because once we do that, we can have a lunar orbiter, a Mars orbiter or robot talking to Mars orbiter, we can get so much more data. We can get so much more knowledge about what’s going on and sort of use that to take not just one step, but maybe two or three steps. And the use of AI is going to accelerate also exploration of space in general. And this is very much beyond low earth orbit, but it’s going to play a huge role everywhere I think.
Thys: Yes, I think it’s pretty much, let’s say data agnostic. It’s onboard computer doing clever and advanced processing. It doesn’t matter exactly where the data is coming from. If it’s coming from SAR product or from an optical, or which band. At the end of the day, one should look at the low hanging fruit and what the customers want, what’s the real need at this point in time on the ground.
And you must look at the industry. I think Søren mentioned quite a few excellent examples of if you want to detect a ship and just looking down on the text data of where the ship is, which way it is heading. If you want to look at airplanes, where is the airplane that you identified on the location and just sent a text down and for that, you only need eyeballs in space and that’s in the visible range. And I think those kinds of applications or relative low hanging fruit that one can use to solve very complex problems.
As soon as you go to the hyperspectral and multispectral, when you ask a customer, they still want all the data on the ground. That’s challenging, and it is also challenging to take the process from level one, to build two or three kind of data to do that in space on a spacecraft is still a huge challenge. So it’s not going to be easy to solve it, but that’s something we are working towards with Unibap. Because the capabilities are there, the platforms are there. We just need to focus a little bit on the application side and building trust in that domain. I would say it’s pretty much paralleling.
We are working on solving those big issues, those difficult problems, but we’re also working on solving the easier problems. I think one example that one can look at and we only need eyeballs in the sky, we’ve discussed it with Unibap quite a few times, we would you use a system as a tip and cue kind of solution because we are focusing on CubeSats and CubeSats do have limitations on the spatial resolution. But I can cover a relatively large area at a low cost. And if you can detect that with those kind of cameras certain anomalies, and then give a message to the bigger satellite with a larger instrument on board to focus on that specific area, then it’s a much better way to use your resources.
So those kinds of applications we hope to see as well in the future. It’s not only focused on one satellite with one solution, but we’re integrating with a bigger system and the bigger network. So yes, I think lots of these things will happen in parallel.
Hywel: Just a quick follow up on the first example that you gave with satellites tasking and then communicating with each other on orbit, are you mainly thinking about those applications in terms of vendor’s constellation, or between satellites and constellations, you know, between different vendors?
Søren: I think that’s a very good question. And if there is a need for the last one, yes. But again, it’s going to be driven by whatever is most cost-effective. And if there is business to actually doing this. I’m not aware that there’s been much business development on around that. How you can service different other constellations with data on orbit from other spacecraft. But it’s an interesting way of thinking. And I think having the infrastructure there, you have things like Starlink and other things going up now. It’s definitely something that we’ll be seeing going forward. I think in some way or form.
Hywel: Again, market-driven and see who the winners and losers become. Brilliant. And then Thys, I guess similar question to you, but just on the earth observation side, in terms of your perspective on the industry, how do you see things evolving with the use of AI and onboard processing in the next three to five years?
Thys: I’m usually a little bit afraid to look into a glass bowl because I’m frequently shown that that I’m wrong. But what I hope to see is that even today still the discussions are pretty much technology driven, we talk about the hardware. We talk about how we develop things and the processes around that. And what I hope to see is that those kinds of discussions will disappear. We see most software specialists, data analysts, and those kinds of people around the table where the hardware kind of disappear in the background. It’s just deploying applications through the push of a button. We can get to that point.
And with advanced processing, I wanted to use the term advanced processing because it’s not necessarily AI then that you require, but you need advanced and efficient processing capabilities close to on the edge to do that, close to the camera, close to the payload, the instruments.
Your cell phone is a good example. We’ve got small, powerful system. We can take a photo anyplace, nearly in every corner, on any corner of the earth and share it with anybody on the globe. Hopefully within in the next five to 10 years, we will start seeing those kinds of power from satellites where you can have a cell phone in your hand and command a satellite to send you a picture of your crop. So that you can get in in an hour you get an image in your hand. The hardware must just disappear in the background and that fits into what Søren just also said. We need the bigger communication system, bigger set of a network of satellites to communicate with each other where the whole system becomes kind of autonomous. Hopefully I think that’s part of where we are also heading towards.
Hywel: Great. I think that’s a really good place to finish up guys. Thank you both for sharing all your knowledge and insights on onboard processing and AI and in earth observation applications. I think our audience would have learned a lot about what goes into these systems, the challenges, the opportunities, and what it really takes to put projects like this into space and the benefits that they’ll bring.
Thank you both. It’s been great talking to you.
Søren: Thank you for having us.
Thys: Thank you.
Hywel: And to all our listeners out there, please know that you can find out more about both Unibap and Simera Sense on the satsearch platform, at satsearch.com. On the site, you can also make requests for more information, technical details, documentation, or to contact the company and discuss any aspect of your queries or procurement purposes. Thank you very much. And we look forward to seeing you soon.
Thank you for listening to this episode of ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit.
We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google Play Store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>In this episode we speak with James Barrington-Brown, CEO of NewSpace Systems – a space industry manufacturer with facilities in South Africa and the UK.
NewSpace Systems has developed a strong heritage in the modern commercial space sector with hardware and services provided to more than 60 clients, including several national agencies. But this progress is a built on a foundation of expertise in so-called ‘Old Space’ industry – by applying lessons from working on missions and services in decades past. And that’s what we talk about in the episode, including:
Hywel: Hello everybody. I’m your host, Hywel Curtis and I’d like to welcome you to ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today who could become the household names of tomorrow.
Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello and welcome to the episode. Today I’m joined by James Barrington-Brown, CEO of NewSpace Systems, a space industry manufacturer with facilities in South Africa and the UK. NewSpace Systems has developed a strong heritage in the modern commercial space sector with hardware and services provided to more than 60 clients including several national agencies.
But this progress is built on a foundation of expertise in the old space industry, by applying lessons from working on missions and services in years and decades past. And that’s what we’re going to discuss today. So firstly, James, welcome to the podcast. And is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction?
James: Thanks very much to satsearch for inviting me and welcome to the audience.
Hywel: All right, fantastic. So, let’s dive into this topic now. How do you personally define, old space and NewSpace? Where are the lines and where maybe the overlaps and particularly, as I think you could be considered as an industry executive who has been one of the drivers of this transformation that we’ve seen.
James: The first thing in NewSpace is, as I see it, the grandfather of the smallsat industry, and what sort of became NewSpace, is SSTL and they launched EOSAT-1 at one back in 1981. So we’re talking 40 years ago. I joined the industry, with a company called SIL back in 89. We were the first people to fly FPGAs on a European Space Agency mission, which is still working today.
We launched in 95. So that’s 25 years ago and people seem to think that constellations are new, but I was around when they were doing Orbcomm and Globalstar, Irridium and they’re all back in the late nineties. So NewSpace to me is not new. But it has moved on. Even if a lot of people think CubeSats are the birth of NewSpace, but even those Bob Twiggs developed that back in 99. So even CubeSats now are 20 years old.
But if you’re trying to define the difference, old space is really government-focused where risk was unacceptable. It was unacceptable for things to fail and NewSpace really to me is more about applications. It’s about new business models, it’s about doing things using space assets that couldn’t be done before – all about closing a business plan.
So you have to make the space infrastructure and the launch infrastructure, the ground segment, cheap enough to now close a business case for an application, which may have been done terrestrially before. And now it could be in space.
It’s all about things like time to market, minimal viable product, total lifetime cost, which would be nice to talk some more about that later on, but fundamentally the point I wanted to talk about today is that the physics hasn’t changed. The chemistry hasn’t changed. There’s still radiation, there’s still atomic oxygen. You’re still working in vacuum. We’re still working in zero gravity. So it’s really important not to throw out the baby with the bath water, as they say, let’s not try and reinvent everything.
There are some things which have been tried and tested. A lot of failures and you learn from that. So let’s not throw all that away with a new wave of innovation, which is fantastic. Now we’re on that wave, but it’s really important to learn from our history.
Hywel: That’s really an interesting take on it. On that, I think teams today have to find a balance between merging the “old space” processes with NewSpace commercial technologies. And you’re saying that those two things overlap quite a lot. How do you think teams can find that sort of balance? Are there any examples you could share based on NewSpace System’s own product development history?
James: Yeah. Maybe I’ll talk a little bit about our approach, the old space way as I call it was a lot of work, because everything was risk averse, there was no chance of failure. So a lot of things were about optimization, a lot of analysis. Now the new route seems to be, build something and test it and do that rapidly.
It’s almost like agile process with software. You do rapid iterations and Elon Musk is a fantastic advocate of this. And his phrase of these RUD, Rapid Unintended Demolition or destruction, or so. He builds things rapidly and while he’s testing the first one is building the next generation to test.
Whereas the older approach, and you can see that in things like the SLS program, launcher programs in the States, they are years behind what Elon is doing. So our approach tends to be to use digital systems because they’re easily to reprogram. So everything we build is processor- or FPGA-based.
We overdesign on the mechanics. So we tend to use big boxes and not to take little pockets of mass out. So things tend to be over-mass, but that’s also good because it gives you a good radiation performance, if you’ve got bigger boxes. And then we test and we test again. And, we really focus on the engineering model, qualification model stage to make sure that what is built is going to work, but do it much more rapidly than the old tradition.
Hywel: Interesting. Yeah, I think the contrast in the Elon Musk approach with the SLS in America is a very clear way of seeing these two modalities you’re talking about.
James: Well, the follow on from that is, we still build stuff the old way. You can’t maintain stuff in space. The nice thing is with software defined things, you can start doing some maintenance in orbit. But the hardware itself, the solder joints, the components you use, the PCB quality, all of those are fixed. So we really do focus on what I’m also calling old space in terms of the manufacturing of the units. We are using very traditional tried and tested methods.
Hywel: Yeah, absolutely. And it’s about assuring the quality and reliability as you say, because you can’t go up and fix things! So, another way that the industry tries to achieve that quality and reliability is in terms of standards, which suppliers and manufacturers can use.
And we talk about that only standards which can actually be adhered to are really genuinely useful and are really likely to succeed in improving that quality. But do you see merit in certain standards for NewSpace being agreed to by different stakeholders, including industries and agencies through mission experiences that have occurred so far and how do you see this playing out?
James: Overall, standards are great, and you see a lot of parallel industries where people have come up with standards and that’s accelerated the supply chain and market penetration. A lot of people worry about that standards will stifle innovation. I think in general again, a bit like learning from history and there are certain ways of building things, you should stick to that.
Having a standard doesn’t really stop you inventing new things, but you can still talk to the same boxes or whatever. So a lot of people talk about standards at the hardware level. I’m a big fan of that, but I’ve seen many companies say this is a new standard, but they’re the only people using it.
We really focus on process and there are people who throw up their hands when you talk about the ECSS processes, which are the ones that ESA use. But ECSS by its definition actually allows tailoring of those standards.
So it’s a nice kind of framework and there’s 101 acronyms, which I hope some of your listeners will understand like PDRs and CDRs and MRRs. You could put it in easy to understand terminology. When you start on a project, you want to sit around and say, are we getting in the right direction? You can call it a preliminary design review and then once it got to the end of the design, you can sit around and say, okay, is this really, have we thought this through, is this what we actually want to build? And that’s a critical design review or a CDR.
And then you get to the next point, you say, okay if we ready to build this thing. Have we bought all the bits, written down how are we going to assemble it? And that’s a manufacturing readiness review. And you can go through all these different reviews and ultimately you get to the DRB, the delivery.
Are you talking to your customer to make sure that what you’ve built for them is actually what they wanted in the first place? And you’ve ticked all the boxes? You’ve tested what they’ve wanted? You’ve got documentation they want?
So ECSS is a great framework. Whether people think they’re using it or not, I suspect if they’re doing proper traditional design, then they are following those kinds of rules.
And then on top of that, there’s some very detailed stuff, which a lot of it, we don’t follow the software ECSS rules. They are just very heavy and you spend months before you actually started doing any coding, which is against this sort of agile flow I was talking about earlier.
But when it comes to, how do you make a solder joint, how do you make sure there’s no gold in the joint? How do you make sure you’re not using pure tin as it whiskers, conformal coating, outgassing or glues, making sure that the materials used weren’t with contaminants, which would damage optics and things? Then we follow the processes to the letter.
And on top of that we follow ISO9001 and some people use AS9100, which is similar. And we started doing that when we were under six or eight people, which just because process is really important to make sure you build things right.
Hywel: Wow! And as you say, if the process is the logical approach to completing the project anyway, it’s relatively straightforward to follow. That’s really interesting. Earlier you mentioned the lifecycle cost or lifetime cost, and I know there are different ways of describing this.
Now, probably a lot of teams taking the NewSpace approach to build missions are really trying to optimize for reliable performance at the lowest price, the lowest sensible price that they can develop that.
Could you share any insights about how teams should be thinking about the real total product lifecycle cost or lifetime cost of a mission?
James: Yeah, it worries me when I look at the market all fighting each other to be the lowest cost entrance. And that isn’t taking into account the total lifetime cost. But as I mentioned, I’ve been in smallsats I guess it’s more than 30 years now. And it hasn’t fundamentally changed. The driver to go smaller is to reduce mass. And it’s all because of launch costs. Now it’s interesting and we can talk maybe later about whether that’s going to continue, the launch cost at the moment is still the driving costs.
When you go on the Transporter missions with Elon, it’s still expensive. And so there’s no point in building something very cheap if your launch is going to be very expensive or building something very expensive if your launch is very cheap.
And the way I’ve explained to other people is you see these very long sausage-shaped balloons that magicians turn into dogs, butterflies and different shapes for kids’ parties. Everything should be balanced. If you squeeze it in one place, then it bulges out in another one. And something that was bought up by my mentor many years ago was basically you want to keep things balanced and you split things into five sections.
So your platform costs, your payload costs, your launch costs and your ground segment costs should all be roughly the same. And then the fifth is contingency. Something goes wrong, you still have got a backup. I think people are really focusing on lowering the cost of the platform and that’s not a balanced approach.
And one of the other problems I see is payload is still too expensive. But I guess that’s because payloads are very mission-specific and they tend to be made in smaller quantities, but I think there’s still some work to be done on payload costs.
Hywel: Interesting. Yeah, that’s a great way to look at it with those five areas and it should be very useful for our listeners to remember. You mentioned earlier that you’d been working on effectively some constellation programs for many years. We know that NewSpace Systems has also been a key supplier to the OneWeb constellation for example, in the more modern industry in more recent years, what do you think have been some of the major challenges that you’ve had to overcome in meeting the volume requirements that those constellations prescribed while keeping up with the quality and the reliability as we discussed earlier? And have any of the lessons from those earlier years, if you don’t mind me saying it that way, have they helped?
James: Yeah. There is a difference now that volumes have gone up in NewSpace. As I mentioned, there were a few constellations, but they’re in the forties, fifties, and now things like One Web, Starlink, they’re in hundreds of units. But again, we could learn from history.
The automotive sector, aviation sector, they’re not quite the volumes we’re talking about in space, but they’ve done a lot of work over the years in lean manufacturing and setting up flexible manufacturing lines using product trees. So you have commonality at the sub-assembly level. So we’re really focused on that.
And to try and put it in again, in terms of your listeners’ focusing their development, the really important thing is the qualification. Do some early prototyping and then get something which is the same as you’re going to build and really try and break it. That is your one opportunity to make sure the margins are there. You’ve designed something right. It’s robust to temperature, to vacuum, to vibration, to shock, to EMC, etc.
And then what we do after that is we really focus on process. And I think I’m talking about process all the time. But when you’re talking automotive or aviation, and now in large quantities of space, it’s really important to focus on process.
If your qualification model is good and has margins, and you can then guarantee to reproduce that qualification model, very reliably, very repeatably, then the amounts of verification and tests you have to do on each unit itself can go down. And so the majority of our savings on constellations hasn’t been in, we’re still a hundred percent test on our units.
And we use things like built-in self-tests and automated tests and starting to bring in some of the industrial revolution, 4.0 type things like AI and looking at trends and whether things are out of family and that kind of thing. It’s really focusing on making sure our processes are very robust, very repeatable. And we do a lot of work on making sure that there’s no change. Any change in processes equivalent to a change in the design. And so we have to requalify, etc. So it’s a really focusing on that, but then yeah, designed for manufacture. You need to minimize the number of parts. Things like torque rods went from about 20 parts to, I think, five on our latest designs.
We’re really focused on how to reduce the touch times. So how little our operators have to work on it. Design for tests. We use a lot of jigs. So rather than measuring things, we actually use jigs to make sure the thing is right first time. And then you just have to calibrate your jigs to whatever is built for that. It’s good. So all of these things are borrowed from automotive.
Hywel: Interesting. And yeah, people talk about the lessons that can be learned from the automotive industry quite often. So it’s really sometimes at a theoretical level. So it’s great to hear it from a practical point of view from you guys.
So well, that’s fantastic. Now we’ve talked about a lot of the changes that the NewSpace sector has brought into space as a whole. Some of these, I think we’re undergoing periods of change right now. And you’ll see in the way that component manufacturers are operating and marketing, and platform manufacturers are doing a whole range of different things.
And then there are so many companies that are either becoming more and more vertically integrated or going in the opposite way. And also the kind of the common sizes of platforms that are used are changing too, as various electronics get miniaturized, but some payloads have grown in size because of consumer demands, customer demands, etc.
So markets are changing a lot. So I wondered to put you on the spot a little bit. If you could step back and look at the NewSpace market as a whole, how do you see things evolving over the next sort of 5, 6, 7 years? What are you expecting to happen and what maybe you excited about, especially with regard to your company?
James: Sure. My views align with the majority, that says you’re looking at the growth of the market. But I’ll say what I think anyway. Time will tell whether I’m wrong or not, but I think there will be a move away from the CubeSat form factor. It has done some great things. And I think there will always be uses for it. And there are certain missions that are suited to it.
But again, showing my age, I lived through the personal computer growth, where people were doing some fantastic things with ZX Spectrums and BBC micros and things have evolved. People use Apple and they use PCs and there are still people playing with Raspberry Pis and stuff which developed out of that market. And they do some great things, but they’re not really professional in the sense that back to this total costs, total lifetime cost. There’s still some laws of physics. You still need apertures to get photons into your camera. You still need a certain amount of power to do a comms mission or a navigation mission.
So you need a certain amount of size and you can use deployables, but deployables tend to be less. So again your worried about your total costs of the system if you have to have a number of missions that fail. So I think people are going to go slightly larger and it was interesting I did a study of this, which I called the Goldilocks satellite in a not too small, not too big, not too complicated, not too expensive. And I came up with a number of about 30 to 35 kilos. And Sir Martin Sweeting of SSTL got his team to do a similar study and they came up with the SSTL 42. So 42 kilos was apparently the sweet spot. And I think the way things are going, there’s Moore’s law, which is improving capability and bringing size down, but apertures aren’t going away.
And as I say, people are still paying for the data that comes from these missions. So you need to get it to an optimal point where you’re getting the maximum amount of data for the minimum amount of cost of your constellation. So I think that, 25 to 50 kilos is a sweet spot. There’s some great innovation coming and where CubeSats are great is demonstrating this agile approach; getting things up into a little bit faster, demonstrating them, but then using large missions to actually go to paid for services.
Vertical integration, I also think of as ‘old space’ to me again. I’m a great fan of Surrey. And they went the vertical integration route where a lot of people have said it was successful for them. We must follow that and now people are including the launch and ground segment in their vertical integration.
I think we’re getting mature enough now to go to a more traditional multi-tiered supply chain, similar to again, to automated, and to aviation. The rate of development means that one individual company really can’t fund all the R&D necessary to develop a reaction wheel for instance, and then only use it on their own missions.
It’s much more sensible for a reaction wheel specialist to make a hundred different types of reaction wheels. We will make sure they got the latest parts, the latest innovation, the latest design, and sell it to multiple tier one suppliers. And that’s really where we positioned ourselves, is that tier two, key in other people’s supply chains. So we are on 30+ recurrent platforms supplying one component or another.
And they’re happy with what we supply. We’re very happy that more and more people are coming into the prime level, trying to compete. It’s been like the old adage of the gold rush. Now there are a few people who mined the gold and they’ll make their fortune. The people who consistently made money were the hotel owners, the people who supplied the buckets.
That’s really where NewSpace Systems has positioned itself. The other thing I see is, you mentioned standards. Beyond that, I see more and more mesh type solutions. So Inmarsat has just talked about adding LEO to their GEO operations. People are combining UAV with satellite systems as new products, like high altitude platforms, skimsats they call them very low-flying satellites, which is a hybrid between a high altitude system and a satellite.
And combining space systems with ground systems, I think is definitely a big growing area. And also using smaller satellites to target more performance satellites. We’ve seen some recent announcements where if you take Planet, for example, they have fantastic Doves, which aren’t great resolution, but they can spot change or they can spot something which is new. And then they can call the bigger, higher performance, one meter resolution or sub-one meter resolution or a SAR satellite to turn, and go and take a closer look. So it’s all hybrid systems now, not one solution which does everything, but a mixture of systems. And again, you see that in terrestrial. And I think we’ll start seeing that in space.
And then the final one I’d like to throw in is a lot of people are looking at higher and higher data rate to ground. People are now looking at laser comms and that gets rid of a lot of things. But to me, it’s always amazed me that people who’ve got satellites to talk to one thing on the ground, pretty much every mobile phone had to have the same ground station, just doesn’t make any sense.
So people like Kepler, I think they’ve got the right idea where they’re looking at satellite to satellite links, but I think they’re already going to be outdated by people like OneWeb and Telesat, where if you got a broadband system at a fairly high altitude, you might as well use that your satellite comms, and then you can talk to your satellite 24/7.
The data rates aren’t so high, but they’re 24 hours instead of a 20 minute downlink. So you can get similar volumes of data through a broadband. So again, you can call that again, a mesh network. You’ve got smaller satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) using larger satellites as their backhaul. So that’s some of my predictions and we’ll see what happens.
Hywel: That’s great. I think that’s a great place to wrap up James. Thank you very much. I think that’s been really interesting to understand your views on where old space and NewSpace lies.
And I think there’s been some very interesting concepts for the listeners to take away, the five aspects of the mission that you need to balance, everything for total lifetime costs. This idea that a change in process means, it requires a change in design when you’re talking about high volume manufacturing. These are really interesting ideas. And then, yeah, as you say, we’ll have to see how the industry develops in the next few years and what happens next with all these companies and all these missions and services.
Thank you very much for spending time with us today on ‘The Space Industry’ podcast. And we really appreciate it and wish NewSpace Systems all the best.
James: Thanks very much for allowing me the time to just throw my views out there. Let’s see what the response is like!
Hywel: And to all our listeners out there. Thank you very much for spending time with us today on ‘The Space Industry’ podcast. If you’d like to find out more about NewSpace Systems, please head to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com. You can use our free request system to get technical details, documentation such as data sheets or CAD models, quotes, introductions to companies and whatever else you might need, your trade study or procurement purposes.
Thank you for listening to this episode of ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit.
We’ll be back soon with more in-depth behind the scenes insights from private space businesses. In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information on the space industry today, or find us on social media if you have any questions or comments. To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google Play Store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
]]>In this episode we speak with Chad Meskimen of Redwire Space on criteria and practices that engineers need to consider with regard to modeling and simulation design in space missions. Redwire is a space infrastructure company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, and works with companies around the world on missions at a variety of scales. In the episode we discuss:
You can find out more about ACORN’s use in this video, referenced in the podcast.
Hi, everyone, welcome to the episode. Today I’m joined by Chad Meskimen from Redwire Space. Redwire is a space infrastructure company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.
Chad is Product Manager of Redwire’s Advanced Configurable Open System Research Network or ACORN. And today we’re going to discuss this system as well as modelling and simulation development in space missions more generally.
Firstly, Chad, welcome to the podcast and thank you for being with us today. Is there anything you’d like to add to that introduction about yourself for Redwire?
Hywel, thanks for that introduction. And I think you covered it pretty well. So we’ll go ahead, let’s go and dive in here.
Excellent. Okay, so modelling and simulation development in space missions, in system design, integration and testing processes at all levels, is a really important part of the engineering practices that teams all over the world carry out and software obviously plays a huge role in there.
So in your view, what do you think the main gaps are in modelling and software simulation capabilities, particularly for NewSpace missions today?
I think the single largest gap in modelling and simulation software capability for new space missions is the lack of standards and interoperability. There’s a number of available simulation tools out there, but a lot of them are tied to a specific bus configuration or flight software, or they only focus on a single phase and mission planning.
So they’re going to help you out in that early design phase, or they’ll help you out in the integration phase. But at some point in the middle, you’re going to have to switch tools, which requires re-setting up your mission profiles, re-setting up your scenarios, and requires a lot of rework.
Satellite developers in this market really need the capability to rapidly compose their system of systems, pulling together disparate parts and pieces, to develop a solution that will meet their mission cost and schedule requirements. And you know, the sort of need to be able to pull in these disparate pieces and parts is what makes component databases such as satsearch so important in today’s environments, as they help engineers to be able to identify what components are out there.
And in order to truly make an informed hardware selection, you need to be able to simulate the performance of your spacecraft using these components. And then once you’ve been able to make that hardware selection, and you’ve got your hardware in house, you need to be able to evaluate the vehicle performance with that real hardware in the loop.
This is one aspect that makes interoperability so important in the simulation tool, it’s that you want to be able to bring in these hardware, components that you haven’t worked with before and that haven’t worked within your system, and be able to have them work within your simulation environment.
Satellite missions are also becoming a lot more complex. Missions are increasingly expanding to require constellations of tens, hundreds and even 1000s of satellites, and interoperability between components and satellites is becoming even more critical in those sorts of environments.
To properly model missions on this level, simulation software has to be modular and scalable in a way that many simulation tools are not able to support. This increase in mission complexity is largely what’s behind the push in the industry for digital engineering.
Digital engineering is a process that focuses on the cross-functional use of tools and data across the system lifecycle. The goals of digital engineering include using models to inform decision-making, providing an authoritative source of truth, and establishing engineering environments that can be used across disciplines to ensure that the right data is being delivered to the right person at the right time.
And so, establishing standards and providing an environment where these disparate tools and components can be integrated and operated cohesively is a critical capability for digital engineering, and to extend your modelling beyond just simulation to the level of a digital twin, where you really have a model that is fully representative your spacecraft to the point where it behaves identically to your spacecraft; how your spacecraft is going to behave in that operational environment.
Having that high fidelity simulation of a satellite or constellation that you can utilise for your specific mission throughout the system lifecycle can reduce the cost and schedule, while also providing higher confidence that admission is going to perform as expected.
That sort of simulation fidelity, and ability to bring in all these different tools, is what is needed by the NewSpace market today. And it’s where a lot of simulations’ capabilities are currently falling short,
Right. Interesting. So it’s not necessarily a lack of ability to simulate mission-critical aspects of the system. It’s the overall interoperability and standards that exist in the overall environment.
So on that; Redwire’s ACORN product has been designed, from my understanding, to help spacecraft manufacturers with different aspects of the simulation and the modelling that we’ve just discussed.
Maybe you could discuss a little bit about the system; how that support is given and also the system makes a lot of use of Modular Open System Architecture or MOSA. I don’t know how you guys refer to that. I wondered if you could explain a little bit about this as well?
I’ll start off by just providing a definition of MOSA. Yeah, so the most common approach is an integrated business and Technology strategy that leverages standards to create freely coupled, easily separable modules for efficient systems development and support.
MOSA’s foundation in modular design dictates the use of open standards, particularly the form of widely accepted interfaces that are independent of specific vendors, which allows for connectivity and rapid reconfiguration between these distinct elements of the systems. So MOSA as a concept is integral to the success of a digital engineering strategy.
The ability to seamlessly add and remove tools, and models and components, from that digital environment is imperative in order to enable engineers across multiple disciplines and with different needs to be able to utilise the same digital environment for further analysis. And this is where ACORN really shines and really provides a lot of value.
ACORN provides MOSA capability via the ACORN bridge application. So for systems that normally wouldn’t be considered MOSA-compliant, we can bring them together within this environment.
It’s designed to allow these disparate assets, utilising different communication mediums, different protocols, different schemas, to be able to interconnect. Assets that can be interfaced with ACORN, and to the simulation environment, include component hardware processors, and third-party tools, such as flight software, ground software, or engineering analysis tools. And to simplify, because that’s a big list there, I’ll refer to the collection of hardware and tools that we can bring in from here on as assets.
So the bridge is fully configurable with the ability to ingest electronic interface control documents, or ICDs, for an asset and build the interface that will connect that asset into the ACORN system. This flexibility is what enables ACORN to function throughout the system lifecycle and perform simulations using tools and hardware that are of interest to engineers across multiple disciplines, and really allows you to provide that foundation for that digital engineering environment.
That makes sense. So once these assets are integrated into the system, the simulation can be performed, in various ways. There’s software in loop, processor in loop, hardware in loop and so on. What do these approaches mean from the perspective of the utility, the operation, of ACORN?
That’s a good question there. So I’ll start with software in the loop. You are working in a fully non-constrained environment. There’s no hard limits or rules that you have to follow except those that are enforced by the simulation itself.
So for example, if your battery on your spacecraft runs out during your simulation, the spacecraft can continue on as if absolutely nothing happened, if the simulation allows it to do that.
And so you know, working within this fully non-constrained environment can be very useful, especially in early development, when you’re exploring different scenarios, just wanting to evaluate overall performance, making those early design decisions.
But eventually, you’re going to need to start adding some constraints onto your simulation in order for it to continue to be useful. This is one of the beautiful things about the way that ACORN operates – the way that it builds with where you are in the mission lifecycle.
You can start out with a GNC-focussed simulation that has just enough control to be able to verify your mission concept. And then as you verify your GNC design closes, you can start adding in your EPS system, and verify that your design closes with that. And then you can add other sub-system modelling, such as thermal modelling, vacuum modelling, and you can use ACORN’s buil- in modules for those – but what we prefer to do is actually go and interface with modelling tools that are designed for this.
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel here, go and get those those higher fidelity modelling tools that represent every sub-system and tie them into your ACORN simulation environment.
And another thing that you can do to improve and continue improving that fidelity is; you can tie in custom component models via an API, so that you can get more representative models of your actual hardware that you’re using the actual components. Once you’ve done that, you are continuing to build on accuracy of your simulation throughout the system lifecycle until it reaches that level of a digital twin.
And then, at some point, you’re going to want to bring in your mission flight software. And you can do that utilising the ACORN bridge. And there’s a couple different ways that you can do that. You can take that mission flight software, and you can run it as a desktop application if the flight software can do that, and a lot of flight software’s have to be run on some sort of processor. But you can bring that EDU in as well, and interface that with ACORN. And that’s when you start talking about processor in the loop simulation.
So the processor in the loop; you’re now entering a first-order constrained environment. Whereas with software in the loop, you can run simulations as fast as they will go, and generate your results very quickly. And now you have to work within the constraints of the processor and its clock.
ACORN has the ability to run simulations in real-time, either synchronously or asynchronously with the flight software. So this allows the engineers to evaluate the performance of the processor in the flight software in an environment that mirrors your actual operational environment.
And then once you have your processor working in your operational environment, you can start adding in your hardware. And as you start to add hardware in the loop, the environment becomes increasingly more constrained.
All of a sudden, your reaction wheel actually has limits on how fast you can spin. If your battery depletes, now your components are actually going to start shutting down. You have sensors that are going to need ground support equipment in order to drive the proper response.
ACORN is able to provide messages to these ground support equipment such that they can represent that simulated environment. And so that your sensors are responding back with the correct telemetry that represents an environment.
And so now, when you’ve got that ground support equipment, all working with ACORN, you’ve got your sensors all tied in, you got your actuators tied in, you’ve got your processor in the loop tied in. Now you’ve got a full flatsat that’s being driven by a high fidelity simulation environment.
And you can use that to do your final mission testing and also as a representative model during operations. So you can see what’s going to be the effect of a certain command sequence or perform troubleshooting on on-orbit anomalies to help figure out what the problem is, and a potential response to that.
So that’s kind of how ACORN is able to help across the whole system lifecycle with various forms of simulation. One other thing I’d like to touch on before we move on is scalability.
ACORN has the ability to interface with other interconnected ACORN units in order to model a constellation. And ACORN acts as the building block in this situation for a massive simulation involving large numbers of satellites.
And it takes advantage of VMs and VSPHERE technology to be able to spin up ACORNs on-demand to meet your current simulation needs for your scenario. The reason I want to touch on this here is that, in these different ACORNs you have interfacing within this constellation environment, you can mix your fidelity levels and your hardware integration levels on these different ACORNs.
So you have some ACORNs running low fidelity simulation of satellites that you’re not really concerned with right now. But you want to make sure that you can still see them within your scenario, you can have a higher fidelity simulation for the ones that you want to focus on. And that higher fidelity simulation can be full software in loop, acting as a digital twin, or it can bring in that hardware in the loop aspect and still be talking to all these other software in the loop ACORNs within the same simulation environment.
So it gives you a lot of flexibility to model different scenarios within this constellation environment using these different simulation techniques.
Right, so you can iteratively simulate the constellation as a whole, even though different aspects of it may be at different stages of development.
That’s a really good explanation of the process that simulations will go through on these different levels, different layers of constraint, which obviously mirror more and more closely, the operational environment.
That’s great. Thank you. So maybe then just to go a little bit further, and I wondered if you could provide us with some examples of how ACORN has helped component or spacecraft manufacturers, mission planners, some use cases?
Yeah, so when we started developing ACORN, we did a NewSpace market survey, segmenting the companies out there into four different potential user groups for ACORN. We had component manufacturers, payload manufacturers, mission integrators and value-add data services.
And we worked to understand the use cases for each of these different groups. We’ve had success working with each of these groups. But I’ll give some examples of specific component manufacturer admission integrators here.
The first example we have is a component manufacturer based in South Africa, NewSpace Systems. They successfully integrated and have driven their reaction wheel with ACORN.
And we’ve done this multiple times with multiple different scenarios, so they’ve been able to really evaluate the performance of that reaction wheel in actually many representative environments and be able to you know, make improvements and tweaks whatever they need to continue to improve that performance.
They’ve also recently been working on integrating and evaluating their GPS receiver with ACORN and that integration is going very well. From a mission integrator standpoint, we’ve also worked with KISPE in the UK, and they successfully built a number of different DRMs across multiple different mission profiles within ACORN.
And taking that step further. If you do a search on YouTube for global collaborative space system development, you can find a really awesome video of a live demonstration we did at smallsat last year, where we had a mission integrator KISPE operating three different satellites on different ACORN platforms.
One of those was located at the KISPE facility in the UK. One was looking at our facility here in the US and we had one located with NSS in South Africa. And the operator KISPE was sending commands to the different ACORNs and you were able to see the response to those ACORNs/satellites make in the video.
And in addition, we had the ACORN and NSS integrate in that NSS reaction wheel. And so you can see the real live response to the wheels making to the flight software responding to the commands the KISPE operator sending.
And so what we have is a three continent demo, demonstrating ACORNs constellation hardware in the loop simulation capabilities of in addition to highlighting KISPE and design capability and NSS’s reaction Wheel. We were really thrilled with the final results of that demonstration and how ACORN was able to empower collaboration across these globally distributed users.
Well, we’ll link to their video in the show notes that sounds really interesting, I think would be really useful for people to see. So thanks for that.
And so in these projects that we’ve discussed, and other projects that you’ve worked on with the ACORN system, or in the development of the system itself maybe, you must have come across several very common major adoption barriers for teams that are building components or whole spacecraft in leveraging modelling and simulation tools more effectively, or more widely. Maybe you could just discuss some of those briefly?
Yeah, I think we touched on one of those barriers already in pretty good detail, which is the lack of standardisation and interoperability. It’s very difficult to utilise a simulation tool when it’s not going to actually work with your mission profile or with your environment or with your specific spacecraft.
And even just not having the confidence that a simulation is going to be able to do that can be a barrier in itself, whether or not it actually is going to do that, it’s hard to want to shell out money for simulation, because there is going to be cost associated with it.
Not just purchasing but also just setting up the simulation, it’s hard to want to shell that out, if you don’t even know it’s going to work with your mission. And so that’s one common barrier.
Another barrier is the learning curve that’s associated with these modelling and simulation tools. These tools are by their nature, very complex. You know, we’re remodelling very complex systems and so there’s going to be some complexity, and there’s going to be some learning curve associated with setting it up. And there’s going to be some time and resources that you have to allocate in order to be able to use the simulation effectively.
But the benefits that you’re going to see over the full system lifecycle are well worth the cost, especially for simulation tools, like ACORN that do offer value across the full system lifecycle.
This is especially true if you’re going to be planning on doing multiple satellites. Because once you’ve laid the foundation with that first satellite, each new satellite you develop, you’re going to benefit from the mission and cost savings that simulation provides, but not have to have that learning barrier.
And kind of related to that learning barrier, you have the issue of companies turning to simulation too late in the design process. You still can get benefit out of simulation later in the design process, as I said, ACORN is going to offer your benefit across the full lifecycle, ut your best benefit is going to be starting out with a simulation and carrying it throughout your lifecycle.
And especially because when you’re later in the lifecycle, you need more out of your simulation tool, but you need your simulations increasing in fidelity. And that’s going to increase that learning barrier that we just talked about.
Because you want to be able set up a higher fidelity simulation that takes more to be able to do that. And so you’re spending a little bit more on that learning curve, you’re getting a little bit less value across the lifecycle.
My recommendation, if you’re even thinking about adopting simulation, you’re starting out in your design process, do it early, do it as soon as you can, because you’re going to get the most benefit, you’re going to get into able to get into a rhythm with that simulation tool.
And then one other adoption barrier I want to touch on is just the market awareness. Not knowing what modelling and simulation tools are available out there.
And so for this, I do want to recognise satsearch for helping to educate the market and providing information about available tools in database. And I also want to thank satsearch and you for allowing me to participate in this podcast to get the word out about ACORN. Because I think we got a tool here that’s going to be able to help a lot of different mission integrators, a lot of different mission profiles.
Oh, that’s great. You’re more than welcome. Yes, that’s really interesting. It’s very much about those sort of compound benefits, both in terms of the accuracy, the fidelity, the operational realism of your simulation is going to compound and get more advanced, the earlier that you’ve introduced the tools and also the efficiencies you’re able to create and the time able to save also compounds further along the line, because you’ve already built into the simulation earlier on the architecture, the overview of the of the system.
Just to finish up, where do you see the sort of this field, open system architectures, reconfigurable system design, where do you see this moving? Where do you see this going in the next three to five years say?
That’s a very good question there. And before I describe the future state, let me take a moment to kind of describe some of the history of MOSA.
MOSA at its conception was largely focused on rapid satellite development and the ability to minimise rework when we re-using a spacecraft design.
The goal was to streamline your hardware selection and make it easier to swap spacecraft components in and out so satellite developers are not beholden to their supply chain. So if you have a supplier that’s not gonna be able to meet your mission timeline or raises the prices or what have you, you’re not forced to go with them and take that cost and schedule impact to your mission.
You can swap out components without having to do a full satellite redesign. You know that that was kind of the focus of MOSA. While we were talking about redesign, it still is very much focused on kind of one satellite at a time. And as a simulation tool based on the MOSA concept, that’s kind of where ACORN started to.
But you know why there’s always going to be a niche for MOSA in the application of satellite development and hardware selection, I think where you’re gonna see it most rapidly grow in importance is for operations, I think we’re going to start to see it applied more and more over the next few years.
You look at, for example, what the Space Development Agency is doing with proliferated LEO in their Tranche-1 mission. They have 150 satellite constellation, in LEO being developed by up to five different contractors. And all these satellites need to be able to communicate with each other, and they need to be able to communicate with different ground systems.
When you have that sort of mission profile, having a solid foundation of standards is absolutely critical to the success of your mission. And that’s not going to be the only use cases that you’re going to see here, we’ve got proliferate of geo missions, you’ve got cis-missions that are gonna have very similar needs that are in the works.
If you a step further, you have the concept of hybrid architectures and mesh networks. You’ve got satellite constellations that weren’t even necessarily designed together and weren’t necessarily designed for the same purpose that you want to get to work together to achieve on-demand to be able to achieve certain mission needs and when you want to have that sort of capability, standards and interoperability is absolutely critical.
Then you can even go an extra step on that and add in assets that aren’t even spacecraft. You can bring in ground stations, ships, jets, there’s a lot of terms that are being thrown around for that. Multi-domain operations, joint all domain operations, joint all domains command and control. In the end, it’s just a bunch of disparate systems that are generating a lot of data that needs to come together and in a standardised format, so that you can do analysis, so that you can do evaluation, so you can utilise that data to make decisions.
Modularity, standards, and interoperability are key to enabling the capability, which is why I believe that’s the area that MOSA is going to make the biggest impact in the next three to five years. And Redwire is a thought leader in MOSA technology. With ACORN, we’re going to be leading the charge in providing this predictive modelling capability and digital engineering. And it’s needed to design integrate and operate these next generation systems of systems.
Well, fantastic! Yeah, that’s a fascinating area, you think of the complexity of the largest-scale satellite constellations, but you’re still only talking about assets based in space, or the ground systems that interface with them.
Then if you add in terrestrial-based additional systems, other technologies, vehicles, whatever it is, you’ve got a whole other set of standards issues, modalities and companies, crucially, companies and organisations to deal with. It sounds like a really interesting area.
I think that’s a really good place to finish the conversation there. We want to thank you Chad for sharing your knowledge with us. I think our listeners will have learned loads about what goes into good quality, high-quality simulation at all stages of mission development and operation. We appreciate you spending time with us on ‘The Space Industry’ podcast today and we’d like to wish you in RedWire all the best.
Thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity.
]]>Coatings are an important part of a satellite or space system. They help to minimize the interfering effects of light incident upon the system, or that is created or reflected by equipment on-board.
Coatings also help to improve the efficiency and accuracy of optical payloads and sensors, which typically play a crucial role in a mission’s primary objectives.
In this article we provide an overview of specialist coatings manufacturer Acktar Ltd, a participant in the satsearch membership program, and give some examples of past and current work in this area.
Acktar Ltd. is located in Kiryat-Gat, Israel, with subsidiaries in Germany (ACM Coatings GmbH), Japan (Acktar Japan) and Korea. The company was founded in 1993 and has since grown into a multidisciplinary coatings specialist.
Today, Acktar specializes in the manufacture of light-absorbing ‘ultra-black’ coatings for space and other industries, based on vacuum deposition technologies.
Ultra-black coatings have unique optical and surface properties that enable high amounts of light absorption. This can reduce interference for optical applications, improve radiation-shielding, absorb laser power, and provide other benefits for sensitive instruments, as discussed further below.
The company also creates black-coated aluminum and polymer foils in the form of die-cuts, sheets, and rolls, well plates, and microarray slides.
Acktar’s deep black foils and coatings can be applied to many different surfaces (including metal, glass, silicon, ceramic, plastic).
Such products have applicability in a variety of industries, such as aerospace, measurement technology, medical diagnostics, and industrial image processing. And they also have a number of important uses in space.
Space-borne instruments feature several components that can be affected by incident or reflected electromagnetic (EM) radiation. The most heavily impacted classes of equipment are opto-mechanical parts and sub-systems; payloads and sensors that rely on electromagnetic energy to perform their primary function.
A sun sensor, for example, needs to be able to differentiate between incident solar radiation and reflected light from a satellite’s body. Similarly, an Earth Observation (EO) camera includes sections of the optical array coated to limit interference caused by solar radiation, internal reflections, and other stray beams of light.
The main application areas for space-borne coatings are:
Suppressing stray light and optimizing optical performance are vital in space applications, to ensure the accuracy and efficiency of both sensing equipment and payloads. This is also known as straylight optimization – where a system is altered to minimize disruption as required.
Virtually every satellite has photonic equipment that must be correctly oriented and shielded for maximum effect. In addition, the growth of optical inter-satellite links and ground-space optical communication has placed more emphasis on straylight management and effective power absorption in these domains.
Of course, in space replacements and maintenance are (currently) virtually impossible. Therefore it is vital that coatings are durable and consistent throughout mission lifetimes. Optimizing coatings for such criteria needs dedicated experience in space.
Rising in Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and reaching full flight heritage status at TRL 9 is very important for suppliers, in order to demonstrate that their hardware has been tested and proven in space. But it is also important for treatments and materials, such as coatings, to have been fully validated in space.
Acktar has operated in the space industry for many years and has built up experience on a wide range of missions to develop this heritage. Below you can see some examples of space missions that have utilized Acktar’s coatings to improve equipment performance.
Coating hardware for the James Webb Space Telescope
The space-based James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is the successor to the highly successful Hubble space telescope. It has been in development by NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Canadian Space Agency since 1996 and is due for launch in 2021.
EADS-Astrium was contracted in the JWST project as prime contractor for an instrument called the Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) or ‘Super-Eye.’ This is a €100 million, 200 kg spectrograph that has been built to detect the faintest radiation signals from the most distant galaxies, and also to measure spectra of up to 100 objects simultaneously.
Acktar was chosen in 2007, following an extensive testing and selection process, as the supplier of choice for the design, manufacture, and testing of advanced black infrared (IR) absorbing coatings for the NIRSpec instrument.
Acktar coated and tested an array of parts in its facilities before shipping them to EADS-Astrium, and a range of other European sub-contractors, for integration into the system.
Straylight management in the CHEOPS Mission
The Characterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS) mission is ESA’s first initiative to observe exoplanets orbiting nearby bright stars. It uses the transmit method of observation; precision analysis of a star’s dimming while the planet passes between it and the observer.
Acktar’s Fractal Black™ coating was applied to several of the inner surfaces of the optical system, including deflector plates that protect the small telescope against stray light.
The system included various sharp edges that posed a challenge for effective coatings, and also had to be resistant to rapid temperature changes.
Optical qualification and adhesion tests were performed on the edges in order to confirm the adhesion of the coating in thermal environments, and the deflector plate passed all required qualification steps, at both the sub-system and instrument level.
Building for the future
Other missions that the company has taken part in have involved equipment travelling near the Sun or to Mercury, where temperature stability is vital.
Acktar’s FractalBlack™ and MagicBlack™ have also been used in the UV-VIS-NIR (UVN) instrument on Sentinel-4 (part of ESA’s Copernicus program), which observes atmospheric pollutants from outer space.
The challenges of large-scale deep space missions have led to Acktar developing new approaches to managing, applying, and testing coatings optimized for space.
Such lessons bring benefits to NewSpace customers, who may not always have deep experience of engineering for space.
Building on its heritage and experience in deep space, exploratory, and large-scale missions, Acktar has increasingly focussed on the benefits that its coating and foil technologies can bring to the NewSpace sector.
For teams and missions relying more on commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components for small satellites designed for Low Earth Orbit (LEO), effective coatings can bring benefits in terms of efficiency and performance. While radiation protection requirements are lower than in deep space, reducing signal interference is still vital.
Mass, power, and physical volume budgets are limited in NewSpace systems, so straylight suppressing coatings that ensure sensors work better at lower energies, or that focus incident optical signals into the most relevant areas, can significantly impact mission success.
Agility and efficiency are also very important in the NewSpace industry. In many cases, Acktar can build the opto-mechanical part required for a particular sensing system or payload, and deliver it to the customer for integration into the satellite. This can help NewSpace teams better manage their supply chain and focus more resources on the primary innovation in a system.
In addition, Acktar also offers coating as a service. Opto-mechanical parts and other relevant sub-systems may be shipped to the company’s facilities in order for the relevant coating to be applied.
A large amount of qualification work has been undertaken for every coating, foil, and other material that Acktar applies to space-based assets, for both optical and thermal control. Quality control approaches can differ by region or country, but Acktar has invested heavily in meeting all relevant validation requirements.
Providing such services has required Acktar to develop new approaches to scaling supply, in order to meet high volume demands.
As mentioned above, Acktar’s coatings are based on vacuum deposition technology. Vacuum deposition involves the application of coating materials onto solid surfaces in thin films, to build up a controlled layer.
Highly specific surface area coatings can be created with tightly controlled morphology to produce materials with low reflectance level.
The coating thickness is just a few microns (typically 3-5 μm) and its density is typically ~1.8 g/cm3. The deposition process is carried out at wide range of temperatures depending on the substrate.
By controlling the composition and morphology of the layer microstructure, the process can be tailored to achieve desired levels of absorption or reflectance over a wide range of wavelengths (EUV-UV, VIS, and NIR-FIR).
As discussed, space is just one sector in which Acktar has applied its expertise, and the experience of working across industries has enabled the company to develop approaches to scaling up production as needed.
Serial production of opto-mechanical space hardware, based on processes developed to meet the needs of demanding deep space missions and industrial throughput in other sectors, can help to ensure large-scale commercial needs are met.
But regardless of manufacturing volume, it helps to ensure that a coatings provider is involved as early in the mission as possible.
In order to ensure that your mission has the best possible chance of success, particularly if it is reliant on optical payloads, laser communication, and/or solar sensing systems, it is important to consider coatings early in the design. In the worst case scenario an opto-mechanical sub-system may even need to be taken apart in order for the most effective coating to be applied.
Although companies such as Acktar are typically involved from a practical point of view when the mission’s hardware development is at an advanced stage, involving them earlier can help you make better decisions.
Effective coating application processes will help reduce mission complexity, and ensure that the process and staging of the different steps involved in the application can help add value to the system.
Optical designs will also benefit from enhanced simulation. Acktar provides clients with a huge volume of qualification data to help simulate performance, enabling them to, for example, better understand what coating works in what wavelength range.
To find out more about such data, and see further details on Acktar’s products and services, please view Acktar’s supplier hub.
]]>In many ways, 3D printing is a highly applicable solution for manufacturing in the space industry. Although the development of the global market has led to much greater accessibility to commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components, and launch costs have significantly decreased in the last decade, mission budgets can still run into the millions of Euros quite easily, depending on the scale and payload size.
Engineers will go to great lengths to try and save every gram possible in the parts the design and simulate. For deeper space missions such changes can quickly add up to significant results.
For example, it can currently cost around €1 million to transport 1 kg to the Moon. Saving 100g on the payload is therefore equivalent to saving €100,000, clearly making a case for greater precision and efficiency in manufacturing.
However, such accurate hardware development is complex. Even as recent as a decade ago there were many component designs that simply could not be created using conventional methods and engineers would look forward to a time when advanced manufacturing would make them possible.
Advances in 3D printing are now making such applications a reality.
With every space mission being so unique, except in some circumstances where constellations are concerned, there is regular demand for small series of complex, custom parts, that can be manufactured from a range of materials.
This is the primary use case of industrial 3D printing. Such processes are enabling missions to significantly reduce mission timescales – high-quality components can now be created in days, rather than months in some cases.
For example, NASA’s Perseverance Rover, which landed on Mars on the 18th of February 2021, features 11 3D-printed metal part. 5 are incorporated into the Planetary Instrument for X-ray Lithochemistry (PIXL) instrument that is using X-ray analysis to try and detect signs of fossilized microbial life. Although some space agencies are further ahead in terms of standardization and adoption of additive manufacturing, use is growing, and it is hoped that the trend will continue. It is also important to note that additive manufacturing comes in different forms depending on the materials used and desired result.
Extrusion-based additive manufacturing refers to a method in which either pellets or filaments are extruded through a small nozzle (less than a millimetre in diameter) to make a certain part.
There are two common methods of EAM; Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), which uses filaments of material, and Pellet Extrusion Printing (PEP), which involves the direct deployment of pellets of material.
FFF typically utilizes the thermoplastic printers which are becoming extremely popular in modern research and manufacturing. FFF involves embedding thermoplastic filaments along with particles of the construction material – like a metal or a ceramic – to produce an initial model or a “green” part, and then using thermal treatment to eliminate the plastic leaving behind the pure metal or ceramic component.
PEP was mainly seen as a direct replacement for injection molding, where the pellets or raw material used for injection molding could be directly used for small series of parts. However, the pellet extrusion mechanism can be extremely complicated and PEP generally requires hardware that costs an order of magnitude more compared to FFF.
FFF on the other hand requires a low initial investment, and the technique has recently seen a resurgence due to the expiry of patents in 2009 that were filed by the American 3DP giants Stratasys in the late 80s.
Initially, these processes focussed almost exclusively on plastics, but metals and ceramics are now widely used.
RAPTOR is an AM-based technology designed for the cost-effective production of ceramic and metal parts using the Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) method.
The process involves specially fabricated metal or ceramic filaments which are shaped into the desired geometry using custom-made in-house FFF printers.
The printed “green parts” may then be machined in order to include further details and to improve surface finishes, after which they are subsequently heat-treated at high temperatures in order to eliminate the binder and to sinter the part. Sintering is the process of creating a solid mass of material by applying heat or pressure, but without melting it.
The RAPTOR produces both metal and ceramic parts with relative density of over 99%.
The primary advantages of AM processes for space missions and services are:
Cost-efficient production – as the operational costs of equipment are not high, and due to the fact that many parts can be treated in a single sinter batch, the cost per kg of components can be a magnitude lower than alternative methods, such as Selective laser melting (SLM).
Quality of surface finish – surface finish is another key area where AM methods enjoy advantages over other techniques. With FFF, the parts can be printed with a layer thickness of around 50 μm for example. After sintering, shrinkage results in roughness due to the layer thickness tending to be even lower. In addition, the parts can be manually polished in a “green-state” further reducing the cost associated with post-processing.
High relative density of manufactured parts – while the final density of parts may vary depending upon the kind of material used, most will have densities suitable for industrial applications – though further qualification may be needed before they are flown into space.
TIWARI recently performed a qualification campaign for its metal and ceramics together with the European Space Agency (ESA).
Diversity of materials – several different space-grade materials can be used in pellet or filament form for space applications, including metals and ceramics. To illustrate this, the list below details all of the materials from which it is currently possible to manufacture parts using Tiwari’s RAPTOR system:
Ceramics:
Metals:
The images below show some examples of the different patterns, structures, and components that AM processes can produce.
The field of EAM is growing and there are currently a number of system suppliers for complete systems, with the printer, de-binding unit, and furnace included. However, such systems have limited capacity to process certain materials to the required quality levels.
The main reason for this is the furnace. Ceramics and metals have different processing requirements, and it is difficult to sinter both materials with the same furnace. For the best results, a dedicated furnace for each kind of material is needed.
At current prices this would usually mean hundreds of thousands of Euros in investment for the heat treatment stage alone. Because of this, Tiwari believes that the manufacturing within the space industry is becoming increasingly service-oriented; with companies preferring to work with suppliers or sub-contractors providing end-to-end solutions instead of manufacturing on their own.
Regardless of the setup however, additive manufacturing looks set to play an increasingly important role in the space industry (as with many others). And hardware manufacturers should be open to considering the benefits that the technology can bring to their own businesses moving forwards.
To find out more about additive manufacturing service provider Tiwari Scientific Instruments, with whom this article was produced, please view the company’s supplier hub on satsearch.
]]>In this episode we speak with Thys Cronje, Chief Commercial Officer of Simera Sense. Simera Sense is an optical payload manufacturer based in South Africa, and is a member of the satsearch membership program. In the podcast we cover:
Hello, everybody, I’m your host Hywel Curtis. I’d like to welcome you to ‘The Space Industry’ by satsearch, where we share stories about the companies taking us into orbit. In this podcast, we delve into the opinions and expertise of the people behind the commercial space organizations of today, who could become the household names of tomorrow. Before we get started with the episode, remember, you can find out more information about the suppliers, products, and innovations that are mentioned in this discussion on the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com.
Hello, and welcome to today’s episode. Today I’m joined by Thys Cronje, Chief Commercial Officer at Simera Sense. Simera Sense is an Earth Observation company based in South Africa and is a member of the satsearch membership program. The company manufactures optical payloads for clients around the world and supports mission teams with design, integration, and operation.
Today, we’re going to discuss some of the factors that are driving commercial demand for Earth Observation payloads. But firstly, Thys, I’d like to welcome you to the Space Industry podcast and ask if you’d like to add anything to that introduction.
Thank you very much. And thanks for the opportunity to join you here today. I think you’ve nailed it with your introduction, and there’s not much more that I can add.
Fantastic. Okay, well, let’s dive into today’s topic. Earth Observation is obviously a huge part of the industry; of the NewSpace sector as we know it today. I wonder if you could just provide a quick overview of some of the key drivers that are leading to Earth Observation satellites, you know, really taking off in the last few years?
Yes, we have definitely seen an explosion in the demand for Earth Observation instruments over the last couple of years. There can be various reasons or drivers for that, but I have tried to isolate a few.
So, over the last decade, the industry got quite a bit of attention. And when I say industry I mean the NewSpace industry, with attention on commercial players across the value chain.
We think about SpaceX and Blue Origin, and all those big companies getting a lot of attention. But now they are really putting us in the spotlight. And then you’ve got companies like Planet and Satellogic that are showing the industry that commercial Earth Observation is possible with smaller satellites. So that’s playing a bigger role in the perception of industry.
Due to this growth, we are seeing more investors joining the party as well. The access to capital is fueling this growth. With all of these developments, it’s becoming much easier to get into space for smaller companies. To be honest, getting into space is not a challenge anymore. And then the demand for Earth Observation data is growing as well.
Today, we are seeing even insurance companies using Earth Observation data to deliver products to small farmers across Africa. And even in India. It is no longer only governments procuring Earth Observation data, but also startups.
And then free data from space agencies also gave the industry quite a boost. Think about the feedback of the whole Copernicus programme. It’s changing our whole perspective on this industry. We’ve seen advancements in technology like advanced processing. We are in a perfect storm.
Great, interesting. So lots of factors at play really, both on the public and private side. I think we hear a lot of talk about small satellite constellations. They capture the public imagination quite easily and obviously there are multiple topics that are discussed about them in terms of traffic management and all sorts.
But there are lots out there that are planning daily revisits to certain parts of the world. When we think about those technical challenges that they face in terms of the actual Earth Observation payloads that they have, what sort of bands and resolutions do you think are under-addressed in the existing constellations, or those that are planned, but would have really deep value for end users?
That’s a good question. I think you’ve made a good observation there. At Simera Sense, we are seeing a huge demand for especially hyperspectral instruments and instruments that can provide spatial resolutions of below one metre GSD on a daily basis. We are getting requests for those type of instruments.
However, there is not a silver bullet answer to your question. I believe the question that the new players in the Earth Observation industry must ask is, what challenge or problem are we trying to solve for our customers. The problem you’re trying to solve then will determine your spectral, spatial, and radiometric resolution that is required.
We all understand that Earth Observation instruments are actually a measuring tool. It measures something. You are usually measuring some form of activity on the Earth from space and you need an answer from that. Now, the question is, how accurate does that answer need to be? 95%, accuracy 85% or 50%? It’s all determined by your application.
Now, this will feed back into your choice of spectral, radiometric and spatial resolution. Let’s say for instance, with the old example of people who might want to count cars in a parking lot to determine economic activity. Now, how accurate do you want that number to be? Of course, is it 99.99% accuracy required? Or is 80% accuracy good enough?
So yes, that’s a big driver in your choices for spectral, spatial, and radiometric resolution. But that said, from a smaller satellite perspective, the longer wavelengths are still pretty under-addressed. But we are seeing a lot of action in that sector as well. I would recommend anybody that wants to fill a gap in the small CubeSat kind of Earth Observation industry to look a little bit at the longer wavelengths and forget about spatial resolution.
Right. Interesting. Yeah, very much application-driven, problem-solving considerations there. Just to turn briefly to things from from a supplier’s point of view. Now, there are lots of different approaches in the industry to setting up a commercial service or a business case, or a business itself, based on Earth Observation technologies.
Now, we’ve seen operators that are vertically integrated to produce their own payloads, such as Planet who you mentioned earlier, whereas others are sourcing cameras from suppliers like yourselves, and then integrating that into the systems that they’re developing. What is your take on these two approaches? Obviously, you have a lot of interest in the one area, but I just wondered what you thought about these two approaches in the industry?
Yes, we think pretty much a lot about it. But it’s a question. And I think as engineers, we love the challenge of building vertically-integrated companies focusing on a product. But as I said earlier, our focus is on the specific needs or problems that you want to solve while the real challenge is more related to your business model innovation. I think one should focus a lot more on that.
But then again, it’s also about how much control you want to exercise over your whole value chain. So for companies like Planet, it’s good for them to do this vertical integration, because then they’ve got the whole value chain under their control.
But for us, first of all, I believe you need to focus on the strengths. Focus on what you are good at, and where you can add the most value. For the rest, you can form a nice innovative partnership with a supplier like us, and then let us do the heavy lifting where you’re weak.
Second thing, there are a lot of risks in developing optical payloads. It’s difficult. Take it from me, it’s not that simple. You need the know-how and the infrastructure. And the infrastructure takes time and money to develop and scale. A company like Planet Labs to go from one optical payload to 150 optical payloads, it’s a totally different ballgame. There is a lot of investment that needs to go into that.
Lastly, I think in business terms, the time to market is everything. If you first need to develop the infrastructure to develop your payload, then you’ve got a long and bumpy road ahead of you. So that’s my belief on your question.
I think the fact that it is possible to create these partnerships and develop your own supply chain, from what we’ve seen and the teams that we’ve worked with, is more achievable today than it was even 10 years ago, which is a good thing for the whole industry.
Looking at the performance of the Earth Observation payloads themselves, people usually want to squeeze as much performance as possible within the physical limitations of the satellite bus. And the smaller the satellite, the more crucial these decisions and compromises become.
I wonder if you could give a bit of an overview of the scope of Earth Observation payloads in small satellites. What sort of resolutions can be achieved in a CubeSat form factor for example? What decisions need to be made from an engineering point of view?
Yes, I think you’re 100% correct there. It’s the story of my life” I need to explain to customers that one meter GSD is not possible with a 12U CubeSat or a 6U CubeSat. There is a perception that it must be possible. Just make this pixel smaller. But it doesn’t work like that. Not at all. And the physics are quite simple. You can’t play dice with the physics.
For instance, for a 100-millimetre aperture system, you are limited to about 4m GRD. GRD is Ground Resolve Distance. So that’s what your optical system allows you to see. In the visible and near-infrared range from 500 kilometres, it’s about 4 metres. It won’t help to go smaller than that.
As soon as the wavelength goes longer than that the limit also is higher. So for instance, for a 200-millimetre aperture, which you can use easily in a 12U, or a 16U kind of cubesat, the limit is just above 1.5 meter from 500 kilometers.
So yes, there’s lots of physical limits and then there are some other things that you also need to address and that can influence your GSD. There’s the stability of the satellite. You need a very good ADCS to make sure that you can achieve that high resolution. The thermal stability of your instrument must also be very stable, because any form or variations in your instrument can influence the GSD as well.
But that said, GRD and GSD are not the end of it. One must also ask how much contrast or modulation you want to transfer from the image to the object. Now we are a little bit spoiled with large satellites that have gotten into MTF of about 25 to 30%. But you must ask yourself will 5% also do the job. And again, you need to look at your specific application, and especially your budget.
For a given application, there is always an optimal cost efficiency versus instrument accuracy point. It is the entrepreneur’s job to find that specific point where he wants to operate for his specific application. And that is where companies like us can play a role, to assist customers making those kinds of choices regarding GSD, MTF, spectral resolution and radiometric resolution. I suppose it’s quite a few balls you need to keep in the air!
So this is going back to that application, as you say; if you need 80% accuracy for the cars you counted in the car park, do you need one meter GSD and 25% MTF? Possibly not.
Another area of the technology that in general in small satellites that people have been talking about quite a lot is deployable systems. And obviously, Earth Observation payloads have a lot of complexity, and there’s a lot of sensitivity involved in terms of the thermal and mechanical stability, as you’ve discussed. But do you see that there could be scope for deployables in Earth Observation payloads in coming years in order to engineer better resolution of imagery within the same size satellite?
Yes, I think you’re saying is quite right. We see a lot of activity in that domain already, but only on a limited level, not commercial yet. So yes, I think in the next 5 to 10 years, deployable systems will become a reality as the technology evolves and matures. It’s really something that we will evolve towards. And it’s nice.
But it won’t come without its risks and challenges and you’ve mentioned a few of them, the thermal stability, the accuracy. We polish our mirrors to the tenth of a wavelength and that’s the kind of accuracy you need, and to align your systems to. When doing that in space, in a deployable, it’s not easy. But the short answer is yes. I think within the next 10 years we will frequently see deployable systems in space.
Interesting. And to go back, we’ve mentioned briefly about the different bands, and the services and the applications that can form within them. Now beyond RGB, multispectral, SAR, there’s also a bit of interest in imaging in hyperspectral, SWIR bands. Do you believe that the time is coming for these bands to garner more major commercial interest? And even for constellations to be established in such bands as well?
Yes, definitely. I definitely believe so. The longer wavelengths are still a little bit untapped and can unlock a wealth of information about our planet. Just think about resource management, mining, and pollution monitoring; it’s much more information for those sectors in the longer wavelengths than only in the visible wavelength. By sampling these wavelengths in more detail, we will be able to monitor a lot of challenges here on Earth much more accurately.
We are already seeing a few commercial players entering the shortwave infrared, as you mentioned, and in the thermal infrared spectrum, with nice and innovative business models. There are quite a few of them that are starting to develop and so within the next 5 years observation within these bands will become standard, and will give us a whole new perspective of our planet. With this new applications will also develop.
And then consider the data that will be connected from such new innovative business models and constellations, and obviously, all the existing satellites and constellations that we have today. You mentioned earlier that part of what’s driving a big boom in interest in Earth Observation systems is the availability of free data from space agencies.
Do you see, moving forward, there being sort of a standard industry setup where commercial operators are mainly driving the Earth Observation segment using some of the free data from space agencies? In this industry, do you think that there are lots of sovereign countries that would increasingly prefer using such commercial imagery rather than acquiring it themselves through their national space agencies?
Yes, I think you summarised the game beautifully, that free data from space gave the commercial players a major boost over the last 10 to 15 years. I mean the application developers. Suddenly the application developers have really good data to work with for free with, with which they develop a lot of new applications and use that data as real nice test bench for future applications and for higher resolution data.
I’m of the opinion that free data from space agencies have moved the whole Earth Observation industry from a technology push to a demand cycle, and especially from the application side. And that’s quite nice. On the back of this, as commercial Earth Observation operators and new players, we are able to identify gaps within the market and position ourselves to address these needs and gaps.
Now Earth Observation is becoming actually a commodity today. A few years ago, it was still a luxury or niche, but now we see it’s becoming a necessity. So data prices will come under pressure and the focus will shift to value-added services, away from only providing data.
And yes, government or public organizations cannot develop and operate Earth Observation constellations as cost-effectively as the commercial sector. And this will drive the shift towards using commercial imagery. Just think of Planet Labs. How effectively they are managing that constellation and distributing the data.
No. I don’t see governmental organizations operating that way. The same with SpaceX. The costs that they can launch rockets into space. The governmental sectors or agencies can’t do that. In short, as Earth Observation data is becoming a commodity, governments will source data from commercials suppliers more frequently. It’s just what will happen.
Yeah, like you say the ability for application developers to focus more on value-added services, and the innovation that could result in, could be good for everybody. So that’s great to see now.
I think just as a final question, we’ve touched on quite a few actually, of your different predictions in different areas for the Earth Observation industry. I wonder if there’s anything else that you thought is likely to happen in the next three to five years, or anything that you are particularly excited about at Simera Sense, or that you see as opportunities for the industry in general. I wonder if you could put your predicted hat on and share the future with us?
It is always nice to try to look into a glass bowl. That’s a frequent topic in our company as well to try to look into a glass bowl and predict what’s going on. But I think the trends that we do see today are that Earth Observation instruments are generating a lot of data. Way more than then we can use.
I’ve heard numbers that only 5% to 10% of the data downloaded are actually being used. So they’re just lost. It’s either not usable or not interesting. So I think the focus of the next 3 to 5 years will be on how we can we handle all this data in a more cost-effective manner, and optimise the data paths, and get rid of the inefficiencies in the system.
It will be all about addressing and streamlining the bottlenecks within the value chain. Therefore, a lot of focus will be on on-board processing to get the information and ultimately the insight that you need as fast as possible in the hands of the correct decision-maker. And we will try to short circuit those loops.
With this will also we will also see a lot of Earth Observation products being integrated into various decision-making processes, especially in the retail, financing and insurance industries. Earth Observation will play a major role in how our agricultural, or the green and especially the blue economies, are being financed and insured. We will see a lot of applications and in places and the use of Earth Observation the way we traditionally haven’t been used in the past.
So in short, the way the industry is consuming the Earth Observation data will change dramatically over the next 5 years. A lot of application developers are currently focusing on just that. And that will have a direct impact on the instrument manufacturers who are approaching optical payloads. So yes, in short, the next 3 to 5 years are going to be extremely exciting for the whole Earth Observation industry.
And yes, we as a company can’t just wait for that. We will try always to drive that process and work across the value chain with partners who make all of these things happen.
Oh, well, fantastic. I think that’s a great place to wrap up. I think you will have taught our listeners a lot today about all the different aspects of the Earth Observation industry, and how all these criteria play into each other and affect each other. Thank you very much for sharing these insights with The Space Industry podcast community today.
Yes, I must thank you, and thanks for this platform and opportunity. I think it’s great to have these kind of discussions. Thanks a lot.
Great. You’re welcome. And thanks to all our listeners out there. Remember, you can find out more details about Simera Sense’s portfolio and services, and history of the company on our platform satsearch.com. You can also make free requests for further technical information, documents or quotes, lead times and introductions to companies or whatever other information you might need for your trade studies or procurement purposes. Thank you very much.
Thank you for listening to this episode of The Space Industry by satsearch. I hope you enjoyed today’s story about one of the companies taking us into orbit. We’ll be back soon with more in-depth, behind-the-scenes insights from private space businesses.
In the meantime, you can go to satsearch.com for more information in the space industry today, or find us on social media, if you have any questions or comments. To stay up to date, please subscribe to our weekly newsletter. And you can also get each podcast on demand on iTunes, Spotify, the Google Play Store, or whichever podcast service you typically use.
Please note – we’ve tried to ensure that this transcript is as accurate as possible, though some edits have been made to improve clarity. It is possible that there are some errors or inconsistencies with the podcast audio recording – if you have any questions or comments on this please let us know at info@satsearch.com today.
]]>In this episode we speak with Jacob Nissen at Chief Sales Officer, at Space Inventor. Space Inventor is a Danish satellite engineering company, founded in 2002, that specializes in nano- and microsatellites. The company is also a participant in the satsearch membership program. In the podcast we discuss:
Secondary (rechargeable) batteries are the focus of this article, with well-known examples being Lithium-ion or Lithium-based batteries adapted in space applications.
This article gives a brief overview of satellite battery technology and shares details of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) battery products from around the world. If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
The primary source of energy in a microsatellite (satellites with deployed mass up to 100 kg) power system is solar/photovoltaic panels, which convert solar energy to electrical energy, while batteries are the secondary source.
Batteries convert electrical energy to chemical energy during charging, and perform the opposite process during discharge. A typical battery contains a negative and positive electrode immersed in an electrolyte, separated by an insulator.
Primary and secondary batteries are two types of power storage systems that are used in satellite power systems, classified based on their electrochemistry.
For short missions primary batteries are used, as they are not rechargeable. For repeated cycles of usage, as in the case of eclipsed seasons, secondary (rechargeable) batteries are preferred.
Typically, nickel-cadmium (NiCd), nickel-hydrogen (NiH2), lithium polymer (LiPo), and lithium-ion (Li-ion) cells are used as secondary batteries in space applications.
For any object to be space-graded, it has to withstand severe vibration during the launch, vacuum pressure once it reaches the designated orbit, and extreme temperature, and solar radiations at different stages.
Every satellite sub-system has to be designed and tested for such extreme environmental conditions. Despite such challenges, it is also expected in the modern industry that every component should have increasingly longer lifetimes, higher efficiencies, and, more importantly, is available at a comparatively lower cost.
To be able to reliably use satellite batteries on-board space systems, environmental conditions become even more important to be considered in design, as it can be possible for battery systems to leak, or even explode.
Some of the important parameters to consider for selecting the right set of batteries include; depth of discharge (DOD), shelf-life, ability to recharge, power capacity (in Ah), weight, operating temperature range, resistance to shock and vibration, power management schemes, charge cycles, specific energy, cost, and ruggedness. More information on such criteria is given below.
Another of the common issues with satellite battery technology is overcharging. It should also be considered during the design and testing phase to avoid the risk of overheating once the maximum voltage is reached. Overheating may lead to explosion or fire, which would likely be catastrophic to a mission.
Finally, other undesirable conditions for a battery would include short circuiting, an operating temperature higher or lower than the designed range, exceeding the preset limits of the DOD, a build up of pressure inside the cell due to the chemical reactions, and excessive current developing.
As you can see, developing a battery to work in space is no easy task, particularly as they play such an important role. And the core of any battery system, which needs to meet these challenges, is the fundamental chemistry of the energy-storing cells.
The reliability of a battery depends mainly on the choice of the electrochemical system it is based on. Among the many different types, the most widely used batteries are Nickel–Cadmium (NiCad), Nickel–Hydrogen (NiH2), and Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. These are described in more detail below:
Although NiH2 and Lithium-based batteries are sometimes thought to be replacing Ni-Cd batteries in newer systems, this format has served as an effective storage system for decades, with an adequate lifetime and fair capacity, satisfying the requirements for space missions in the past. The cathode (positive electrode) of these batteries is nickel and the anode (negative electrode) is cadmium, and potassium hydroxide is used as the electrolyte. These batteries have been in use on LEO and GEO satellites.
Ni-Cd battery technology is mature. The systems are lightweight and inexpensive, but usually not as energy-dense compared to other forms. Their ability to deliver the full capacity with a high discharge rate is one of the significant advantages of the batteries.
Notable flaws in such batteries are that the high charging rate can cause overcharging and overheating causing damages to the battery. Prolonged usage of these batteries may also cause holes in the insulator material where crystalline “shorts” are grown. When this occurs, the cell can charge only if these crystallines are opened by high pulse current.
Nickel-Hydrogen secondary batteries are designed exclusively for space applications. They are an example of a hybrid between fuel cells and battery technology. The electrodes of the cells are made of positive nickel hydroxide and negative platinum catalyst. The cell case serves as the pressure vessel for holding the negative hydrogen gas.
The main advantage of Nickel-Hydrogen batteries is that they do not pose a safety issue while overcharging or overdischarging. They also provide a higher specific energy compared to Ni-Cd batteries. The main shortcomings are that they have a high self discharge rate, low volumetric energy density, and require high pressure storage to hold the hydrogen gas generated during charging.
A classic example is the Nickel-Hydrogen batteries powering the Hubble Telescope in LEO, which were in operation from its launch in 1990 to 2009, and were thenthen replaced by improved versions of the same type of system.
Lithiumi-ion batteries are known for their dense energy, longer lifetime, and rechargeable capacity. Since Li-ion batteries became commercially viable products in 1991, they have been adapted in multiple industrial applications, including the space industry.
The highlights of Li-ion battery characteristics include a wide range of operating temperatures, and a prominent working cycle. The systems are also capable of delivering short and high energy peaks without affecting the cell. The Li-ion cell characteristics differ based on the cathode material, while the anode is typically a carbon-based material.
Lithium manganese oxide (LMO) and Lithium manganese nickel (NMC) cells are low cost and have reasonable safety ratings among Li-ion cells. LMO cells have low specific energy and high discharge rate capability, while NMC cells have high specific energy, low resistance and low discharge rate capability.
Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) cells have the highest cycle life and specific energy among the Li-ion cells with a low discharge rate capability and decent safety. Lithium nickel cobalt oxide (NCO) cells are rarely used. Lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) cells are expensive, characterized by low specific energy, poor safety and lower discharge rate capability. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells are characterized by their low specific energy, and high discharge rate capability with, good safety ratings.
Li-ion cells develop internal resistance rapidly at low temperatures posing a limitation to the discharge. Capacitors are used with Li-ion batteries as a hybrid system to improve their performance at low temperatures. Li-ion batteries are considered to be in class 9 of dangerous goods by the United Nations (UN), and so specific regulations of safety should be followed when in use of this product.
The mission’s orbit is a critical parameter to be considered for choosing a COTS battery. The required battery cycles change with the season and duration of the eclipses experienced by the satellites in different orbits.
Depending on the mission orbit (GEO or MEO or LEO), the specific energy of the battery also varies. In this section, an outline of eclipse seasons are provided to highlight the significant differences in the requirements of the stored power in the batteries.
LEO – a satellite in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) experiences a range of 5,000 – 5,500 cycles of eclipses over a year with a duration of 30 – 40 minutes each. These eclipses happen approximately every 90 minutes, as the satellites in LEO are positioned comparatively lower and complete a revolution faster.
GEO – a satellite in Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) is positioned on the equatorial plane, focussing on the same geographical location by rotating at the same orbit speed as earth. It experiences a range of 90 – 100 cycles of eclipses in total, with two 45-day sessions over a year. The maximum duration of battery usage during this season is 72 minutes per day.
MEO – satellites positioned in the Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) face 170 cycles of eclipses per year. Typically, the eclipse duration ranges from 0-80 minutes. There are two seasons of eclipse spanning for a period of 40 – 60 days, per year.
Orbit is very important to consider, but is just one of the criteria that need to be weighed up when selecting the right satellite battery for your mission.
We recommend a simple four-step approach for the preliminary selection of any new piece of hardware or software for a satellite or other space system.
Note that this is just a basic guide based on what we’ve learned helping hundreds of buyers select products within our marketplace and get rapid responses from suppliers.
It is just meant to help engineers make an initial assessment and shouldn’t replace formalised systems engineering approaches such as the INCOSE Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) CubeSat frameworks.
These criteria are explained in more detail below.
The first step is to fully understand the currently known mission parameters, including both the critical applications and desirable, but not necessarily essential, objectives.
Typically the more precise mission parameters will only be established later in the process – usually iterated upon in a number of loops by considering the “system of systems.”
But having an idea of what functions your selected technology is likely to need to perform, and on what schedule and duration, will make selecting the most suitable model much easier.
Also consider the launch stresses, testing processes and regulatory compliance that the product will need to go through in order to make it into orbit, as well as any obsolescence procedures once the mission is complete.
Next, keep to hand all currently known design information about the entire unit.
This can include the volume, weight, primary structural material and more basic things such as the location, storage and transport arrangements of the major components.
You will need to make sure that the new piece of technology you choose will be suitable for these parameters.
Once you are clear on exactly what tasks the new product will need to perform and the design characteristics of the satellite or other unit that it will work within, the next consideration is the full range of technology that will sit alongside the product to make sure that everything is compatible.
You may not yet know the entire range of accompanying technology (and you might need to first choose the product model you are interested in in order to make decisions on other components), but make sure you have access to all available technical specifications of sub-systems and structural components that are most likely to be used, as per the current mission plans.
It is important to understand how different sub-systems and components will interface with each other to create a high-performing satellite.
Balancing the available mass, power and volume budgets is also important, which can only be done with a clear plan of which components will be used.
Also consider how the product will work with the planned or existing ground segment to ensure effective data transfer and communication stability.
Now that you have a clear idea of what sort of product is needed for your mission, system, and existing platform setup, the next step is to compare the commercially-available products that meet these criteria according to the most relevant performance metrics.
The following criteria are some of the main technical attributes to consider when selecting a battery for a mission or service.
Battery capacity – capacity is defined as the charge stored by the battery and is determined by the mass of active material contained in the battery. Measured in Ampere-hour, Ah.
Battery voltage – the difference in electric potential between the positive and negative terminals of a battery. Measured in V.
Battery Power – the amount of energy stored in the battery. Measured in Watt-hour, Wh.
Battery cell configuration – the physical arrangement of cells, for example:
Type of battery – as outlined in the previous section, the chemical composition of the batteries define their type.
Physical mass – the weight of the battery pack. Measured in grams or kilograms.
Depth of discharge (DoD) – the percentage of the discharged capacity as compared to the nominal capacity.
In the section below you can find a variety of commercially-available satellite batteries on the global market. We have also published an overview of satellite Electrical Power Systems (EPS) on the global market.
These listings will be amended when new products are added to the global marketplace, or existing systems are upgraded, so please check back for more, or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading. If you would like further help identifying satellite batteries for your specific mission or service please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
The event included presentations from 5 industry experts in research, design, development, integration, and operation of thruster systems in small satellites.
At satsearch we are always looking to find new ways to better connect buyers and sellers in the global market.
We aren’t promoting the individual suppliers in this webinar, the event instead drilled down into technical details of different thruster technologies, and answered questions from engineers that help move the procurement process forwards. Please take a look here:
The suppliers that presented at the event are, in order of appearance:
You can find out more about thruster technologies for CubeSats and smallsats on satsearch here.
Delve deeper into the criteria that you need to consider when selecting the right thruster for your mission in this article.
Please send us your questions or requests for quotes, documentation here.
In this episode we speak with Isolina Pérez Donnelly, Sales Manager at satsearch member Alén Space, about how the data systems used in both the space and the ground segment can be better integrated into a single ecosystem.
Alén Space is a Spanish CubeSat integrator and engineering company that provides equipment, manufacturing, consultancy, design services, and operational expertise for small satellite missions and services. In the episode we discuss:
In this episode we speak with Edwin Faier, President & Director of Business Development at Xiphos Systems Corporation.
Xiphos is a Canadian manufacturer of on-board computers and processors, and a satsearch member, and in this episode we discuss advancing the use of FPGA-based OBCs in space applications, covering the following topics:
Payload processor sytems manage the data collected by a satellite payload so that they can be stored, interpreted, and used by the on-board computer (OBC) and communications system. This enables the data to be processed by, or transferred to, other sub-systems when required in order for the satellite system to achieve its primary purpose.
This article gives a brief overview of payload data handling systems and shares details of commercially-available processor products from around the world. If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
Before explaining how payload processors work, we must first understand what is meant by a payload and a payload system.
The payload is the part of the satellite that gives it its primary function or purpose. The other sub-systems onboard support the satellite’s operational health, positioning, data transfer, power, and other processes that keep it running. But the payload provides the reason to keep that satellite running in the first place.
For Earth Observation (EO) applications, for example, the payload is the camera that is collecting the relevant data. For remote sensing satellites the payload will be the radar or other sensing equipment used to take readings.
Payload satellite communication is the transfer of data relating to the payload’s operation between the satellite and the ground.
To enable this, alongside the primary payload, the full set of antennas, receivers, and transmitters, both in-space and on the ground, used to transmit and store the data needed to meet mission objectives are sometimes referred to as the payload system.
As mentioned, the rest of the satellite (the bus, including the physical structure, electrical power system (EPS), attitude control components etc.) supports the payload and payload system.
Payloads are an important area of innovation in the NewSpace sector. Electronic miniaturization and advances in the manufacture of other supporting sub-systems have brought new capabilities to payload developers.
In addition, innovation from outside of the space sector (such as in radar sensing and camera technology) has also made new missions and services possible.
Therefore satellites can now be launched, deployed, transported, and pointed with greater flexibility and accuracy than ever before. Once in position it is also possible to operate them in new, more powerful, and more responsive ways.
One of the net results of these changes has been greater demands on satellites in terms of data handling and exchange.
Modern EO cameras, for example, can capture more images, at a higher resolution, and in a greater number of formats every year. This requires more processing power in order to handle the data rates and volumes produced.
In addition, the available downlink bandwidth to ground stations can be limited, so satellite payload operators require solutions for coordinating higher volumes of data more efficiently.
The term on-board processing is often used to refer to the activities of the OBC – operational control of virtually all aspects of the satellite requiring computational control or data processing. Payload data processing instead refers specifically to the management of data from an individual payload.
And it is the payload processor that manages this data, and provides a vital connection between the payload, the satellite bus, and the on-board CPU / flight computer system.
In the section below you can find a variety of commercially-available payload processors on the global market.
We have also published an overview of FPGA-based payload processors and OBCs featuring some of these systems, as well as an in-depth article on how to choose an OBC for a satellite (in collaboration with STM, a participant in the satsearch membership program.)
These listings will be amended when new products are added to the global marketplace, or existing systems are upgraded, so please check back for more, or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a payload processor for your specific mission or service please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>In this episode we speak with Khaki Rodway, Director of Business Development, and Patrick van Put, Managing Director of European Operations, from Bradford Space.
Bradford Space is an experienced, US-owned business with operations in New York and Netherlands, Sweden, Luxembourg, and Seattle. The company develops propulsion systems, avionics, attitude and orbit control technology, microgravity workspaces, and provides logistics services for missions beyond low earth orbit. Bradford Space is also a satsearch member. We discuss:
Bradford Space offers a smallsat logistics service that enables routine and reliable deep space missions. The proposed solution uses Bradford’s Space Square Rocket spacecraft for missions as far out as 1.5AU, encompassing geosynchronous orbit (GEO), low lunar orbit (LLO), and Mars flyby.
In this episode we speak with with Tamara Guerrero, Business Development Manager at Solar MEMS. Solar MEMS is a Spanish sun sensor manufacturer that provides products for the OneWeb constellation, and participates in the satsearch membership program. We discuss:
In this episode we speak with Damian Jamroz, COO at SatRevolution about hosted payload missions. SatRevolution is a Polish NewSpace company that provides nanosatellite bus platforms, sub-systems, and services (including hosted payload missions), and is a satsearch member. We discuss:
In this episode we speak with Fredrik Bruhn from Unibap AB. Unibap is a Sweden-based computer system technology developer creating AI and computing technologies to support advanced automation systems for industries on Earth and in space. We discuss:
In this article we take a look at processing systems based on field programmable gate array (FPGA) technology.
We first provide a brief introduction to the technology before giving an overview of commercially available products from suppliers around the world, for both FPGA-based on-board computers (OBCs) and payload processors.
A field programmable gate array (FPGA) is essentially a semiconductor integrated circuit (IC) comprised of an array of logic blocks that can be configured (or programmed) during use by the end-user (i.e. in the field).
The difference between an FPGA and a microcontroller or microprocessor is in the programming approach.
While using a processor, the user functionality is to be adapted to the available instruction set of the processor. Moreover, simultaneous processing of multiple tasks requires multiple CPU cores or multiple threads inside the processor.
Therefore, programming a processor or microcontroller built around a processor needs a software-based approach, operating under the constraints of the instruction set and the processor architecture, and has inherent processing delays.
On the other hand, programming an FPGA is more hardware-based as an FPGA is essentially an IC with input/output ports and configurable digital circuitry.
The basic architecture of an FPGA is depicted in the image below.
An FPGA comprises of programmable logic blocks (also known as configurable logic blocks, or CLBs), programmable interconnects, and programmable input/output (IO) blocks.
Each logic block is comprised of look-up tables, multiplexers, and storage elements, and can perform data storage and arithmetic operations. The input/output blocks provide off-chip connections.
The programmable interconnect matrix forms the connections between the logic blocks and the input/output blocks, so as to realize the user-defined functionality.
The user program on the FPGA is basically a stream of 1s and 0s which is loaded into the memory cells. This decides the functionality of the individual CLBs (i.e. whether to perform data storage or an arithmetic operation) and the interconnects between the CLBs, resulting in a custom optimal digital design for the particular functionality.
There are several well-known manufacturers of FPGA chips such as Xilinx, Actel (now Microsemi), Altera, and Atmel.
Though the basic architecture of FPGA is similar across all these chips, there are still a number of differences between them. The most important distinction is the FPGA architecture implementation technology.
There are four main categories of FPGA technology:
SRAM-based FPGAs
The first category is SRAM-based FPGA technology in which the configuration data of the logic cells is stored in static memory SRAM (Static Random-Access Memory). SRAM-based FPGAs need to be configured (programmed) every time following power-on, as the SRAM memory that stores its configuration is volatile.
Upon power-on, the SRAM-based FPGA is either configured from the data stored on an off-chip external flash chip or configured through an external device such as a processor, through a JTAG interface. SRAM-based FPGAs are the most commonly used form of the technology and popular examples include Virtex and Spartan families from Xilinx.
SRAM-based FPGAs with internal flash
The second category is SRAM-based FPGAs that contain internal flash memory blocks, so that the configuration data can be stored on the FPGA chip itself, without having to be stored on an external off-chip flash memory. The Spartan-3AN family FPGA of Xilinx is one example of this category.
Examples of space grade FPGA-based computing systems; the STM MICROSATPRO Space Qualified Processor Unit, the Ibeos EDGE Payload Processor, and Xiphos Q8S Processor.
Flash-based FPGAs
The third category consists of true flash-based FPGAs. In these systems the memory cells on the FPGA are flash memory and the configuration data is stored in these non-volatile flash memory cells. Microsemi’s ProASIC3 is one example of a flash-based FPGA.
Antifuse-based FPGAs
The fourth category is antifuse-based FPGAs which are programmed by creating permanent conductive paths between logic blocks and input/output ports of the FPGA. However, they can only be programmed once, unlike the other three kinds.
The advantages the systems in this category offer are that they are absolutely non-volatile, with the smallest routing delays, and robust against radiation effects. This makes them an ideal choice for space grade FPGA applications that require low power and zero configuration time, but have no requirement for reconfiguration.
The Axcelerator family of FPGAs from Microsemi are one popular example of antifuse FPGAs.
For space applications, flash-based FPGAs have several advantages. The biggest benefit is that flash memory is inherently not affected by alpha or neutron radiation, making the flash-based FPGA drastically less prone to failures induced by single event upsets (SEU).
Another advantage is their low power. Each SRAM memory cell in an SRAM-based FPGA comprises of six transistors (more in the case of radiation-hardened FPGAs; the Xilinx Virtex-5QV family has 12 transistor SRAM cells for example) whereas in flash-based FPGAs the configuration cells use a single transistor.
This results in much lower leakage current per cell, which translates into exponentially lower leakage current across the entire space grade FPGA chip, and results in a flash-based FPGA consuming much lesser power compared to an SRAM-based FPGA.
Traditionally, flash memories had a larger hardware footprint than SRAM memories, which resulted in SRAM-based FPGAs being much denser than flash-based FPGAs and thereby higher performance.
But flash memory cells have become smaller, resulting in flash- based FPGAs matching SRAM-based FPGAs in performance, while maintaining their edge in the consumption of less power.
In addition, the hardware footprint of flash-based FPGAs is also smaller, as the overall hardware footprint of individual flash memory cells has become comparable to SRAM memory cells.
Another advantage of flash-based FPGAs in space applications is their ability to be configured almost instantly, as the configuration data is present on the FPGA itself. This is not the case with their SRAM counterparts, which take several milliseconds to configure from the memory present off-chip.
FPGA-based SoCs enable the designers of a computing platform to develop the system in both hardware and firmware.
FPGA-based SoC designs have several advantages over microcontroller or digital signal processor (DSP) based designs for space exploration missions.
Given their unique mission goals, and thereby computational needs, computing platforms for deep space missions have different requirements in terms of speed, peak power consumption per operation, floating point arithmetic, and peripherals for internal communication.
FPGA-based designs provide the flexibility to tailor all these features, peripherals, and controllers that may not be possible using a microcontroller or DSP-based design.
Re-programmability and IP reuse are further reasons to favor FPGAs over ASICs, though ASIC-based SoC designs offer better performance in terms of chip delays, power consumption, and speed.
Current generation FPGAs, with high logic density and increased performance, now allow the development of complex systems consisting of processing elements, peripheral interfaces, on-chip bus structures, and analog sensors, to be embedded onto a single System-on-Chip.
The Xilinx Virtex-5QV and Microsemi RTG4 are some of the popular space grade FPGAs on the market. The NX RH FPGA is another space grade FPGA introduced by the French company NanoXplore.
In this section you can find a range of FPGA-based systems that can act as on-board computers (OBCs), payload processors, or perform both functions as needed.
These listings will be amended when new products are added to the global marketplace, or existing systems are upgraded, so please check back for more, or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We have also published an overview of OBCs available on the global market as well as an article on how to choose the right OBC for your mission.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
In this episode we speak with Rafael Guzman founder and CTO of SATLANTIS, a Spanish business that develops Earth Observation (EO) optical payloads for small satellites around the world. We discuss:
Selecting any optical payload is challenging but selecting the right system for your mission or application is even more complicated. Many underestimate the complexity of the choices they can be faced when assessing the types of products on the market.
This article addresses nine important factors that a buyer needs to consider during the optical payload procurement process. The points discussed do not form an exhaustive list, but will hopefully make you aware of all the most critical parameters to take into account.
It can be easy for engineers to sometimes forget that they are developing an Earth Observation (EO) satellite for a specific application, solving real-world challenges. An optical payload is more than just a simple device taking beautiful pictures from outer space; it is a complex measurement system.
Optical payloads measure the energy reflected or emitted by an object on, or near, the Earth’s surface. And somewhere, someone uses this measurement by turning it into actionable information; providing vital insights to decision-makers.
Before selecting an optical payload, you need to understand what the end-user wants to achieve with the data and the level of insight that will be required from it. Hand in hand with this information, it is also essential to understand the error levels with which the end-user can live.
For example, it is vital to know the spectrum of crops the end-user needs to monitor, and how frequently, in precision agriculture. Furthermore, the geographical area covered, type of variations to measure, and confidence or error level are also necessary pieces of information. With these criteria understood, one can derive the optical payload’s spatial, spectral, radiometric, temporal, and operational requirements.
Another example is measuring economic activity within an area by counting various economic indicators, such as the number of cars parked within a business area, airplanes at an airport, ships in a harbor, and large trucks or infrastructure in an industrial zone. Here you need to know the size of the objects you want to count, the geographical distribution of these objects, how far they are apart, and whether you require accuracy of, for example, 80% or 99.9%.
Although electronic and optical miniaturization has developed significantly in recent years, it is important to be realistic about the limits that still exist. You can’t expect the same performance from a 1kg and a 100kg optical payload.
The limitations that size and volume restraints impose are even more important for CubeSats. In a 3U, 6U, or even 16U CubeSat, everything works against you. Engineers shouldn’t expect miracles from their optical system – most satellites do have physical, thermal, and structural limits that can’t be exceeded.
The structures of nano- and microsatellites are “flimsy”, especially 12U and 16U structures, relative to their larger counterparts. In bigger satellites, one can modify the structure to accommodate a large payload with specific structural integrity requirements. In smaller satellites there is far less room to play with.
Optical payloads are delicate devices, and consist of optical elements polished to a fraction of a wavelength accuracy. Opto-mechanical engineers use state-of-the-art equipment to align these elements within arc seconds of each other. Therefore, the slightest thermal or mechanical instabilities may have massive impacts on optical performance.
Questions to ask:
In optics, as with many things in life, size does matter; in this case, the effective aperture size.
Knowing the effective aperture size, one can quickly perform a couple of rule of thumb calculations to determine basic performance parameters. These parameters include spatial and radiometric resolution.
Ultimately, an optical system’s diffraction limit depends on the wavelength observed and the effective aperture diameter. Diffraction, due to physics, is a hard limit on a system’s performance, and it is therefore essential to understanding how close the manufacturer of the optical payload can get to the system’s theoretical limits, namely the diffraction limit.
For example, an optical payload flying at 500 km orbital height and operating in the 550 nm band has a GRD limit of 3.5 m if the aperture size is 95 mm. An equivalent system with an 80 mm aperture has a 4.2 m GRD limit. This is a 0.7 m GRD difference on a 15 mm aperture difference.
The same is valid for spatial cut-off frequency. In our example, the 95 mm aperture system’s cut-off frequency is about 300 cy/mm, while the 80 mm system has a 250 cy/mm cut-off. These parameters have a direct impact on the sharpness of fine detail within an image.
Similarly, the aperture size and F/# have an equivalent effect on the amount of light energy reaching the focal plane. The photography community is familiar with the F-stop principle where the lens halves the light intensity when going to the next F-stop, for example, F/5.6 to F/8. This is also true for optical payloads.
The biggest takeaway when using optical payloads on nanosatellites is that a slight difference in aperture can significantly impact performance. However, an increase in diameter and a decrease in F/# may also significantly impact the cost. Also, be aware of those using clever tricks to increase the aperture!
Questions to ask:
The figure of merit for spatial resolution is Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) and not Ground Sampling Distance (GSD), nor Ground Resolved Distance (GRD). Although the last two parameters play an important role, you need to compare apples with apples when selecting a payload.
First of all, one needs to understand that an imaging system’s Nyquist Frequency is directly related to the pixel size. By definition, the Nyquist Frequency is always 0.5 cycles per pixel, or two pixels are required to sample one cycle. Therefore, a system with 5.5 um pixels has a Nyquist frequency of 90,91 cy/mm. When evaluating MTF, one should do it at the Nyquist Frequency.
As part of your optical payload selection process, you need to determine an MTF “budget”. MTF factors to keep in mind are the optical MTF, the sensor aperture MTF, TDI and velocity mismatch, line-of-sight jitter, sensor diffusion, and sensor charge transfer efficiency. Atmospheric conditions can further deteriorate MTF but are outside the scope of this discussion.
Your choice of MTF depends on the application and the error margin with which the end-user can live. High-end systems requiring crisp images frequently aim for an end-to-end system MTF of above 20%, while the lower-end systems can accommodate system MTFs of as low as 8%.
Evaluating the overall MTF is also not that simple as a manufacturer can present the optical MTF in many forms and shapes:
A large number of optical payloads can operate across a wide temperature range, and more can survive a broader temperature range. Unfortunately, this is where most people are making a mistake in optical payload procurement.
It is not about the temperature range, but rather about the gradients and difference across the payload, which influences the underlying optical performance parameters.
As explained earlier, optical payloads are highly sensitive to changes in the environment. Any relative movement between optical elements can result in a significant change in optical performance.
Payload engineers are forced to squeeze the best performance possible out of the available volume and mass budget. The result of this optimization process is that the system has excellent performance at a specific operating point. Deviations from this point result in significant performance drops.
From a thermal point of view, one should be sensitive to axial and radial temperature differences across the payload, as it may have the most significant impact on performance. Soak or ambient temperature differences may have a much lesser impact.
We all know that payloads use energy while capturing, storing, processing, and transmitting images. This energy is transformed into heat, and this heat needs to go somewhere. If you can’t dump the heat, the sensor’s temperature rises, directly impacting the system’s duty cycle. Meaning it shortens the time that one can use the payload per orbit.
Larger satellite platforms may have the ability to control the thermal environment, whereas nanosatellites do not have this capability. This limited ability to control the thermal environment makes the athermal design of the payload more critical.
When evaluating the thermal performance, the following information is essential:
Radiometric resolution is maybe the least understood parameter when it comes to optical payloads. The main challenge is the vast amount of figures-of-merit and ways to calculate and express radiometric performance.
Here one thinks of Noise-Equivalent-Reflectance Difference (NE∆ρ) and Noise-Equivalent-Irradiance (NEI). Noise-Equivalent-Spectral-Radiance is also a helpful figure-of-merit for the reflective bands of multispectral and hyperspectral systems.
However, most payload manufacturers default to a plain Signal-to-Noise (SNR) ratio. This parameter is maybe the most challenging figure-of-merit to compare between systems as it is frequently quoted without any signal description: the conditions under which this number is valid.
Again, there are specific rules of thumb one can follow when evaluating radiometric performance. First of all, take a look at the pixel’s full well capacity, as this parameter gives you a good indication of the system’s photon noise limits. For example, if you operate a sensor with a well-capacity of 20,000 electrons near its limits, the SNR limit would be around 140 due to shot noise only. Then you still need to take all the other noise sources into account.
The next question is, how can you maximize the signal or photons captured and lower the noise. Maximizing signal, the manufacturer must optimize the signal throughput in optical transmission or increase the exposure time.
The satellite operator can increase exposure time by lowering the relative ground speed by applying Forward Motion Compensation (FMC). The sensor can also be exposed to more photons using a charge transfer Time Delay Integration (TDI) sensor. These sensors are expensive.
For lowering noise, digital Time Delay Integration options are available. This technique boils down to the averaging of the signal.
When evaluating SNR, the following information are essential:
Earth Observation operators sometimes undervalue the spectral resolution of an optical payload. That said, the number and position of the spectral bands are highly dependent on the end application.
For example, if you only want to monitor and detect changes in physical structures on earth, three bands in the visible spectrum may be adequate. To monitor vegetation and detect slight changes in plant health, you may require up to seven bands.
When specifying spectral bands, the position and bandwidths are essential, directly impacting the radiometric resolution. Also, the manufacturer must align the cut-on and cut-off slopes of the bandpass filters with your requirements.
Hyperspectral solutions are trendy nowadays. A crucial question is how much value will this add to your data product, and will your end application benefit from these additional spectral bands?
Although more spectral bands are great, they increase the amount of data generated and decrease the area that can be covered.
Current Earth Observation industry trends are well known; spatial and spectral resolution are increasing, meaning more data and pixels are processed, and satellites are getting smaller, resulting in increased complexity (and less power to transmit data).
Satellite operators would prefer to maximize spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution to achieve the highest return on investment. That said, optical payloads for nanosatellites can easily store up to 1 Tbit of data onboard, potentially even more.
So does this mean that the data throughput problem is solved?
Unfortunately, no. The most significant bottleneck is getting that data to the ground.
For example; imagine you need to download 1 Tbit of data daily and let us say you have access to 5 ground stations, 20 minutes per day for each ground station. To achieve the desired download capacity, you require a 200 Mbit/sec downlink. Maintaining this high throughput requires a lot of time and money. However, we do see a couple of cloud-based services addressing these operational challenges.
On the other hand, Earth Observation analysts claim that less than 5% of the data downloaded are used. If this is true, payload and satellite operators need to look at intelligent ways to download only the required data.
The following questions should be kept in mind when selecting an optical payload with efficient data handling capabilities:
Optical payloads and satellites do cost money to produce, and the development takes time. These items are not a commodity and do not stand ready on the shelf for purchasing.
Although the NewSpace industry is trying to shorten the development process, it still takes a team of highly skilled people a finite amount of time to develop the end product.
To save money and time, stick to the standard offering as close as possible. Changing hardware interfaces or mounting points can significantly impact an optical payload.
Design modifications require additional simulations and environmental testing and can add up to a sizeable non-recurring engineering component.
This is also true for the electrical interfaces, as well as the command, control, and data interfaces. The fastest and most cost-effective option is to stay within the standard offerings.
If you require redundancy within the system, be prepared to pay the additional cost. In addition, it is important to note that optical components and sensors are expensive parts. Most companies won’t like to carry the risk of ordering high-cost components without a significant deposit.
For more information on Simera Sense please view their supplier hub here, or take a look at the company’s product portfolio for more details on the optical systems available on satsearch.
]]>In this episode we speak with Vytenis Buzas, CEO and Co-Founder of NanoAvionics about agile manufacturing of space technologies.
NanoAvionics is a nanosatellite mission integrator, with facilities in North America and Europe, that delivers satellite buses and propulsion systems for the satellite applications market, and is also a satsearch member. We discuss:
A conversation about the opportunities that deployable systems and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products are bringing to the space industry.
In this episode we speak with Thomas Sinn of Deployables Cubed (DCUBED) – a Munich-based NewSpace company, and satsearch member, specializing in the development of deployable components and sub-systems for small satellites. We discuss:
In this episode we speak with Bert Monna and Alexandra Sokolowski of Hyperion Technologies. Hyperion is a space company based in the Netherlands in Delft and specializes in high-performance bus components such as laser communications systems, on-board computers (OBCs), attitude control systems, and propulsion modules. It is also a satsearch member company and is part of AAC Clyde Space. In this episode we discuss:
Please note that some time after this article was published Hyperion Technologies was acquired by AAC Clyde Space. The list below includes those products that were originally offered by Hyperion and are now available as part of the AAC Clyde Space portfolio. To find out more about the acquisition please click here.
A discussion about how satellite antenna technology is changing to meet the needs of the modern space industry.
In this episode we speak with Nicolas Capet, the CEO of ANYWAVES – a French space company based in Toulouse and specializing in the design and development of satellite antennas. We discuss:
ANYWAVES also offers custom antennas for various mission and frequency bands, as well as an antenna optimization service.
]]>A conversation about progress in the development and production of components and sub-systems for the NewSpace sector.
In this episode we speak with Riccardo Carlini from NPC Spacemind – the aerospace division of Italy-based automated machines manufacturer New Production Concept (NPC). We discuss:
NPC Spacemind manufactures a range of hardware for CubeSats and other small satellite form factors:
NPC Spacemind also offers manufacturing and production services for space applications including:
In addition, the company provides complete manufacturing of structural elements for space application (satellites structures, deployable systems, supporting elements):
NPC Spacemind also offers engineering design services for complex electromechanical systems and structural element for space applications. For structural design for space applications, NPC Spacemind offers:
For the design of complex electromechanical systems, NPC Spacemind provides:
A discussion of the benefits and opportunities that .NET development could bring to the space industry, and the challenges of accelerating its adoption.
In this episode we speak with Zoltán Lehóczky, Co-founder and managing director at Lombiq Technologies. Lombiq is a Hungarian .NET software development and services business. We discuss:
Hastlayer is designed to turn software into specialist hardware, in the form of computer chips. It transforms .NET software into FPGA-implemented logic circuits.
It can be used in ground segment HPC applications (on-premise or in the cloud) and on-board satellites as long as a Xilinx Zynq-based OBC is used.
Hastlayer is designed to enable a wide range of developers with .NET knowledge to create applications for satellites.
As it can function as part of the normal .NET development workflow, hardware acceleration, i.e. utilizing the FPGA of Zynq-based satellite OBCs (on board computers), can be performed without special knowledge.
]]>A discussion of the benefits that flexible and efficient ground station services bring to NewSpace missions and service providers.
In this episode we speak with Giovanni Pandolfi Bortoletto, Chief Strategy Officer at Leaf Space – a European ground station network operator. We discuss:
A dedicated, exclusive ground station service for satellite operators that require custom communications solutions.
The network backbone’s deployment is designed to meet the needs of the customer’s constellation, to provide the right performance at the right time.
Leaf Space handles the operations and maintenance of the Leaf Key network, guaranteeing service level agreements (SLAs) that allow customers to focus on their core business.
The aim is to provide high reliability, low deployment time, and low production and maintenance costs. The service is particularly well-suited for services that require compliancy with stringent requirements for capacity, latency, data transfer paths and cost-effectiveness.
A shared ground station network that uses a high-efficiency scheduling algorithm to manage demand and access.
Customers can use a dedicated API and a real-time data transfer interface through which a proprietary control center or ground segment manager software can be easily integrated.
Leaf Space carries out all operational and management activities, enabling the customer to focus on their core business.
The ground station network is formed from a unique distributed mid/low-latitude network architecture instead of a near-polar network. This brings several benefits including:
A discussion of the technical and commercial obstacles that companies can face when producing attitude control innovation.
In this episode we speak with Christoph Weis from WITTENSTEIN cyber motor GmbH – a Germany-based manufacturer of advanced servo motor technology. We discuss:
A discussion about how FEEP propulsion and thrust vectoring innovation can open up new possibilities for small satellite operators.
In this episode we speak with Alexander Reissner and Tony Schoenherr from ENPULSION – an Austrian propulsion technology manufacturer. We discuss:
Smallsats are gaining incredible traction in the space segment with more than 1,000 new satellites expected to launch each year over the next decade. They offer a combination of short time-to-market and powerful new capabilities that expand potential applications and service models.
In the rush to build and launch these new systems, operators and manufacturers have prioritized speed, affordability and flexibility. Security, if considered at all, is often an afterthought despite the sensitive data smallsats create and transmit, which makes them an attractive target for cyber attacks.
There are two primary reasons for this. First, manufacturers historically do not usually have an ingrained culture of cybersecurity for smallsats; engineers are space engineers first and won’t necessarily have security training and expertise. Second, smallsats are an underserved market when it comes to off-the-shelf security solutions.
Security providers are beginning to address the latter. CYSEC’s ARCA and ARCASPACE comprise one of the first end-to-end security solutions on the market designed to protect on-ground and in-orbit satellite communications. To address the former, it’s important for space engineers, operators and manufacturers to be familiar with key security concepts so they can start to embed cybersecurity into their culture. This article will explain five of those concepts as they pertain to smallsat operations.
Since a physical attack on an orbiting satellite can still be reasonably considered science fiction, it’s important to recognize that a cyber attack against a satellite will be rooted from the ground.
A ground attack can occur during the satellite’s development phase—e.g., by placing an invisible backdoor or malware on board before launch—or through the ground infrastructure during operation—e.g., by accessing cloud services, ground stations or mission control.
In addition, current trends such as of greater satellite connectivity, increasingly complex and powerful on-board software, use of third-party services, are all increasing the attack surface by opening up more vulnerabilities.
To protect satellite communications and data, most satellite operators rely on encryption, in particular on the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), to encrypt the uplink and downlink. AES has been the standard in security since 2002 and is extremely resilient against brute force attacks.
However, AES alone is not enough to ensure secure communication for smallsats. Transforming plain text into a cipher during encryption requires an algorithm and a cryptographic key (also known as a secret).
Since AES is a symmetric algorithm, the key used to encrypt a telecommand on the ground would be the same key used to decrypt it on board. If the key is compromised in any way, then the information transmitted is also compromised.
Symmetric encryption shows even greater limitations when many satellites are part of a single constellation. One cannot imagine using the same secret for all of them. A compromise of one would result in a compromise of the entire fleet.
As a result, the level of protection provided by an encryption algorithm is directly linked to the level of trust one has in the secrets used by that algorithm, regardless of its complexity.
Secrets can be compromised, for example, by using weak techniques for their generation, poor management practices on ground, such as sharing secrets via unprotected email services, or by underestimating the risk of attack after they have been injected on board, but before the satellite has launched (e.g. during transportation or at the launch site).
Therefore, we need a more complete solution for securing keys on ground and on board. This is where establishing a root of trust comes in.
As explained above, it is essential to be able to trust the cryptographic operations, keys and, more generally speaking, any applications considered mission-critical that are used on ground and on board. The basis of this trust comes in the concept of root of trust (RoT).
RoT refers to the environment where secrets are generated and stored, typically in the ground servers or the cloud infrastructure of the Mission Control Center (MCC), or in the on-board computer (OBC). An RoT is made up of highly reliable hardware, firmware and software components that are designed to perform these very specific, critical security functions.
RoTs provide a firm foundation from which to build security and trust, but the mere existence of an RoT is not enough. Attackers can also exploit the logic associated with the hardware and software that rely on the secrets in order to access confidential data stored in memory. Protecting that logic requires an additional layer of security known as confidential computing.
Confidential computing represents the next frontier in cybersecurity for smallsats, allowing operators to process encrypted data in memory in order to protect data while it’s in use.
An example of confidential computing in action is the trusted execution environment (TEE). A TEE is an environment that provides a level of assurance for data integrity, data confidentiality and code integrity, and that prevents unauthorized entities from having access to data and logic.
These entities include other applications on the host, the host operating system and hypervisor, system administrators, service providers, the infrastructure owner, or anyone else with physical access to the hardware or software.
TEEs are gaining adoption in terrestrial markets and are a way forward for protecting space infrastructures—both on ground to protect the Mission Control Software (MCS) and secrets used to communicate with the satellite, as well as on board to provide a secure environment for the software executed in the OBC.
Though attacks during flight can only be ground-based, it is nevertheless paramount to trust the on-board secrets, software and hardware the satellite will use to collect, process and transmit sensitive information to the ground, while also preserving their confidentiality, integrity and availability.
This requires an end-to-end approach to securely storing the cryptographic secrets that enable space operations at the platform and payload levels. An end-to-end security architecture involves security mechanisms both on ground and on board that can perform the following operations:
While there are several known mechanisms for securing the ground segment, development for the space segment has lagged.
CYSEC has worked to close the gap with its confidential computing package designed for commercial space missions. ARCA on ground, a trusted execution environment with a hardware-based cryptographic backend and a trusted operating system, protects cryptographic secrets and applications such as the MCS.
ARCASPACE provides an on-board RoT to store cryptographic secrets and perform cryptographic operations and key management. The result is a secure, end-to-end communication channel between the ground and the satellite, ensuring the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the transmitted data.
It is a classic pitfall in the space industry, as well as in terrestrial markets, to jump right into implementation of a security mechanism without having the larger picture in mind. Security design and implementation are just two of the eight phases required for deploying an end-to-end security architecture. Before the design phase can begin, it is important to:
During the threat modeling phase, smallsat operators should define the profile of potential attackers, their level of knowledge, their resources and their motivations, as well as the impacts to the system should an attack occur. This phase is essential as it sets the foundation for the rest of the process and drives the ultimate outcome.
For example, a nanosat operator could define potential attackers as “bored students trying to hack the university’s nanosat just for fun”; whereas a commercial operator contracting its platform to business-to-government (B2G) customers is more likely to define its profile of attackers as national agencies with significant resources and experienced hackers.
Once attacker profiles have been defined, operators should draw up all the potential risk scenarios. This phase usually takes the form of a brainstorming session with inputs from both the operator’s technical team and an external offensive team of qualified ethical hackers.
The scenarios will typically be numerous—there could easily be over 100 for a simple smallsat mission. In order to prepare for the next phase, the scenarios should be plotted on a graph based on likelihood and severity. It’s also important for operators to estimate the level of effort required to mitigate each scenario.
Once the list of scenarios has been created, operators should determine which risks can be considered acceptable and which ones must be mitigated.
For example, an operator of a two-year CubeSat mission would likely accept the risk associated with not being able to upgrade its cryptographic algorithms in orbit to prevent post-quantum attacks. However, the operator of a sensitive GEO satcom mission lasting 15 years may find this risk unacceptable.
On the scenario plot, these risk trade-offs can be represented visually by a diagonal line that separates the risks to be mitigated (high severity, high likelihood) from the risk identified as acceptable (low severity, low likelihood).
Obviously, each use case or mission scenario is unique, and each operator or client will have its own definition of what the level of risk can be considered acceptable. This will result in a unique architecture, but the central concepts will still apply.
Innovators in the NewSpace movement in particular have an opportunity to follow a security by design approach. Rather than bolting security mechanisms onto an existing flawed architecture, manufacturers can identify and improve weak spots in the architecture while the satellite is in development, not only building resilience to attacks but actually developing a stronger overall system. This is the concept behind “antifragility”, which is closely linked to security by design.
Zero trust is an approach that is seeing wider and wider adoption in terrestrial markets and can help shrink the risk associated with the growing popularity of “as-a-service” models. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a zero trust approach “assumes there is no implicit trust granted to assets or user accounts based solely on their physical or network location” where “authentication and authorization are discrete functions before a session to an enterprise resource is established.”
More and more stakeholders in the space industry are adopting “as a service” models (e.g., satellite- or ground segment-as-a-service) that allow clients to share a platform by bringing their own payload without having to develop, launch and operate their own satellite.
This presents a very attractive value proposition but requires delegating trust to a third party. Trust, after all, is essential for secure satellite operations and communication. A zero trust approach can help ensure that trust is maintained even when the platform is shared with payloads owned by different organizations.
For example, instead of automatically granting clients access to the secrets stored in the OBC (including those used in telemetry and telecommand (TMTC) encryption), cryptographic operations can be performed on the payload itself, independent of the main satellite OBC. Secrets are injected on ground and are only known and managed by the client. This separates security of the location (OBC) from security of the asset (payload data) and the user (client).
In this case, CYSEC ARCA and ARCASPACE for example allow users to generate and store cryptographic secrets on board the payload that are only known to them. As a result, only they can access the data on ground, which ensures confidentiality, due to encryption, and integrity due to the authentication and signature process.
Understanding these concepts is key to increasing cybersecurity maturity within the space segment. To capitalize on advancements related to smallsats, the Newspace revolution and new “as-a-service” models, satellite operators and manufacturers must prioritize security at the same level as speed, affordability, and flexibility. Otherwise, the benefits to be gained could easily be erased by one successful cyber attack.
In addition, with competition increasing in the market around the world, developing a more robust approach to satellite development or service provision can become a key commercial differentiator for the future.
To find out more about CYSEC please view their satsearch supplier hub here. CYSEC is also organizing the first European executive event on space industry cybersecurity that is taking place virtually from 17-19 of March 2021 as part of Davos. Find out more here at the event website.
]]>The article begins with a brief introduction to GNSS systems and technology, but if you would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
As the range of applications that small satellites can carry out grows, and the systems themselves get smaller thanks to electronic miniaturization, it is increasingly important for operators to be able to access accurate information on their position while in orbit.
Effective attitude control systems enable responsive position fixes in orbit, while communications systems (operating in the X-, S-, or UHF band for example) that connect to the ground also allow satellite operators to take more active, manual control by sending commands to the relevant actuators.
Another option is for a small satellite to make use of the regionally or globally available satellite positioning systems that were primarily developed for navigation on Earth.
The general term for such networks is Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) with the Global Positioning System (GPS) being the most well-known.
GNSS networks are constellations of large satellites in higher Earth orbits; typically Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), at altitudes of approximately 2,000 – 35,000 km, or Geosynchronous Orbit (GSO) at an altitude of 35,786 km.
These constellations produce global signals, across a range of frequency bands, which are picked up by terrestrial GNSS receivers in order to give accurate position information on the ground.
These are the signals used by your car’s satnav, your fitness tracking app when out for a run, or that give live location information on an expected parcel’s delivery.
By adapting ground-based equipment, or by basing new designs for space on them, sub-system manufacturers have developed GNSS receiver systems for satellites that enable navigation information and positing activities on a CubeSat or other small satellite.
There are various structural differences between terrestrial and space-based GNSS equipment.
For example, on Earth such devices are usually built from low-cost, widely-available, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) parts. To operate effectively in space such components may need to be adapted to meet the huge thermal and mechanical stresses of launch, radiation-hardened, and made suitable for operating in a vacuum.
CubeSat GPS antennas and GNSS antennas play an important role in the acquisition and translation of the GNSS signal originating at one or more of the existing networks.
There are several GNSS networks giving coverage across one or more countries and territories. Such networks have been launched by sovereign nations, international organizations, and even private companies.
Global satellite-based navigational systems play a fundamental role in many aspects of industrial activity, military operations, and in consumer products.
Satellite GNSS equipment will often have the ability to connect to multiple networks as needed, in order to extend coverage spatially, and to provide redundancy in the case of one signal being unreachable.
This list below gives an overview of the different networks that a small satellite antenna may be able to interact with:
GPS
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is the most common GNSS around the world. It is owned by the United States government and plays a major role in a wide variety of industrial processes, consumer products, defence applications, and intelligence services.
Note that GPS is often used synonymously with GNSS, but in fact GPS is simply a type of GNSS, in the same way that a reaction wheel is a type of attitude control system.
The GPS is operated and maintained by the U.S. Air Force and more in-depth information is available at GPS.gov, a website maintained by the National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing.
CubeSat GPS antennas enable systems to connect to the primary GPS frequency in the L-Band, between 1 and 2 GHz.
GLONASS
The Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema, or Global Navigation Satellite System, is typically referred to as GLONASS. Initially covering the former Soviet Union, GLONASS now has worldwide coverage and enables satellite navigation systems to use it alongside GPS for faster, more accurate position fixing.
GLONASS is a major part of the Russian space agency Roscosmos’ operations and operates in the following bands:
Galileo
A GNSS created by the European Union (EU) through the European Space Agency (ESA) and now operated by the European GNSS Agency (GSA).
Galileo was created to enable Europeans to access a global positioning system independent of GPS or GLONASS, and is freely available worldwide to an accuracy of 1 meter, which can be increased to 1 centimeter in an encrypted form for commercial customers, in the High Accuracy Service (HAS).
Galileo operates in the 1.1 to 1.6 GHz band; a frequency range that is well-suited to mobile navigation and communication services.
Each Galileo satellite is designed to broadcast 10 different navigation signals making it possible for Galileo to offer open (OS), safety-of-life (SOL), commercial (CS) and public regulated services (PRS).
BeiDou
The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System is generally referred to as BeiDou, or simply BDS, and is a worldwide GNSS created and run by the People’s Republic of China. The system was formerly called Compass and began its life by offering regional coverage in China before branching out globally.
Now in its third phase of development, the BeiDou system provides connectivity in the following open service channels:
IRNSS
The Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) is a regional GNSS owned and operated by the Government of India via the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). It also has the operational name Navigation with Indian Constellation (NavIC).
NavIC satellites use dual frequency bands that provide signals in the L5-band and S-band. The system is designed to provide accurate position information in a primary service area that covers India and a region extending up to 1,500 km from the country’s borders.
It also offers a level of coverage in an extended service area that lies between the primary service area and area enclosed by a rectangle from Latitude 30 deg South to 50 deg North, Longitude 30 deg East to 130 deg East. You can find out more about the system on the ISRO site.
QZSS
The Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) is also a regional GNSS, in this case owned by the Government of Japan and operated by QZS System Service Inc. (QSS).
It is designed to complement GPS coverage in Oceania and East Asia and is sometimes referred to as the Japanese GPS. The constellation provides the following signals:
Find out more about the QZSS at the official website here.
More information on each of these GNSS networks is available on the operators’ websites and in this excellent article by Bliley Technologies.
Now that you have been introduced to the use cases for GNSS and GPS connectivity in small satellites, and gained an understanding of the major GNSS constellations which they may access – let’s next take a look at what you may want to consider when selecting a small satellite GNSS or CubeSat GPS antenna for your individual needs.
We recommend a simple four-step approach for the preliminary selection of any new piece of hardware or software for a satellite or other space system.
Note that this is just a basic guide based on what we’ve learned helping hundreds of buyers select products within our marketplace and get rapid responses from suppliers.
It is just meant to help engineers make an initial assessment and shouldn’t replace formalised systems engineering approaches such as the INCOSE Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) CubeSat frameworks.
These criteria are explained in more detail below.
The first step is to fully understand the currently known mission parameters, including both the critical applications and desirable, but not necessarily essential, objectives.
Typically the more precise mission parameters will only be established later in the process – usually iterated upon in a number of loops by considering the “system of systems.”
But having an idea of what functions your selected technology is likely to need to perform, and on what schedule and duration, will make selecting the most suitable model much easier.
Also consider the launch stresses, testing processes and regulatory compliance that the product will need to go through in order to make it into orbit, as well as any obsolescence procedures once the mission is complete.
Next, keep to hand all currently known design information about the entire unit.
This can include the volume, weight, primary structural material and more basic things such as the location, storage and transport arrangements of the major components.
You will need to make sure that the new piece of technology you choose will be suitable for these parameters.
Once you are clear on exactly what tasks the new product will need to perform and the design characteristics of the satellite or other unit that it will work within, the next consideration is the full range of technology that will sit alongside the product to make sure that everything is compatible.
You may not yet know the entire range of accompanying technology (and you might need to first choose the product model you are interested in in order to make decisions on other components), but make sure you have access to all available technical specifications of sub-systems and structural components that are most likely to be used, as per the current mission plans.
It is important to understand how different sub-systems and components will interface with each other to create a high-performing satellite.
Balancing the available mass, power and volume budgets is also important, which can only be done with a clear plan of which components will be used.
Also consider how the product will work with the planned or existing ground segment to ensure effective data transfer and communication stability.
Now that you have a clear idea of what sort of product is needed for your mission, system, and existing platform setup, the next step is to compare the commercially-available products that meet these criteria according to the most relevant performance metrics.
In order to determine the optimal GNSS antenna system for your mission or service it is important to take into account technical specifications, such as:
These are just some of the most important attributes that are typically considered when designing or purchasing GNSS connectivity equipment for a small satellite, such as CubeSat GPS antennas. In the section below you can find links to further information and resources on commercially-available products.
In this section you can find a range of smallsat, nanosat, and CubeSat GPS antennas and GNSS systems on the global market. These listings will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
You can also view alternative satellite communications and navigational equipment categories for which we have put together the following overviews:
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a GPS or GNSS antenna system for your specific mission or service please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>Without stable, consistent, and cost-effective access to in-space assets for data exchange and control, a satellite operator cannot develop a reliable service.
The geographic location of the ground segment (whether of an individual station or a network of antennas in different parts of the world) is a critical aspect of its performance.
In this article we take a look at what factors make a good site for a ground station, based on the knowledge and experience of Tommaso Randolfi, Sites Manager at satsearch member company and ground station network operator Leaf Space.
Cover image: antennas at the Gilmore Creek ground station located at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) facility near Fairbanks, Alaska. Credit: NASA/Goddard/Clare Skelly (“Near Earth Network Ground Antenna” by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is licensed under CC BY 2.0).
For very simple operational requirements a ground segment could function effectively with just enough space to install, operate and maintain a 3-5 meter antenna. The entire site could be as small as 15-30 square meters and it could be situated on a rooftop, provided there isn’t too much interference, which can occur in any location or facility for a variety of reasons.
In contrast, existing teleport sites are very large and grow in stages driven by market needs. Many older sites were not developed with Low Earth Orbit (LEO) applications in mind. LEO coverage requires good horizon availability so that data transfer can be maximized and it is possible to track satellites effectively.
Many previously built sites have never needed this capability and are situated in hilly or mountainous regions that limit their ability to scan the horizon, and so offer satisfactory coverage for LEO satellites.
There are several sites currently in development that are primarily for LEO customers, specifically in Europe, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, and a few other locations. Interest from local teleport operators with suitable sites is also increasing as the market develops.
Whether for LEO or other applications, any good ground station site requires certain key features in order to provide an effective datalink to space.
Some of these factors are straightforward to assess, but for others there is more subjectivity and detail involved that can affect the decision of a ground segment location. These are discussed in more detail below.
Trusted contacts in key target locations are very important for the success of any ground station operation.
We have previously discussed with Leaf Space the processes involved in acquiring a license for ground station operations, a set of activities in which local contacts and knowledge were clearly highlighted.
A ground station license is required in every country that the mission will operate in, and these may need to be acquired in a relatively short period of time.
Regulatory requirements differ from country to country – some closely match the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) frameworks while others have slightly different policies. Those with local expertise can help understand the idiosyncrasies.
Leaf Space has found that this is a crucial area for the NewSpace market, where innovative technologies and new market entrants are attempting to develop missions and service concepts that don’t always follow traditional processes.
In some segments of the NewSpace market there is a lack of well-defined standards that can simplify the licensing process. Such areas include;
For example, satellites that have traditionally used the X-band or S-band frequencies may change to higher power frequencies as new solutions become available.
The ground segment needs to keep pace with such upgrades and be versatile enough to meet varying requirements for existing technologies.
With these needs in mind, when it comes to the optimal selection of a ground station site it is local contacts that could help ensure a location can be developed that is fit for purpose.
In addition to local professionals who can help simplify regulatory and licensing compliance, access to experienced teleport operators and maintenance personnel is also very important for successful operations.
An experienced teleport operator will understand how the ground segment as a service model works and has the capability to get a site up and running quickly and cost-effectively.
This is most easily done by deploying or re-deploying antennas at existing facilities, though compatibility and upgrade paths are a challenge.
It is important that a trusted solution is also in place for monitoring the sites in a network while in use.
Effective hardware and software monitoring brings benefits to both the local teleport operator and ground station manager – reducing the maintenance burden on both parties and reducing service disruption.
The development of interconnected and automated systems that can communicate with scheduling systems is enabling teleport operators and ground station network managers to offer a very efficient and high level of service to their clients.
In addition, trusted partnerships with experienced operators give ground station managers and end users the right level of support in the event of a problem.
Such partnerships take time to develop, but there is no substitute for local expertise. This is true for one site or for a distributed network of facilities.
As can be seen, there are many factors that need to be considered when choosing the ideal site – and no one location may be able to satisfy all requirements, particularly where high pass rates or data capacities are required.
Instead, satellite operators often need to consider how best to develop or access a network of ground stations that will enable them to meet their service’s requirements.
This approach however brings with it certain challenges in terms of the geographic distribution and number of ground stations needed.
A network differs from a standalone station in two ways; firstly it requires coordination between individual ground stations or antenna sites, and secondly it must be flexible enough to serve different clients in different ways, unless the entire network is dedicated to a single service.
Coordination is largely an operational challenge that depends on the network owner’s expertise, experience, and personnel.
Flexibility, on the other hand, is dictated by satellite operator and end user needs. Their goals and objectives should be taken into account at all stages of a ground station network’s development or when creating service agreements.
Leaf Space actively works with operators to consider how orbits and the market will evolve in the future, and how this can enable companies to better deploy resources.
As an example, there are companies developing satellite data transfer aggregation in some fields that can act as a ‘space hub’ for one or more orbits. If successful, the ground segment developed to support such services will be able to optimize coverage and security for the hub, as opposed to for the entire constellation or collection of in-orbit satellites that communicate with it.
Alongside such strategic considerations, the mission or service launch timelines also determine the geographical distribution and number of ground stations needed.
If speed is important it is likely that operators will need to leverage existing sites that are immediately available, but that are not necessarily in the optimal locations. In this situation it is possible that a larger number of sites will be needed to get the same coverage.
If timescales are longer, or there is some flexibility in them, further site research into the optimal geographic distribution can enable a reduction in the number of stations required.
One of the primary geographic considerations is the choice of polar or non-polar orbital operations.
In general, a polar station gives greater visibility – particularly for Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO). However this has made them highly popular with satellite operators and is causing greater need for coordination and aggregation.
A ground station site network operator should be able to advise you whether this will become an issue for your particular mission, service, or frequencies. As they should for other factors that may impact the site in the future.
Optimal ground station sites will be in locations that can work effectively for a long time. It is important to understand how a site could develop over the years before committing significant resources to it.
For example, nearby towns and cities could expand, new roads or railways might disrupt the location, or weather patterns could threaten access.
Alongside such possible physical interference comes the threat of electromagnetic interference.
New technologies such as satellite internet, Internet of Things (IoT), or 5G networks could have an impact. Coastal sites may be affected by existing maritime monitoring systems, and there may also be some effects due to terrestrial radio and television signals.
Most service providers are not just looking for sites where they can park a ground station for a couple of years after launch; they need locations that will remain free from interference, provide adequate coverage, and maintain operations for a service that could evolve into something much greater over time.
As orbits and coverage requirements change the ground segment will need to adapt accordingly.
There are also startup companies all over the world that are currently developing new technologies or service concepts that need to work with existing infrastructure and regulations.
The pace of change is putting greater demands on ground station operators, from both an operational and compliance perspective.
This is particularly important where experimental satellites and networks are concerned. The norms, standards, and technology requirements aren’t always well-defined in such applications (where they exist at all) and the ground segment needs to be flexible enough to accommodate evolution in the market.
The market for many space-based services is still quite young so it is very important to find ground segment partners who can understand the offer to end users from a technical and commercial point of view.
There are several existing sites that have been created for specific purposes such as maritime monitoring, geostationary satellite communications, astronomy, cellphone connectivity, and so on.
Such facilities will meet many of the needs of newer satellite operators (in terms of reliability, connectivity, power supply, licensing experience etc.) but the technical operations and resources available are sometimes too specific and will not be compatible with new market needs.
This has a knock-on effect of complicating or slowing down commercial arrangements, possibly even forcing satellite companies to accept sub-optimal licensing and service agreements.
Teleport operators serving legacy clients in geostationary or other sectors may also have unrealistic expectations of prices for NewSpace customers.
On the other hand, some newer customers with limited experience of launching a space-based commercial service may have no reference for a sensible cost and could overpay on the ground segment.
The solution to such challenges is flexibility. Companies with the ability and willingness to pursue versatile pricing arrangements can find solutions that benefit both parties.
For example, in some circumstances a teleport interested in the commercial opportunities of the dynamic LEO market can reduce hosting prices for their clients through the use of revenue-share agreements.
Another important commercial consideration is the management of risk. A more distributed network can reduce risk and mitigate failure; rescheduling passages and reorganizing connectivity among stations spread around the world reduces the number of areas where errors could occur.
Existing ground station networks also provide customers with cost-savings due to economies of scale. It can cost hundreds of thousands of euros for a good tracking system for LEO. Investment at that level for a single satellite completing a few passes a day can be a misuse of resources.
The development of an effective ground segment is a challenge that scales with the complexity of your mission or service, and selecting the right ground station site is a key part of this.
For a very simple mission requiring sporadic passes at low data rates, a small piece of land with a decent internet connection could be sufficient on which to site the hardware needed.
But to ensure a professional service, or where complex missions require more extensive coverage, a ground station network is a great choice to both maximize resources and minimize risk and costs.
You can find out more about Leaf Space’s own distributed ground station network and ground segment-as-a-service at their satsearch supplier hub.
]]>It includes a discussion of Latin America’s position in the global industry along with a deeper case study investigation into two example companies from the region; EXA and Satellogic.
In recent years the space economy has grown at a rapid rate. According to the Space Foundation 2018 Annual Report; in 2017 it totalled USD 383.5 billion worldwide and it is projected to keep growing.
In addition, the report highlights that during 2017 there was a 7% increase in orbital launch attempts around the world, a 100% increase in the total number of spacecraft deployed and a 200% increase in the number of commercial spacecraft deployed.
As this trend continues it is reminiscent of what transpired with the aviation industry around 50 years ago. After several years of heavy regulation and the sector being dominated by a few airlines, 1970s deregulation and lower costs resulted in a huge increase in competition. This brought in new carriers and routes, leading to an increase in passenger numbers that built the multibillion-dollar industry that connects the world today.
We’re see the same pattern unfold right in front of our eyes with the rapid privatization and commercialization of the space sector. A new age of space exploration is emerging; one that is no longer dominated by few countries with large and established space programs, but rather by a large group of private companies, startups and other entrepreneurs that are ready to take the next steps to push the boundaries of humanity while also benefiting and profiting from space. This is known as “NewSpace”.
NewSpace is opening the doors for other regions and countries, aside from the traditional dominant player of the United States of America, to take a leap of faith and start shaping the future of space exploration.
These nations now have the potential to become a driving force, innovate, and act, or else they risk the chance of missing out on the financial and social benefits that the NewSpace sector provides.
This is particularly true for the Latin American region where space exploration has always been thought of as something of a luxurious enterprise. For a region comprised mainly of emerging economies, government run and financed space agencies have always been a difficult option, as funds and resources are primarily allocated to priorities such as healthcare and education.
Although these priorities are perfectly valid of course, not taking part in the NewSpace industry does further the position of Latin America as an ‘underdeveloped’ region. Privatization and commercialization of space technologies in the growing, connected global market is therefore key for other private and civilian enterprises, to take the burden off the government and immerse their respective countries in the NewSpace era.
A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis on greater participation in the NewSpace industry in Latin America was performed in order to better characterize the prospects for the region, considering the historical, industrial, and political realities that it faces. This analysis also sets a roadmap for NewSpace integration of new actors, indicating where they can optimize their efforts and where they should be careful.
Image provided courtesy of the Sideralis Foundation.
Two entities, EXA and Satellogic, have emerged as leaders in the region, proving that even for companies coming from developing countries, it is possible to be part of the global space market. These companies are an effective case study showing that achieving NewSpace integration in the region is possible.
The Ecuadorian Civilian Space Agency (EXA) is a not-for-profit, non-governmental institution that follows a civilian space exploration model. It has become established as Ecuador’s first space agency and is tasked with executing the nation’s space program.
Satellogic is based in Argentina and is the first vertically integrated geospatial analytics company in the country.
Both EXA and Satellogic were responsible for the conception, design, and manufacturing of their first and second national CubeSats; NEE-01 PEGASO and NEE-02 KRYSAOR for Ecuador, and CubeBug-1 and CubeBug-2 for Argentina. These satellites served as effective technology demonstrators that now drive the commercialization of proprietary technologies in the case of EXA, and the provision of Earth Observation and analytics services in the case of Satellogic.
The sections below include more information on each of these businesses.
As a research and development institution EXA has trusted CubeSat.Market, a commercial space company, with the promotion, marketing, and commercialization of its space products.
These products range from power systems to all-in-one EPS, OBC, and SDR systems. Find out more about this portfolio here.
EXA´s products have been chosen by several regional and international partners to fly in different missions to Earth’s orbit, to the moon and beyond.
One of these clients is the Irvine Cubesat STEM Program which is developing a fleet of 12 satellites with EXA as its primary supplier. Another client is the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) that is developing its very own K´OTO spacecraft with the EXA spacecraft bus at its core.
In addition, EXA has developed a laser communication module for CubeSats capable of transmitting up to 100 mbps at a maximum power of 25 Watts. This module is looking to transform how communication is performed from space to ground and in-orbit, particularly between satellites in a constellation.
EXA is an excellent case study into how a Latin American country such as Ecuador can lead by example, producing commercial technology for the global space market while bringing the whole region along into NewSpace.
An Image of NEE-01 PEGASO, Ecuador’s first CubeSat, and sample data from the mission (images courtesy of EXA).
Satellogic has grown into a multinational company with offices and clients all over the world. They are currently building a 60-satellite constellation that will be able to remap the entire planet each week, providing customers with high-resolution images and processed analytics that will allow for daily decision-making support.
This constellation is made possible due to the creation of the NewSat microsatellite, a small, light, and inexpensive platform that carries both a sub-meter resolution multispectral imaging instrument and a 25-meter resolution hyperspectral camera.
Since 2016 Satellogic has launched 18 NewSats, with significant improvements generation to generation, totalling 21 spacecraft in orbit to date. Satellogic has also been recognized for innovative space business solutions with its dedicated satellite constellations and AI-based geospatial analytics services.
These achievements make Satellogic an excellent example of how ideas and services originating from Argentina and Latin America are capable of revolutionizing how we think about space.
Image courtesy of Satellogic.
In August 2020 the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) conducted the 4th IAA Latin American Cubesat Workshop in which, on its last day, it organized a CubeSat Industry session. In this session many Latin American companies, and startups, including Satellogic and EXA, through Cubesat.Market, showcased products and services paving the way for integration of others in the region into NewSpace.
Some of the presenters included the University of Chile, EMSISTI, ISI-SE Senai, Orbital, CRON, Fibraforte, HORUSEYE, and Opto S&D. These companies, ranging from new small startups to large established firms, are creating satellite systems for many different applications, from attitude and determination actuators for CubeSats to solar panels, and fuel and oxidizer tanks for large spacecraft.
This session showed the wide availability of space innovation in the region and inspired the possibility of future collaboration, and larger regional projects.
Latin America may be historically constrained as an underdeveloped region in global terms, but these case studies show that a few private institutions are leading the way, setting an example of what is possible, expanding the state-of-the-art, proposing innovative business models and not just joining the NewSpace era, but also becoming a driving force for how it is going to continue to develop in the future.
These companies hope to show that it is possible for Latin American space companies to achieve such success, all while bringing the financial and social benefits of space for all its people.
Thank you for reading. In future articles we hope to discuss the space industry in Latin America on a country-by-country basis, taking an even more in-depth look at the progress and achievements of businesses and organizations. If you would like to be informed of when these are published please sign up to our mailing list today.
References:
In general, the commercial space sector is seeing growth and development all around the world driven by market forces and publicly-financed agency initiatives.
The Covid-19 pandemic has no doubt affected some companies and projects, while changing priorities at national and international levels have also led to impacts on commercial activities.
The space industry in India in particular has been undergoing a variety of major changes in recent months. The Government of India (GOI) is in the process of implementing reforms designed to increase private sector participation in the industry to open up the market and encourage further development.
India has a rich heritage of space exploration and technology development, but companies have mainly worked in a sub-contracting role with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) as opposed to acting as primary customers to the downstream supply chain or to serving those larger clients.
Enabling more firms to act as these primary customers, while also encouraging greater levels of foreign investment and private capital, is opening up India’s market, so it is important for companies to be understand how the supply chain in the country is structured.
To help with this we’re very pleased to announce that we have recently completed a new trade study on the private Indian space sector in partnership with Dassault Systèmes.
Our study identified over 280 suppliers to various ISRO programs and initiatives currently active in the Indian market today and looked at certain data points about each of them, such as location, head count, and revenue.
The majority were found to be smaller companies with less than 200 employees, showing that there is great potential for growth as the market develops.
The location of many of these businesses was found to be close to a major ISRO facility or centre. This shows the importance of the agency’s work to the commercial sector and how large, aspirational, publicly-funded goals and programmes are able to lead to downstream development.
The study also highlighted that companies in India have the opportunity to build on the foundation provided by ISRO’s historical achievements by changing some aspects of how they do business to move up the value chain.
Many suppliers are proficient in various aspects of manufacturing and product development, but there is capacity in the country for businesses to move to the creation of proprietary intellectual property (IP).
Higher level innovation and invention originating from Indian business will also have downstream impacts on the market.
Industries everywhere are becoming increasingly digitalized to exploit modern innovation and seek out cost and efficiency savings. And space is no different.
Our study highlighted attitudes towards the use of digital tools in engineering and commercial workflows, as well as the capacity of companies to deploy them at scale.
While operating at the cutting-edge of certain categories of hardware development, space companies can sometimes rely too heavily on legacy processes and systems that are performing sub-optimally compared to firms in other sectors.
There are many opportunities for companies to use innovation such as virtual reality (VR) technologies to better integrate design, manufacture, and testing data to generate ongoing improvements in spacetech production.
Indian companies can create new competitive strengths by taking advantage of such opportunities in the future.
To get further insights on the trade study’s results please take a look at a more in-depth article on how adopting digital technologies can be the backbone of India’s space sector on the Dassault Systèmes website by our COO Dr Narayan Prasad.
There you can also find the link to download the white paper for more information and additional conclusions from the study.
]]>OBCs provide processing capabilities as part of a satellite’s avionic sub-system and run the on-board software that controls many aspects of the satellite’s operation.
As such an integral part of any satellite it is important that developers select an OBC that meets the needs of their system and intended applications.
This guide provides an overview of 11 important criteria to consider when selecting an OBC for your satellite.
One of the most important criteria in the selection of the OBC is to determine the orbit in which the satellite will operate. There are three main satellite operational orbits known as LEO, MEO, GEO:
LEO – Low Satellite Orbit is the closest orbit to Earth. Satellites in this orbit are situated between 500 – 1,000 miles altitude. Signals leaving the satellite can reach ground stations in around 0.05 seconds from this orbit. This orbit is preferred for minimum signal delay applications.
MEO – Minimum Earth Orbit satellites mainly operate at around 8,000 miles altitude. Signal delay on this orbit is around 0.1 seconds. MEO is mainly selected for high-speed data and high bandwidth signal applications and many telecommunications and military satellites mainly operate in this orbit.
GEO – Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit satellites mainly operate at 22,000 miles altitude. This operational altitude enables coverage of the entire planet. Satellite TV is a good example of an application operating in this orbit.
The distance of the satellite from the earth (orbit) affects the rotation speed of the satellite, its coverage area, the amount of radiation it is exposed to, and consequently, the satellite’s service lifetime.
For example, a telecommunications satellite is expected to rotate at the same speed as the earth, meaning the satellite operates in geostationary orbit. These satellites have a high coverage area, are planned to operate for a long time, and have high radiation resistance. But this also makes the systems more expensive.
If we consider another example, Earth Observation (EO) or Automatic Identification System (AIS) satellites will operate in LEO orbit. Such systems can make more than 10 turns around the earth in a day, have narrow coverage (for high resolution), short-term operation, lower radiation resistance, and are usually cheaper to build and run.
Like the rest of the components of a satellite, OBCs also have an operating lifetime in space. This lifetime is mainly dependent on the radiation level of the space environment. OBCs’ electronic components are key factors to estimate the mission duration.
For short duration missions COTS components can be used, but for longer duration missions, radiation-hardened components need to be involved in order to make satellite lifetimes longer.
Alongside high-quality electronic components the reliable and robust design of an OBC is also very important in considering mission lifetime.
Power consumption is critical as the generated power in solar cells is very limited. Power consumption can be different for various satellite operations such as imaging, compressing and transmitting processes. During operations OBCs should ideally consume little power while still operating effectively.
Field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) used in OBCs are important components to consider when calculating power consumption.
FPGA technologies differ widely in their power consumption characteristics. To be on the safe side it is important to know that both flash and anti-fuse FPGAs are true live-atpower-up technologies which do not exhibit large inrush current spikes at power-up.
Moreover, because Flash FPGA technologies are non-volatile they do not suffer from the high configuration current needed during each power cycle. The power consumption of other components can be considered to a lesser extent than that of the processor, but some attention should be paid to power consumption when selecting them.
OBC dimensions and weight must be compatible with the satellite. For instance, nanosatellite platform weights are typically a maximum of 10 kg. An OBC that will sit on a stack (which can be a PC104 connection) is expected to have a maximum weight of between 100 – 200 g and should be compatible with this structure in terms of width, length, and height.
For microsatellites an OBC used in a 100 kg satellite does not have a definite standard regarding the size, but it is expected to have its own case, be as lightweight as possible, and have its dimensions and connector placement to support the satellite harness.
Sample OBC size and weight:
Every mission plan requires an understanding of similar resources such as power, memory, weight, size etc. One of the most important resources in space missions is time. If the satellite is not geostationary the ground station will be waiting for the satellite to orbit the earth so it can transfer the precious data.
Also, the gap for transferring data is usually very short (often a narrow window of 3-10 minutes) so the satellite data transfer system needs to be fast enough to operate in this window, as does the ground station. This requires fast processing and computing power.
Missions mainly consist of a single main task and a number of side tasks. To achieve these tasks on time and transfer data to the ground in the data transfer gap, satellites require sufficient computing power.
Therefore, the main criteria to consider in determining the required computing power are the tasks the satellite should run the before data transfer gap, and then the work required to transfer those task results to the ground station during the gap.
In addition, the hardware should be able to support fast processors as these use clock signals generated by the hardware. For example, if a 4 GHz processor is using 2 GHz data bus to communicate, communication speed will be 2 GHz. This means that 4 GHz of processor speed will be excessive and will unnecessarily drain power.
As the OBC will be required to interact with various sub-systems it is very important that it has a sufficient number of communication ports and protocols.
For example, the STM NANOSATPRO supports the most commonly used interfaces such as UART, RS485, CAN, SPI, I2C and GPIO. In addition to these, the MICROSATPRO also has the Spacewire interface.
Employing a CAN bus communications network in satellites enables much lower power consumption and reduces the amount of wiring and connectors required vs. the conventional MIL-STD-1553 and RS-485 point-to-point interface solutions.
With CAN, several nodes are attached to a single bus which significantly reduces system and cable costs.
Besides the variety of communication protocols, the weight and miniaturization of physical connectors are also important. The OBC should be as small and light as possible to fit into mass and size limits.
Lightweight composites, rugged plastics, and electromagnetic interference shielding are some of the many component design elements that can contribute to weight saving. These criteria were taken into consideration in the data and power connectors of the MICROSATPRO for example.
COTS components are typically more sensitive to radiation compared with custom (radiation-hardened) components. Therefore it is important to guarantee the reliability of the system by adopting fault-tolerant design approaches.
Low-cost COTS components allow satellite developers to exploit the radiation hardening technique through hardware redundancy; to make the components suitable for space use. Although it doesn’t promise 100% reliability, fault-tolerant design approaches can improve the overall reliability of the system to a great extent.
A ’Watchdog’ may be the last line of defense against radiation. As radiation can affect electrons in both dynamic and static memory, it can cause infinite loops and cycles, or malfunctions in the system. These software malfunctions can be repaired with a soft restart provided by a watchdog.
A watchdog is a timer that counts to zero from a set time (for this reason it is also known as WatchDogTimer or WDT). It needs to be reset (known as “kicking WDT”) before it reaches zero, otherwise it creates an interrupt that causes a soft restart. In this way, if software becomes trapped in an infinite loop or malfunction, the WDT will not be reset in the normal manner, which will trigger a soft restart of the software.
The STM MICROSATPRO is tolerant to Single Event Effects (SEE) in logic and data storage with enhanced error detection and correction. SEE protection is provided through the use of a Fault Tolerant (FT-LEON3) processor core, Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) in FPGA, Error Detection and Correction (EDAC) in memory units, watchdog on software, and Latch-up Current Limiter (LCL) in power units.
Similar to computing power, satellites require memory for mission tasks. Dynamic memory size mostly depends on the software to be loaded on the satellite.
Such software should be designed around the mission objectives, so the more complex and sophisticated the satellite, the more it requires effective dynamic memory.
Software size also affects static memory, but the main determining factor for static memory is data collected in each orbit.
For example, if a satellite’s main task is recording high-resolution video footage, it should be storing the footage in static memory as dynamic memory could be erased in the case of a power interruption or a restart. This way task results can be saved and accessed in the short data transfer gap.
For safety reasons there also can be another static memory that holds a copy of the satellite software in case of malfunction in the main static memory. This also helps with updating satellite software as there will be a static main code stored in a different memory which can be booted in the case of an unseen bug or malfunction.
In aerospace applications dynamic memory allocation should be avoided as it may cause overflows and malfunctions in the system. Software usage of RAM and static memory should be determined as realistically as possible. In addition, processor architecture and software optimization should be considered here to determine memory usage.
Ensuring OBCs are rigorously tested for the space environment after the design and production phase is completed is an important selection criterion. Environmental tests aim to show the resistance of satellite mission computers to environmental conditions in space and their compliance with customer requests.
The purpose of these tests is to create the most realistic environmental conditions encountered by the satellite during the process from launch to orbit, and to ensure that no operational problems arise when OBCs are exposed to these conditions. The main forms of test are:
a) TVAC (Thermal Vacuum)
The durability of the OBC has to be proven within the scope of ECSS-E-10-03A standards by simulating the low pressure, heat fluxes, and other environmental aspects that mimic space in a Thermal Vacuum Chamber.
b) Vibration
The effect of the mechanical loads generated by the action of the launcher on the satellite mission computer are observed in the 3 main axes with vibration tests. Vibration tests are completed in accordance with the ECSS-E-10-03A test standard.
c) Shock
The simulation of the shock loads that occur at certain stages, such as the separation of the OBC from the launcher, are carried out in shock tests, according to the ECSS-E-10-03A standard.
d) Radiation
Radiation effects of high-energy particles in space can have a very detrimental effect on components of sensitive OBCs, as explained above.
The threat to the computer varies greatly depending on the satellite’s orbits. In high-penetration gamma ray testing, resistance up to 30 krad values with Cobalt-60 irradiation is observed in the OBCs designed by STM.
The tests were completed within the scope of ECSS-Q-HB-60-02A standards. The customer can choose an OBC according to their budget and requirements according to the processor with high or low radiation resistance of the satellite mission computer.
e) EMI/EMC
Testing electromagnetic interactions before OBCs get to the launch stage is very important.
In order to verify that each piece of equipment in the OBC works in harmony in terms of electromagnetic interactions, this form of testing is carried out within the scope of compliancy regulation MIL-STD-461G Test standards, in a fully non-reflective area.
EMI/EMC tests are performed as in the list below, in accordance with the relevant MIL-STD-461G test standard:
Generally, a certain spaceflight legacy is expected to be requested by the customer to ensure reliability of satellites and their OBCs.
This is mainly because it is desirable to ensure reliability without facing the cost of redesigns.
Sensors can be divided into three branches:
Mission critical sensors, as the name suggests, depend on the mission objective and tasks, which can be widely varied as they are often for military or research purposes (e.g. EM detectors, spectrum analyzers, temperature sensors, vibration sensors, cameras etc.).
System health sensors collect information on the current status of satellite systems, monitoring critical indicators such as voltage, current, temperature etc.
Some loopback tests included in the system are also stored with these sensor data as system health. These data provide very important information about the current satellite status which is used, for example, in the case of a malfunction.
Navigation and positioning sensors are primarily required in missions where there is a need to rotate or move the satellite to another orbit.
Such sensing systems may include, for example, a gyroscope to provide the current direction of the satellite, and a GPS receiver to provide current position.
Understanding exactly what sensors and sensing configurations are required in a mission or service is important for choosing the right satellite OBC.
Selection of the best OBC for a satellite is one of the most important stages in its development, as it is central to the coordination and operation of all the different sub-systems and mission critical functions.
While decisions may be driven in part by price, location, and lead times, the 11 criteria detailed above should hopefully help you make more informed choices to shorten development and testing cycles – ultimately leading to a better satellite.
Find out more about STM and its portfolio of OBCs on the satsearch platform – you can also contact the company here if you have any further questions on OBC selection for your mission, constellation or service.
]]>If you are familiar with the technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings, please click here.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) designates radio frequencies in the 30 to 300 MHz band as very high frequency (VHF), and those in the 300 MHz to 3 GHz band as ultra high frequency (UHF).
Early small satellite and CubeSat development often involved the use of amateur radio frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands due to the low costs and high accessibility for end users.
The UHF and VHF bands were also chosen as the primary frequencies for telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) in CubeSats for similar reasons.
Now, many years after the launch of the first CubeSat, various antennas have been developed at different operational frequencies depending on the requirements and applications of the end users.
These include several models for satellites at various sizes including picosats.
Most currently active CubeSats communicate with ground stations on frequency bands that correspond to amateur (HAM radio) satellite frequencies or are specifically allocated for space communication.
HAM radio frequencies that are typically used fall in the ranges; 145.8 MHz – 146.0 MHz in the VHF band and 435.0 MHz – 438.0 MHz in the UHF band.
VHF and UHF bands are often duplexed in order to increase the overall bandwidth.
This functionality, along with the relative simplicity of obtaining a license, makes the low bitrate VHF and UHF a popular choice for Cubesats [PDF].
One of the main causes of unsuccessful Cubesat missions is an issue related to the communication system, typically due to the use of non space-qualified electronics [PDF] in the transceiver.
These issues come in different forms. Here are three examples of early CubeSat missions (as described in this 2016 Master’s thesis [PDF] by Stephen Joseph Shea, Jr.) that were affected by such communication system faults:
AAU-1 – launched to LEO by Aalburg University (AAU) in Denmark in 2003, AAU-1 carried a demonstration optical payload. The ground segment used an amateur radio design and the satellite transmitted Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK) at 9.6 kbps at 437 MHz.
Issues with the radio contractors led to a change in radio system late in the process, when there was little time for extensive ground testing.
In-orbit it was very difficult to close the link with the satellite and it was not possible to establish a consistent enough connection to complete initial handshaking, which made the satellite appear unresponsive. The mission team was only able to achieve limited functionality.
CAPE-1 – The Cajun Advanced Picosatellite Experiment (CAPE-1) was a 1U CubeSat developed at the University of Louisiana and launched in 2007.
The system used Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) at a frequency of 437 MHz and the team spent a significant amount of time ensuring that their CC 1020 radio chip could operate effectively with a set of custom commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) amateur radio equipment for the ground station.
Unfortunately although the downlink functionality was thoroughly tested, issues with the ground segment receive capabilities were not solved prior to launch, and the satellite was not capable of receiving commands once in orbit.
MicroMAS-1 – the Micro-Sized Microwave Atmospheric Satellite (MicroMAS-1) CubeSat was designed and built by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Space Systems Lab (SSL) and MIT Lincoln Laboratory (MIT LL).
The system was a 3U CubeSat using the L-3 Cadet-U Radio with a 9.6 kbps FSK at 450 MHz uplink, and a 3 Mbps Offset Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (OQPSK) at 468 MHz downlink.
Once in orbit the operations team was only able to successfully communicate with the satellite for three passes; on March 4, 5, and 9 of 2015.
Telemetry testing identified a failure in the transmit chain which was likely caused by a solar panel that had only partially deployed.
These three examples demonstrate the vital importance of a secure and stable satellite UHF or VHF connection to mission success. But you also need to ensure that the system purchased is the right option for your particular application.
We recommend a simple four-step approach for the preliminary selection of any new piece of hardware or software for a satellite or other space system.
Note that this is just a basic guide based on what we’ve learned helping hundreds of buyers select products within our marketplace and get rapid responses from suppliers.
It is just meant to help engineers make an initial assessment and shouldn’t replace formalised systems engineering approaches such as the INCOSE Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) CubeSat frameworks.
These criteria are explained in more detail below.
The first step is to fully understand the currently known mission parameters, including both the critical applications and desirable, but not necessarily essential, objectives.
Typically the more precise mission parameters will only be established later in the process – usually iterated upon in a number of loops by considering the “system of systems.”
But having an idea of what functions your selected technology is likely to need to perform, and on what schedule and duration, will make selecting the most suitable model much easier.
Also consider the launch stresses, testing processes and regulatory compliance that the product will need to go through in order to make it into orbit, as well as any obsolescence procedures once the mission is complete.
Next, keep to hand all currently known design information about the entire unit.
This can include the volume, weight, primary structural material and more basic things such as the location, storage and transport arrangements of the major components.
You will need to make sure that the new piece of technology you choose will be suitable for these parameters.
Once you are clear on exactly what tasks the new product will need to perform and the design characteristics of the satellite or other unit that it will work within, the next consideration is the full range of technology that will sit alongside the product to make sure that everything is compatible.
You may not yet know the entire range of accompanying technology (and you might need to first choose the product model you are interested in in order to make decisions on other components), but make sure you have access to all available technical specifications of sub-systems and structural components that are most likely to be used, as per the current mission plans.
It is important to understand how different sub-systems and components will interface with each other to create a high-performing satellite.
Balancing the available mass, power and volume budgets is also important, which can only be done with a clear plan of which components will be used.
Also consider how the product will work with the planned or existing ground segment to ensure effective data transfer and communication stability.
Now that you have a clear idea of what sort of product is needed for your mission, system, and existing platform setup, the next step is to compare the commercially-available products that meet these criteria according to the most relevant performance metrics.
To select the best satellite UHF/VHF transmitter or transceiver for your specific mission or service, the following criteria can be used to assess commercially available products:
Transmit and receiver frequency – note that many product manufacturers will provide at least one frequency range, possibly others if the system can be used in multiple bands. Typically measured in MegaHertz (MHz).
Data rate – typically measured in bits per second (bps) or kilobits per second (kbps).
Noise figure – measures of degradation of signal-to-noise ratio, defined as the difference in decibels (dB) between the noise output of the actual receiver to the noise output of an “ideal” receiver. Noise figure is usually given in dB.
Power – available RF power, measured in Watts (W) or decibel-milliwatts (dBm).
Orbit – range and duration of each contact satellite ground station.
Ground Station and satellite performance – e.g. Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP).
In this section you can find a range of satellite UHF and VHF transmitters and transceivers available on the global market. These listings will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
To view alternative satellite communications systems we have also put together the following overviews:
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a UHF or VHF transmission or transceiver system for your specific mission or service please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>MinoSpace, also known as Beijing MinoSpace Technology Co., Ltd., is a Beijing-based private satellite manufacturer with a focus on the commercial market.
As a satellite system technology solutions provider with satellite manufacturing at its core, MinoSpace is committed to providing customers with one-stop satellite system technology solutions from satellite design, manufacturing, on-orbit delivery to communication ground terminals and stations.
In particular, MinoSpace is scaling operations to meet both internal national demand from Chinese satellite developers and offering its range of platforms, from CubeSats to 1,000 kg craft, internationally.
MinoSpace has completed 6 space missions, with 8 satellites up to 75 kg launched since it was founded three years ago.
In this article, we take a look at how MinoSpace began, what products and services the company offers today, and review some recent achievements.
We’ll also share insights on the company’s interesting future plans and thoughts on the progress and evolution of the space sector, in China and globally.
In 2014, the State Council of China issued Document 60 or Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Innovating the Investment and Financing Mechanisms in Key Areas and Encouraging Social Investment.
Document 60 officially opened up the Chinese space industry to private investment and actively encouraged participation of private companies in a historically state-dominated industry; and the NewSpace economy in China was officially kick-started.
The 2016 State Council White Papers on Space Activities also encourage and support the participation of Chinese private companies in international commercial activities in the space field.
For the first time these guidelines encouraged and enabled holders of private capital to participate in the development, launch, and operation of commercial satellites, as well as allowing and supporting stakeholders in providing market-oriented and professional services.
Under these circumstances, many experts and engineers from government institutions left to establish private space companies; starting their own companies allowed them to be more innovative with technologies and push boundaries.
It was not until 2017 however that more complete business models of most of the new private space companies were first implemented, and then private capital began to increase.
This trend has continued. According to Matrix Partners’ venture capital data, 13 private commercial space enterprises in China received a total of $330 million in financing this year alone.
This is the context in which MinoSpace was first developed. Founders of the company were all from government institutions and came together with the goal of creating a global satellite manufacturer that could be benchmarked against first-class firms such as Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL).
In recent years the manufacturing capacity of commercial satellite developers around the world has significantly matured.
In years past satellites and rockets were almost exclusively manufactured by government institutions, but a variety of technological and commercial advances has led to a dramatic growth in private sector stakeholders in this area.
The SpaceX global internet constellation Starlink for example is planned to include nearly 12,000 privately created satellites.
Driven by the New Infrastructure Plan announced in 2020, China also has plans to send tens of thousands of satellites into orbit in the next few years.
However, the current level of satellite production capacity of government and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) is not large enough to support such volumes, and private space companies will be required to meet the forecast demand.
With its deeply embedded technical genes MinoSpace has the potential to play a major role in the burgeoning private satellite manufacturing industry in China and beyond.
Today MinoSpace offers a variety of products including complete satellites, satellite sub-systems and components, as well as satellite communication ground terminals and stations.
The company also offers a portfolio of services that include satellite manufacturing, assembly, integration, test (MAIT), launch, manufacturing and engineering training.
The aim of the company’s portfolio is to reduce costs, shorten development cycles and ensure the reliability of satellites.
MinoSpace has independently developed core satellite systems that have led to innovations in technology, and process management and control.
These include autonomous on-board service management, and attitude stability and orbit control functionality.
These technologies can enable certain MinoSpace satellites to carry out missions and receive images within as little as 13 hours after launch.
During the company’s research and development (R&D) of small satellite technology the complex overall system is divided into individual modules, each of which is then standardized to minimize the difference.
In terms of process management and control, MinoSpace has built on traditional MAIT processes to enhance efficiency.
The typical approach used in the industry has five stages in the development lifecycle of satellites:
Usually this means that one or two satellites will be produced for verification before the official launch, which lengthens the whole development cycle.
Through early-stage technology verification and experience accumulation, MinoSpace has independently developed core components and completed their on-orbit verification in advance.
Alongside this work the company has also invested significantly in full virtual simulation analysis and optimized its production capabilities to achieve “one-step” flight product development process management, greatly shortening the R&D cycle.
In addition, through the use of innovative reliability design technology and reinforcement methods, MinoSpace has been able to replace Aerospace-class devices with lower cost industrial components.
The cost-savings of components used due to such changes can sometimes be many orders of magnitude.
Details of MinoSpace’s satellite platforms available through satsearch are included below:
A 6U platform with a minimum payload volume of 2U and minimum payload power supply of 10 W.
The platform features a modular design, configurable structure, and standardized launch separation mechanism that can be used with all types of launch vehicle.
The platform is ideal for low resolution remote sensing NB-IoT communication and IOD/IOV of new technology
Two MN6U satellites have been launched successfully.
A 10 kg satellite platform offering a minimum payload volume of 3U and customisable sub-systems.
The system has a self-developed separation mechanism designed to reduce launch mass and costs.
The platform is ideal for low resolution remote sensing NB-IoT communication and IOD/IOV of new technology.
Three MN10 satellites have been launched successfully.
An enhanced platform with a 30 kg launch mass and available payload power of 20 W.
The system builds on the MN10 platform with the aim of improving and optimizing the reliability and capability of EPS, TT&C and thermal control sub-systems.
The platform is ideal for medium resolution remote sensing, scheduled to be launched in 2021.
A satellite platform optimized for remote sensing and communication applications with a launch mass of 55 to 80 kg.
It has a pointing accuracy of ≤0.02° and features integrated design of the electronic equipment to reduce internal interfaces and launch mass.
The platform is ideal for wide-swath, medium, high resolution remote sensing, NB-IoT communication and IOD/IOV of new technology
Two MN50 satellites have been launched successfully.
A satellite platform equipped with two-dimensional SADM, which can provide a minimum of 210 W for payload power (orbit average).
Features a configured propulsion system used for initial attitude stabilisation, phase adjustment, orbit maintenance and de-orbiting; meeting the requirements of the design life of satellites for approximately 3-5 years.
The platform is ideal for remote sensing, NB-IoT communication and LeGNSS applications.
Based on the mature design of OBDH and attitude control system.
The platform is designed to improve the carrying capacity of the payload and pointing accuracy, particularly for optical payloads, ideal for high resolution multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing.
A MinoSpace high resolution hyperspectral satellite is scheduled to be launched in 2021.
A 200 to 300 kg launch mass platform with a design life of 3-5 years.
The standardized design for the platform and adaptive to the requirements of various SAR payloads.
A MinoSpace SAR satellite is scheduled to be launched in 2021.
A 1000 kg level platform, with payload weight no less than 400 kg, and design life of 5-8 years.
The platform is the optimal solution for GEO and MEO communication.
The company also provides satellite ground communication equipment, which accounts for 20% of total revenue.
Since MinoSpace’s establishment three years ago the company has completed 6 launch missions with 8 satellites launched.
On the 6th of November 2020 MinoSpace launched a high-resolution Earth Observation (EO) satellite, Tianyan-05, a 70 kg multispectral earth observation satellite based on the MN50-3 platform that will be used in marine environment monitoring, agricultural crop monitoring, wildfire-prevention, forestry resources investigation, environmental monitoring, earthquake monitoring, meteorological monitoring, water conservancy and mountain torrent disaster monitoring, and other fields.
By optimising production processes and capabilities the company has developed satellite platforms that can be up to a third cheaper than similar systems from other suppliers.
This has also resulted in shorter delivery times, with the following being typical turnaround timescales for standard product configurations:
The company is currently scaling R&D activities into satellites with a mass above 200 kg.
Platforms in development include hyperspectral satellites and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) systems.
In terms of financing, MinoSpace has completed four rounds of investment totalling approximately $30 million, with the latest round of A3 financing being almost $15 million.
MinoSpace has big plans for the future and shared some really interesting information on the direction of the company with us:
“At present, mass production of satellites is still a big challenge for China’s commercial space industry.”
“Although small satellites are growing in popularity, and launches are becoming cheaper and more frequent, the core competition of the industry in the future is concentrated on the manufacturing of satellites with a weight of more than 200 kg.”
SpaceX for example currently has around 210 tons of satellite in orbit, with an average mass of about 250 kg per craft. OneWeb’s satellites in contrast weigh approximately 150 kg each.
Despite these commercial drivers the production capacity of private space companies in China for >200 kg satellites cannot currently meet the demand.
Technical development of slightly smaller satellites is also an issue in some regions:
“In our opinion the 50-100 kg platform is also a big bottleneck. Due to the high prices for this kind of satellite, customers have greater requirements in terms of the life, quality and performance, and many technical problems need to be solved in the manufacturing process to meet them.”
“Increases in satellite scale mean that the functions of each component and sub-system become more complex, particularly the expensive payloads.”
“This places greater stresses on the control accuracy, stability, automation, electromagnetic interference, power supply, vibration control and other functions of the craft.”
“For example, in the deployment of solar panels; microsatellites generally use single panel or even body-mounted panels, while larger satellites need to use four or five folding panels to ensure an adequate power supply, which makes deployment more difficult.”
“There are also corresponding requirements for large remote sensing cameras carried by satellites, which must have high precision and narrow width.”
“These complex technologies make it difficult for domestic manufacturers to achieve the mass production of large satellites, and it is difficult to further reduce the price of systems on the market.”
“In addition, the business model of some satellite operators has not yet been fully implemented, which can in turn suppress the demand for satellites to a certain extent.”
MinoSpace is aiming to achieve the mass production of high-quality commercial small satellites at as low costs and short lead times as possible.
With MinoSpace’s ambitious growth plans and a developing private sector in China, we asked the company to share some views on the future of the space industry, in China and internationally.
It is conservatively estimated that in the next 5 to 10 years Chinese commercial small satellite launch demand will exceed 4,000 craft.
The gradual progress of China’s New Infrastructure Plan is resulting in commercial space companies, both upstream and downstream, becoming one of the most popular target areas for venture capital. But this is bringing new pressures to companies:
“We believe that the satellite, as the link between the upstream rocket and downstream application, will eventually enjoy the benefits brought about by the rapid development of the industry.”
“However, it should be noted that after several years of development the commercial space industry in China is now bidding farewell to some of the most ambitious commercial space pipe dreams and empty words – today private commercial companies must be able to generate revenue and even profits.”
“At present there are many satellite manufacturers in China and there are also a number of rocket companies that launch satellites, but there are few applications of satellite technologies or service end users.”
“Chinese commercial space companies have significant technical strengths in many areas of satellite technology, but the education of end users has been slow to evolve.”
“From an investment perspective, we believe that in recent years venture capitalists have invested too much money in the commercial Chinese space industry and the valuations of many businesses are at an unsustainable level.”
“Technological innovation in the industry has been developing because of such a large amount of investment of course, but the development of commercial applications for these technologies is very slow, and in many cases the market has not been fully activated.”
“Company profits need to keep pace with expectations to justify commercial valuations.”
In terms of national government policy, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) first defined the scope of New Infrastructure Plan in April 2020.
This highlighted certain technologies including satellite internet, 5G and internet of things (IoT) in communication network infrastructure, and is expected to promote the integration of space, communication and Internet industries.
MinoSpace is optimistic about the driving force of government capital guided by this framework. With an extensive national policy in place this will help stabilise the capital market and open up new opportunities for commercial stakeholders.
For example, by relying on SOEs to establish internet constellations and encourage private capital investment, the state can share the risk of private companies’ early development and verify the technology feasibility and business models of satellite internet.
However, it is important for emerging technologies to complement each other effectively. Satellite IoT systems for example should not only be designed to interface with 5G, artificial intelligence (AI) and other new technologies, but should also serve traditional infrastructure requirements.
Mixing such legacy and innovative new systems will be a very difficult challenge and is going to take time. There are many system level difficulties in these areas that haven’t yet been solved, such as;
Progress on these issues may result in changes to the market composition in China:
“In terms of the commercial industry in China; we believe that under normal circumstances the market ratio of the rocket, satellite manufacturing and satellite operations sectors is generally thought to be around 1:5:20. That is, for every $1 of value in the rocket market, the satellite manufacturing market has $5, and the satellite applications and operations market has $20.”
Interestingly, there are fewer satellite manufacturers in China than rocket companies or satellite operators – so there is a big opportunity for MinoSpace in the middle portion of this ratio.
A number of private satellite companies with manufacturing capacity also primarily develop CubeSats whereas MinoSpace is focussing on larger platforms as has been described above.
Although there are certain technical barriers to development, the company is developing deep expertise in the production of 100+ kg satellites with a variety of commercial applications and believes this is the right strategic direction in the short- to medium-term.
Satsearch is very pleased to be working with MinoSpace to help share the company’s story and offering, in China and internationally.
For more information on the company, or further details on the available product portfolio, please view the company’s supplier page on satsearch.
]]>Tensor Tech is a young space technology company based in Taipei City in Taiwan, formed as the result of a university research project.
Tensor Tech is bringing innovative spherical motor technology to the space industry, and hopes to develop a new standard of quality in attitude control and efficiency.
In this article we take a look at how Tensor Tech began, what products the company offers today, and what the future holds for the business.
Tensor Tech was formed by a group of students from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in southern Taiwan.
However, while the genesis for the company’s products was formed at NCKU, several of the co-founders actually go back even further, having attended high school together.
NCKU is one of few institutions in Taiwan with an established satellite development programme and the founders participated in a prestigious research project together, which aimed to develop a reaction wheel motor for the National Space Organisation.
During this work the Tensor Tech team investigated several different kinds of motor technology suitable for spacecraft, analysing the electronic and mechanical capabilities to try and find the optimal solutions for different mission parameters.
Research that began in 2016 led to the development of a spherical motor system that formed the basis of a reaction sphere – an alternative to one or more reaction wheels for precise satellite attitude control.
The project brought together experts in both mechanical motor technology and satellite operation and sub-system development. This enabled the team to get a full understanding of the capabilities and potential space applications of the solution developed.
Aspects of the spherical motor system were adapted to make the device suitable for use in space, with components and circuits hardened to radiation, and a range of thermal, vacuum and vibrational tests undertaken.
Once the initial work was completed the team had identified a significant opportunity for small satellites and set out to develop the Tensor Tech commercial brand.
The company is now very excited to bring this technology to the space industry, prove the concept in-orbit and share their story with the global community.
To date Tensor Tech has launched three products available on the satsearch platform:
The RS100 can effectively replace 3 traditional reaction wheels in terms of functionality and torque output, but with a third of the volume, mass, and power requirements.
Features: angular momentum storage of 10 mN m s, maximum torque of 1 mN m and a magnetic moment of 0.2 A m^2. The motor functions like a single-gimbal Control Moment Gyro (CMG) but is actuated by a spherical motor and can act similar to 3 magnetorquers – one each in the X-, Y- and Z-axes.
ADCS100 – Integrated ADCS with Reaction Sphere
Designed for 1.5U, 2U, 3U, or 6U CubeSats and featuring a full set of attitude determination and actuator hardware and firmware embedded.
Features: mass of less than 400 g, power consumption of less than 1 W, angular momentum storage of 10 mN m s, and maximum torque of 1 mN m.
An efficient fine sun sensor that can also be operated as a coarse sensor if required.
Features: ability to sense the direction of sunlight in two vectors, provides pointing knowledge up to 0.1 deg (3-sigma, no albedo), and operates with a current of < 5 mA.
In recent years, and as a student team, Tensor Tech has won a number of national awards for engineering excellence and innovation – including awards at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair and Taiwan International Science Fair.
The Tensor Tech team were able to build upon the work undertaken in a research setting to develop a commercial offer.
Extending the electrical and mechanical properties of the technology required the expertise of stakeholders with experience building space-grade products.
This led to the launch of a small portfolio of products that Tensor Tech aims to bring to the global market.
The reaction sphere has now passed vibrational and vacuum environmental testing in certified laboratories – we’ll share more on this technology in a future article.
The next step for Tensor Tech is to cooperate with an in-orbit demonstration (IOD) provider to put the ADCS into orbit and test the full functionality.
This demonstration is now in development and a successful mission will mean that flight heritage (TRL9) for the product will be realised by June or July 2021.
With the launch of the reaction sphere’s IOD mission in summer of 2021, Tensor Tech hopes to be on a path to further growing sales and business development opportunities later in the year.
The potential performance and efficiency enhancements that the technology can achieve has interested users all over the world and space heritage will help bring the technology fully to market.
Following this, Tensor Tech aims to continue contributing to missions and services that will benefit from technology miniaturisation.
The company believes that spherical motor technology can provide the solution for the difficult challenge of achieving a significant reduction in the volume and mass required for a satellite’s ADCS.
In turn, this could open up new opportunities for satellite manufacturers and operators who will be able to achieve their required attitude control in a lighter, smaller footprint, giving them more weight and volume budget to use for primary payloads.
Spherical motor technology could also lower costs for small satellite manufacturers and can be effectively scaled up for larger craft.
We are very pleased to be working with Tensor Tech to bring spherical motor technology to the global market and will go into more detail on the system in a future article.
In the meantime, to find out more about Tensor Tech and its suite of products, please view the company’s page on the satsearch platform.
]]>NanoAvionics is a nanosatellite mission integrator headquartered in Columbia, Illinois, USA, and with facilities in North America, Northern Europe and the UK.
The company manufactures a range of nanosatellite buses with a standardized configuration suitable for a wide array of applications, along with many other in-house developed sub-systems.
In addition, as a full service mission integrator NanoAvionics offers a range of services to satellite developers and operators including development support, consultancy and a hosted payload flight solution.
Mission services include, for example, payload integration, performance testing, spacecraft registration and logistics, frequency allocation and payload on-orbit operations.
In this article we take a look at how NanoAvionics began, what products and services the company offers today, and its recent achievements.
We’ll also share some insights on the company’s exciting future plans and thoughts on the progress and evolution of the space sector in general.
NanoAvionics was officially established as a business in 2014, but the company concept, and associated R&D activities, began in 2011 by a group of aerospace engineering students following an internship at NASA.
Those students contributed to the development of spacecraft propulsion technologies and led a project to launch the first Lithuanian satellite into space by using the cost-efficient CubeSat standard.
This work evolved into a national project involving more than 100 space technology enthusiasts, sponsors, and partners, including Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite who was an official supporter.
After the successful mission the natural next step for the team was to enter the developing nanosatellite market, bringing all of the knowledge and components developed throughout their project work to the commercial space sector. The company NanoAvionics was born in 2014.
As a specialist nanosatellite technology manufacturer, and an established mission integrator, NanoAvionics has a wide array of commercially-available products and services.
This portfolio includes standardized buses in a range of CubeSat form factors, many in-house developed sub-systems, and a full spectrum of mission support services including launch brokerage, integration, flight readiness testing, logistics, satellite registration, mission operations and more.
The company has built bespoke facilities in all of the countries it operates to support day-to-day design and engineering activities including an ISO 7 class certified cleanroom with ISO 5 clean areas, thermal-vacuum chambers, and assembly and testing procedures that follow ESA’s standards.
The company’s products are flight-proven, space-qualified and 25 kRad tested. NanoAvionics also ensures that the long-term goal of mass production is embedded into all new designs.
Vertical integration and production principles taken from automotive and medical technology industries have helped NanoAvionics to develop products with competitive prices, short lead times, and high reliability. An overview of the company’s current commercial offer is included below:
With 80% of hardware and software remaining the same for each mission, the standardized buses are readily-available for a variety of missions.
In recent years NanoAvionics has undergone a period of significant expansion. With 300% growth each year and recognition growing in the industry, the company has been able to develop its operations while also improving core products and processes.
This has led to opportunities to work with and supply missions for some of the most innovative organizations in the field including NASA, ESA, and MIT, as well as private sector clients including Thales Alenia Space, SEN, and Lacuna Space.
As Vaida Karaliūnaitė explains:
“Realizing that our assumptions about the direction of the market, our own growth predictions, and the strategic steps we have taken were all very closely aligned has made it clear we are on the right track!”
With a solid foundation and growing reputation in the industry, the next phase in NanoAvionics’ progress as a technology manufacturer will be driven by client needs.
The company has been preparing all aspects of their manufacturing capabilities and commercial structures to grow with its clients.
As their partners reach the final phases of the development, and start launching constellations and full services, NanoAvionics will be able to proceed with serial manufacturing and smooth scaling up due to the product mass manufacturing philosophy they have embedded. As Vaida explains:
“By standardizing our technologies and focussing on vertical integration we have been preparing for a number of years to help our clients scale up rapidly.”
As the space industry continues to respond to the effects of the global Covid-19 pandemic while also experiencing growth and disruption across many countries around the world, there are several emerging drivers of expansion that are having an impact on commercial activity.
NanoAvionics has highlighted several trends that are all playing a role in the company’s future market strategies:
Specialization – the ability of companies to develop precision-engineered, space-qualified components and sub-systems, that are highly reliable yet versatile enough for modern missions and services, requires specialization in key areas.
Standardization – the development of modular products, constellations, and the emergence of industry standards for certain technologies (whether formalised or informally regarded as best practice) has driven a lot of innovation in recent years.
For some clients however it is a standardization of result or service quality that is primarily required, as opposed to standardization of technology. The scope of each project is usually highly specific and NanoAvionics has identified that more and more clients are looking for turnkey mission solutions, where NanoAvionics can take care of all aspects of the mission and the client simply receives the data they need.
Application of industrial principles – scaled up mission servicing and mass production will require new approaches to product development as discussed above. NanoAvionics hopes that its work in this area will stand the company in good stead moving forwards.
Consolidation of market players – finally, another trend that we may see in the forthcoming years is an increase in mergers and acquisitions activity as the industry grows. It will be really interesting to see which companies stay independent and which determine that they can have more of an impact by combining with other players.
Amid such changes and developments the satsearch team is very pleased to be working with NanoAvionics and we are looking forward to helping bring more of their hardware and expertise to the global marketplace.
To find out more about NanoAvionics please view the company’s supplier page on the satsearch platform and click here to view the products.
]]>Electronic and structural miniaturisation of space components and sub-systems has led to a variety of innovations in recent years.
A wide range of parts and components have been manufactured with increasingly smaller physical footprints, and this has reduced the overall size of complete systems.
The costs and lead times of such systems have also decreased, while the range of possible in-orbit applications and technology available has grown. This has been driven by greater use of commercial-of-the-shelf (COTS) components and the commercial availability of a wider range of products, parts and materials with flight heritage.
In addition, the growth in both research and commercial interest in space applications, along with an increase in new entrants and innovation to the market, has led to greater demand for more compatible, interoperable, and modular products.
Over the years this has led to the emergence of standardised physical form factor satellites such as CubeSats and PocketQubes.
PocketQubes are very small satellites that are often used for research purposes. They were first developed based on work at Morehead State University (MSU) and Kentucky Space, USA, in 2009. They were originally called PocketQubs.
A PocketQube is a 5cm cube and typically has a launch mass of no more than 250g.
In small satellite form factor terminology a 5 x 5 x 5 cm3 cube is also known as 1p and PocketQube satellites are products that are usually organised by size according to the number of p they feature – in the same way that U is used for CubeSats.
In this post we take a look at a variety of PocketQube products, systems, and suppliers around the world offering hardware and services for this segment of the market.
In the section below you can see a variety of products and services related to PocketQubes that are available on the market.
These listings will be updated when new PocketQube products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a PocketQube or picosatellite product or service for your needs, please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>In 2004 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted new requirements designed to make it easier for sea-going vessels to be clearly identified.
The requirements stated that all ships of a certain size and undergoing particular kinds of voyage should carry an AIS device that provides real-time information to other vessels and coastal authorities. These requirements refer to:
In this article we take a look at how satellite AIS receivers are used to receive and transmit this information from/to such vessels, to enable precise maritime tracking in the most remote areas of the planet, and view commercially-available products from around the world.
The IMO regulation specifies that the AIS on board the vessel needs to provide vital information about it’s characteristics and activity, such as:
These data must be provided automatically to appropriately equipped shore stations, as well as other ships and aircraft.
The AIS must also be capable of fast and accurate data exchange. It should be able to pick up the same type of information it transmits from other ships and exchange data with facilities on the shore.
The systems act as collision-avoidance and navigational aids. Messages sent via AIS can also be picked up by a very high frequency (VHF) receiver in-orbit, a system able to observe maritime activity over a wide area.
The primary advantage of space-based AIS receivers over terrestrial AIS devices is the scale of coverage that can be achieved.
Each satellite can monitor a large area on its own and a network that features enough satellites in suitable orbits can effectively cover the entire surface of the planet for AIS signals.
This means that individual vessels, distributed fleets, or even entire sections of Ocean can be consistently monitored from space – removing the requirement for any terrestrial systems.
There are currently two methodologies in use for detection of AIS signals from space; on-board processing (OBP) and spectrum de-collision processing (SDP).
OBP involves the use of specialized receivers which, while much more sensitive, basically work in the same manner as terrestrial AIS receivers.
It doesn’t require special processing capabilities and is very effective in low density areas, such as the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
However one of OBP’s shortcomings is that the detection probability is significantly lower in areas of the satellite footprint that have high ship density – particularly at a level of 1,000 ships per footprint.
At this density the signals from individual vessels can start to collide with each other. Statistical analysis has shown that the first pass detection performance of OBP in such high dense areas is quite low and this means that a complete picture of the maritime domain often requires multiple passes.
In addition, if the traffic is very dense (over 2,500 vessels) then slot collisions will occur meaning messages cannot be resolved through OBP, and so gaining a complete maritime picture in such circumstances is impossible.
SDP involves the use of receivers capable of detecting and digitizing the RF spectrum for the AIS channels and then processing the raw spectrum files to control the noise floor and then reconstruct collided messages with highly specialized software algorithms.
First pass detection is very high, even in areas with a high ship density, and full maritime domain awareness can typically be achieved in as little as two passes.
Therefore, if the area of interest contains higher ship densities, SDP methodology is usually recommended in order to achieve detection at a level that will enable operational use of Satellite-AIS (S-AIS) (for further reading please see this exactEarth white paper [PDF]).
The deployment of space-borne AIS receivers faces a variety of challenges stemming from the fact that the technology is primarily intended for sea-level reception.
One major concern is related to the self-organization principle of terrestrial AIS communication systems.
All exchanged messages transmitted from ships within the VHF range of 30-40 nm are synchronized, meaning that there are no AIS reports sent at the same time, at the same frequency. This guarantees the proper functioning of the system without any message loss.
An AIS receiver mounted on a satellite however sees several of these self organizing cells within its footprint (>3,000 km diameter).
Due to the fact that there is no synchronization between the cells, only within each cell, it’s likely that the satellite receives AIS messages from multiple vessels sent at the same time with the same frequency.
This can cause message collision resulting in message loss.
Another issue is the saturation of the satellite sensor due to the high volume of messages received, particularly in high density traffic areas such as the Mediterranean or the Baltic Sea.
Message collision and receiver saturation are known to be the main factors that affect the performance of an S-AIS device, measured as the Probability of Detection (PoD) of picking up an AIS position report transmitted by a vessel.
To meet these challenges and improve ship tracking capability from space advanced algorithms, antennas and frequency diversification have been used onboard space-based AIS systems.
In this section, you can find a range of satellite AIS receivers available on the international market. These listings will be updated when new S-AIS receivers are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We have also put together an overview of other satellite communication and Earth Observation (EO) systems including optical payloads, X-band transmitters and S-band antennas.
Click on any of the links or images below to find out more about the systems. You can also submit a request for a quote, documentation or further information on each of the products listed or send us a more general query to discuss your specific needs, and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a satellite Automatic Identification System (AIS) Receivers for your specific needs please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>We work side-by-side with these buyers to assess the commercially-available options for any technology and acquire all of the relevant data and documentation from the suppliers so they can make informed decisions.
In this work we’ve noticed that potential buyers sometimes have questions on the documents and terminology that suppliers use to communicate about products. This is particularly the case for stakeholders from university teams or the public sector who may have less regular engagement with commercial companies in their work.
To help address this need we’ve put together this article featuring a number of foundational concepts and terms that private companies often use to promote and communicate about products.
If you have any further questions about liaising and negotiating with suppliers please feel free to send us an email today and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.
The includes information on the following procurement topics:
As a potential buyer one of your first interactions with the detail of an unfamiliar product is most likely to be some of the company’s marketing, promotional and sales material.
This will usually be in the form of brochures and flyers if you’re meeting in person, or for online searches it will likely be the company web page or a product page on a site such as satsearch.
The key thing to look out for is the date that the material was produced. Manufacturers regularly improve their development and testing processes which will change the performance specifications of the product.
Other points to watch out for are definitive claims such as “the smallest on the market.”
Firstly, you should try to verify this according to specific measurements and with definitive proof to back it up, so you can be confident in your product choice.
And secondly, again consider how recent the material is – the product might well have been the smallest on the market when the flyer or web page was published, but that could have been 5 years ago and things have moved on!
Datasheets are more detailed and complex versions of flyers or web pages that provide structured, itemised data on product specifications.
The same advice holds true for the previous section – ensure you have the most recent datasheet available to get accurate data on the product.
Also be aware that suppliers commonly create datasheets that cover multiple similar products (such as different CubeSat unit (U) model sizes) so ensure that it is clear which specifications refer to the exact model you need.
A product’s user manual will usually provide vital information about the calibration and integration of the system.
As with other product documentation, ensure that you have a copy of the very latest version so that all technical specifications are up to date.
Not every manufacturer shares user manuals prior to sales (though we always try to encourage them to do so on our platform) so this may be something that you access post-procurement.
In datasheets or in other product information you may come across the term Stock Keeping Unit or SKU. This is a manufacturer-specified code that relates to a specific product in a specific size and configuration.
The code may also be described as product number, product code, model number, part number or similar.
As explained above – sometimes it isn’t clear in product information which exact model is being discussed. The SKU can help you identify the precise product (with the right size, weight, and configuration) that you need and also have more focussed conversations with manufacturers.
Space procurement takes a long time and can involve lots of back and forth communication between supplier and buyer. Being clear on the SKU, or using some other unique identifier, will make this faster and easier on both sides.
In addition, a lot of companies give products the same or very similar names to other firms. These are usually quite simple names which makes it easier to find the model you need, but more difficult to choose between companies.
If you’re searching for a fine sun sensor for example, you might find you need to compare the Company A Fine Sun Sensor with the Company B Fine Sun Sensor and it can get confusing in both internal and external discussions.
Using a unique identifier like the SKU will make it clear which product you are referring to.
Companies will often provide a lead time for an individual product. This is the amount of estimated time that they expect to spend on creating, preparing and delivering the product.
There are several steps involved in the preparation of any product before delivery, depending on the technology, such as development, calibration, testing, validation, and packaging for example.
The lead time will often be given in a range (e.g. 8-12 weeks) or with a minimum value (e.g. 3+ months).
You will usually need to engage with the supplier for a more accurate figure, and you will need to share all of the relevant technical details of your mission that you can in this discussion – so it is important to be as prepared as possible.
Also be aware that the lead time is likely to only start when a sale or contract is at least initially agreed between you and the supplier, as only then can they begin developing the product.
There can be a lot of confidential or proprietary information to discuss in the procurement of a typical space product, and sometimes suppliers ask for a commitment for the buyer to keep certain details private.
This commitment will usually be made in the form of a non-disclosure agreement or NDA. This is a short contract that will specify which product or company information you agree to keep private and may cover individual documents and files too.
For example, some suppliers will not provide a CAD model or ICD (both explained further below) without an NDA in place to make sure that the people they share them with do not forward them on to other parties who the supplier isn’t aware of.
NDAs can also help suppliers protect their intellectual property (IP) from being exploited by competitors if this is an important factor in their area of business.
In general we prefer it when suppliers are happy to share information openly with potential buyers as it helps customers make more informed choices. However, we understand that many businesses work with defence clients or have a public sector heritage that requires they protect aspects of their information.
To account for this at satsearch our managed lead fulfilment service employs a double consent model; we do not share with the buyer any information that the supplier has not given us consent to, and vice versa.
This keeps both parties happy and protected whilst making the procurement process as seamless and conflict-free as possible.
A CAD, or Computer Aided Design, model is a design file that enables engineers to translate concepts into manufacturing approaches.
It contains precise measurements and detailed specifications in a format that can be used with common graphical or engineering software packages.
The CAD model will enable you to test the product’s integration into your overall system allowing an assessment of the physical parameters compared to alternative products.
Testing out a product’s CAD model is an important step in evaluating its performance and suitability for your mission.
As with other product information, ensure that you use the most up-to-date version so that the right product specifications are tested.
The Engineering Model (EM) is essentially a prototype of the final design that is as close as possible to the product which will go into orbit.
Where relevant it will usually incorporate spare flight-grade components and/or commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to simplify development.
Sometimes a separate Engineering Qualification Model (EQM), with even closer specification to the flight-ready model, is built to undergo rigorous testing. This can include thermal and vacuum tests to ensure effective operation in space.
When speaking with suppliers it is important to clarify whether the model on offer, or the model that you require, is the Engineering Model or Flight Model, in order to clearly assess whether it is suitable for your needs.
The Flight Model (FM) is a version of the product ready to be launched into space.
Any remaining issues or calibration requirements uncovered during testing and qualification have now been resolved and the hardware is constructed of fully validated space-ready components and materials.
The Flight Model is the version of the product that should be procured for integration into the version of your spacecraft that is intended for launch.
Any sale comes with a level of risk to both the buyer and seller. On the seller’s side the risk is less, and mainly pertains to the ability of the buyer to afford the purchase, use the product ethically and legally, and not engage in any activity that company would not wish or expect.
On the buyer’s side there is a greater risk that the product will not meet your needs.
To mitigate the buyer’s risk space technology companies acquire and communicate flight heritage. This means that their product has been successfully used in space under the exact (or at least highly similar) conditions in which they will typically be used by future buyers.
In most cases these live tests are carried out in an in-orbit demonstration (IOD) mission (sometimes referred to as in-orbit validation or verification) – demonstrative missions in which the technology is launched and operated under the conditions that it will typically be used for commercial or research purposes.
Companies and agencies often use a scale known as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to describe the maturity of an individual product.
The TRL scaled has nine different stages (TRL 1, TRL 2, etc.) and the higher a product’s number on this scale the more mature it is.
A product that has been successfully used in space during an IOD mission is said to be at TRL 9 and therefore has flight or space heritage.
As a buyer you will want to look out for products with flight heritage, that are at TRL 9, which you can be confident are technologies that can survive launch and operate effectively in the harsh conditions of space.
If possible, try to find out what details you can about the acquisition of flight heritage that the supplier went through for the products you are interested in.
Ask about the mission timings and orbits, as well as the product configuration that flew; suppliers should be ready and willing to supply you with this information when asked.
System Readiness Level (SRL) defines the maturity of a set of components combined in a certain configuration.
Some of the more complex satellite sub-systems consist of multiple components integrated into a functional module.
The Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS) is a good example. A typical ADCS features positioning sensors, actuators to alter the satellite’s orientation, control functions to manage this activity, and interfaces to connect the ADCS to the overall system.
Each of these components could potentially be acquired from a different manufacturer and integrated into one of several possible configurations and calibrations.
In these situations, despite each of the individual components having flight heritage as described above, the overall system may not have been flown, and so its System Readiness Level (SRL) can be said to be lower.
SRL is not a particularly common concept in the industry, though it is a logical extension of the TRL concept, but if it does crop up in your procurement discussions you will be prepared!
The Interface Control Document, or ICD, is an important piece of product information that clearly and explicitly details the full specifications of all interfaces between that product and the overall system and/or any sub-systems that it connects to.
This will include any available engineering diagrams, relevant text, specifications and data, tables and other technical details.
The inputs and outputs of each interface are described in order to enable mission designers to ensure compatibility between the sub-systems and components used in a satellite or other spacecraft.
The ICD will also enable mission designers to specify any required conversion components or protocols to ensure that functions from different sub-systems are seamlessly integrated.
Space is increasingly an international industry. New products and companies are springing up around the world as the commercial potential grows and barriers to entry come down.
This is bringing a new level of competition and innovation to the market that is great for potential buyers – but it may also require you to understand export conditions if purchasing from another country or territory.
The most well-known set of export control regulations are the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). These govern the manufacture, sale, and distribution of certain space- and defence-related technologies to non-US citizens.
Therefore, if you are planning to purchase a product from the US, and are not a US citizen, you may need to comply with ITAR and so will need to build this in to your development and launch plans.
The Sixe, Weight and Power or SWaP value of a space product is typically used to make first order estimates or comparisons.
These three characteristics are some of the most important to optimise for a satellite or spacecraft and are major drivers of development and launch costs, timing and resources.
Hopefully this article has been a useful primer on some of the basic concepts, documents and terminology used in your space procurement processes.
If you have any additional comments or questions then we would be more than happy to discuss things with you – just click here to send us an email.
In addition, if you need dedicated help with the procurement of specific products or services for your missions and projects, you can send us a request at satsearch with information about your requirements and we’ll use our networks of global suppliers to help.
We have also published dedicated market segment overviews for many different satellite and spacecraft sub-systems, components and services – you can see all of these articles (which are updated on a regular basis) at this page.
]]>We share details of various products on the global market along with service providers offering custom designs and configurations – if you’re familiar with this technology and would like to skip straight to the product listings please click here.
Satellite structures give spacecraft their shape, secure all sub-systems and other components, and provide vital protection from mechanical stresses during launch, radiation while in-orbit and vibration at all stages.
Structures and structural products for satellites of any size are often sub-divided into primary and secondary components for simpler classification.
Primary structures are typically whole frames that are capable of housing an entire CubeSat for example. They can be sold as commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) parts or customised to meet non-standard satellite setups.
Secondary structures are components such as struts and brackets that can be used in different configurations as needed, typically for more complex spacecraft setups.
Some structure components are used mainly for load-bearing purposes whereas others perform more specific tasks, such as housings that provide protection for electrical sub-systems or optical payloads.
For smaller satellites with fixed form factors, such as PocketQubes and CubeSats, the term structures usually refers to the primary frames that give a satellite its shape, set the limits of the physical footprint and provide a functional chassis within which all the other sub-systems are housed and connected.
Structures are available as complete frames or as individual component parts such as chassis walls, base plates and cover plates.
CubeSat structure manufacturer and satsearch member NPC Spacemind has previously explained in this article that two vital aspects to consider when assessing structures are their handling and performance.
Handling refers to the ease with which the structure can be manipulated and used during satellite development and testing. A chassis that is too fragile or difficult to rotate and affix, so that sub-systems can be easily integrated, can slow down production.
The performance aspect consists of the following parameters:
In addition, a high-quality satellite frame or structural component must be manufactured of space-grade material, ideally feature flight heritage and needs to be the correct size for your mission requirements.
You may also need to select a model with additional capabilities beyond simple physical support. This could include redundant or kill switches, specific launch system interoperability (such as separation springs) and other more complex functionality depending on your needs.
In this section, you can find a range of CubeSat and PocketQube frame and chassis products that are available on the market. These listings will be updated when new structures are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We have also put together overviews of launch separation systems, launch providers and many other components and sub-systems for smallsats, CubeSats and PocketQubes if you require additional help for your mission.
Click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each product. You can also submit a request for a quote, documentation or further information on each of the products listed or send us a more general query to discuss your specific needs, and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system that can meet your specifications.
NPC Spacemind’s SM structures are designed to be high-reliability CubeSat structures that suit a range of unit sizes. They have been designed for flexibility and to maximize performance in terms of available space, volume and mass. They are lightweight, feature a number of redundant switches, with respect to CDS guidelines, and are built using a flexible design and assembly concept.
The structures have also been specifically engineered to introduce the minimum number of design/interface constraints in order to allow the spacecraft designer to focus on the functional objectives. NPC Spacemind’s portfolio consists of the following products, with the number referring to the CubeSat unit size (U) of the satellite that the structure is suitable for:
EnduroSat manufactures a range of structures in several different CubeSat sizes that are designed to be easy to assemble and provide a robust and stable system for all stages of development and integration.
The structures are compatible with the CubeSat standard and feature integrated kill switches and separation springs. The systems are modular, enabling the top and bottom elements to be used for different form factors.
The 1U Cubesat structure – a 1U structure with minimalistic design. Can be converted to a 1.5U structure by changing only the leg elements.
The 1.5U Cubesat structure – a modular, 1.5U system compatible with various sub-systems and components.
The Cubesat 3U structure II – a 3U structure designed to provide a safe environment for payload and sub-system development and arrangement.
The Cubesat 6U structure – made up of 4 main element types (Bottom, Top, Side, and Ring). The Ring Elements are used to add rigidity to the structure where required. Their number and position depends on the internal configuration of the satellite’s subsytems and payload.
G.A.U.S.S. manufactures a range of both CubeSat and PocketQube size structure products for various satellite form factors. Alongside the hardware provided G.A.U.S.S. also offers support for design and FEM analysis for both standard and customized structures according to the client’s needs. Solutions are available for a variety of cases including; deployable systems, interfaces for structural tests and IOD/IOV platforms.
PocketQube products:
CubeSat products:
The MBF is a CubeSat structure manufactured from a single piece of space-grade material. The minimized construction and simple shape are designed to make testing and inspection easier at all stages of mission design. The lack of joints or bolted parts can also result in a reduction in vibrational effects during launch for a more secure structure.
Pumpkin manufactures a variety of structure products in modular format for different sized CubeSats. Two categories of frame component are available:
CubeSat chassis walls – Pumpkin offers a range of chassis walls in both solid and skeletonized formats. The products are designed to be light and strong, manufactured from space-grade materials and tested in a variety of settings. A chassis wall must be combined with a base plate assembly and a cover plate assembly in order to create a complete CubeSat Kit structure. The inidivual products are:
CubeSat plate assemblies – the base plate assembly forms one end of a CubeSat Kit™ structure – typically, the end with the Motherboard Module (MBM) C&DH sub-system – while the cover plate assembly forms the other end, which is typically the payload location. Both solid-wall and skeletonized versions are available. The individual products are:
The Pocketqube 1P Structure is a 50 x 50 x 50 mm structure with a skeletonized wall structure.
Designed to provide structure and housing for pico-satellite class PocketQubes, it weighs 0.069 kg, has a payload volume of 1.09e-4 m^3 and features an operating temperature range of 223—363 K.
Rigid unibody structure products for CubeSats. The products available are:
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a CubeSat structure, PocketQube structure, or structure of a different size for your specific needs please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>A satellite mission requires two forms of license – one for the space hardware and applications, and the other for the ground segment.
In this article we discuss some of the common challenges that can occur in the ground station licensing process and look at ways to overcome or mitigate each of them.
We have previously discussed the factors that need to be taken into account when deciding whether to set up a new ground station for your mission or to use an existing network.
One of the major considerations mentioned is the licensing process. Each space and ground segment that will be launched or operated as part of the mission requires proper licensing to govern the mission purpose, spectral band use and other requirements.
Proper licensing is one of the pillars of a successful mission and it requires a clear and professional approach in order to make sure the mission is compliant and not to cause any costly delays.
These are activities that Leaf Space’s regulatory unit manages for its own ground station operations, while it can also manage or provide guidance on the corresponding licensing work for its clients’ satellite missions.
Leaf Space simplifies ground segment licensing requirements by operating a network of existing stations that customers can access.
The regulatory aspects of a satellite mission can take more than two years to fully complete. It is a multi-stage process that will involve ongoing liaison with different regulators for the space and ground segments.
The process is typically overseen by in-house counsel, an employee with a legal background or a radio engineer with experience in regulatory matters. In addition, a third-party who is closely collaborated with on the mission coordinator’s behalf may also be contracted.
Many companies underestimate how long license acquisitions can take. If initiated too late in the mission planning process, when there isn’t enough time before launch to gain full compliance, there can be very disruptive and costly delays caused by re-scheduling.
Prepare early and you’ll put your mission in the best possible position. The licensing application process isn’t as daunting as it can seem; regulatory staff are very approachable and accessible, and regulatory procedures are quite standardised across countries and work well.
Timing is dictated by a few factors such as:
The latter point can often be the main cause of long licensing timelines. The ITU is a specialised agency of the United Nations (UN) in charge of the international coordination and regulation of communication and information technologies. It plays a fundamental role in mission authorisation procedures, though these do take time.
Following a successful application the ITU will assign your mission the radio spectrum as required, but this process can take two years to complete, though it can be shorter or longer. Though at the extreme end of the range, the ITU processes may take up to a maximum of seven years.
Although the ground segment licensing at the national level can be completed quicker (in Italy for example the process is expected to take around six months for this aspect), the space segment procedure before the ITU must reach a certain stage before the ground station license may be applied for; in particular, an API/A must be published and visible in the ITU’s records. The submission of the data necessary for the API/A and its subsequent publication represent the first major milestones in the space segment licensing process overall. Timing of licensing activities is therefore mainly dictated by ITU requirements.
Once these factors are taken into account it also helps to have local representation in order to make the ground segment license acquisition as seamless as possible. If licensing your ground segment in the country in which your company or staff are located, this is of course not a problem; when applying for licensing in a different country, it may in some cases be helpful to identify local support who can communicate on your behalf with regulatory staff.
Leaf Space’s Leaf Key service enables simplified compliance with stringent requirements for capacity, latency, data transfer paths and cost-effectiveness.
When taking a broad view of the topic, the regulatory frameworks for licensing across countries are relatively similar; they differ however in the details, so it is important to research and understand what the rules are in the territory in which you intend to operate.
The availability of information online about the licensing processes established in different countries can also vary – particularly concerning the base regulatory instruments that establish or influence the licensing framework and/or official guidance on navigating the application procedures.
All member states of the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) for example have quite in-depth and transparent information readily available online including the basic legislation, regulatory instruments, and regulatory guidance texts. It is possible to quickly identify and pull up the foundational legislation on which the regulatory telecommunications frameworks are based and understand how this applies to current licensing conditions.
In other countries, the information provided can sometimes be more opaque and difficult to access. As a starting point for those exploring the regulatory frameworks in certain countries the ITU has a list of notifying bodies in different countries available at this page.
It certainly helps if you can utilise local expertise or personnel in those countries in order to make the process simpler. Direct contacts and relationships will help address language barriers, smooth the process of providing hard copy forms and materials, ensure you abide by local customs and simplify country-specific financing and administration.
Engaging with national regulators can sometimes require more informal communications alongside the provision – through formalised procedures – of accurate paperwork and detailed specifications on mission requirements.
You may also benefit from contact with ancillary organisations. In the USA for example, a company wishing to begin operations in the S-band will need to first assess and discuss coordination matters with the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE). This is an organisation that, among other activities, operates a network of knowledgeable volunteers responsible for different regions of US states. If you want to propose new uplink activity in the S-band from US soil you need to liaise with the SBE coordinator for the region where you will operate. The coordinators are very helpful and will provide up-to-date advice.
It is very beneficial to have initial discussions with national regulators about your plans and requirements, and discuss any concerns or comments they may have, prior to actually submitting official applications. Such conversations are also very useful for setting a positive rapport. However, an understanding of local administrations and bureaucratic norms can be very important.
Leaf Space has developed relationships with regulatory authorities throughout the Europe region, including for example in Italy, Ireland, and Portugal, as well as in key countries at the global level including in the US, Canada, and New Zealand, and it continues to develop these relationships with each new ground station installation. The company also uses local teleport operators and often works with regulatory experts to ensure they can secure ground station licenses for operations in order to provide the best service for clients.
Once timescales and local requirements are understood, the next factor that can affect the licensing process is the scale and nature of the mission itself.
When a mission involves a single company launching one or multiple satellites in a constellation, and it owns its own ground segment in the same country in which the satellite is to be licensed, then the regulatory requirements are relatively simple to meet.
Yes the licensing process still takes time and will require your careful attention to make sure the paperwork is in order, but the basic requirements can be adhered to with relative ease.
However, the space industry is evolving and fragmenting. Launch and development costs are coming down and component and sub-system miniaturisation are allowing more collaborators on each mission. Missions can involve multiple parties and the mission elements can be licensed in multiple countries. This added organisational and operational complexity makes the licensing acquisition process itself more complicated.
Each stakeholder needs to take into account what elements of the ground segment they will operate in the mission in order to assess licensing requirements. It is also important that each collaborator understands what licenses the others will hold and what they will cover.
When multiple stakeholders are involved in a mission no individual actor would hold a license that covers the entire system. When different companies or actors are responsible for different elements, they will hold the license(s) for their respective elements’ communications. In such cases, all actors should provide in each of their own applications a global description of the mission operations including detailed explanations regarding the other parties and the mission elements for which they are responsible.
For both the earth and space segment licenses there are fees to be paid, which in some cases may also cover the initial processing of the application. License fees may be applied annually to maintain a license’s validity for the length of long-term operations or a fee may be issued once to cover a shorter mission period such as in the case of an experimental mission.
The actual licensing fee costs will vary depending on country, license type, and operational parameters including for example bandwidth used or the number of earth stations employed; by “type” we are referring to either a commercial license or an experimental license (note that these will have similar, but different names in different countries).
A long term commercial ground segment license can cost in European countries from approximately 2,000 to several thousand euros in total annually.
In the USA, the regulatory framework is a little more complex and the fees can be much higher for long term commercial licensing. In general, the license acquisition process in the US can take longer, while it can also be more procedurally intensive.
Licensing fees for ground stations have very strict payment deadlines, so ensure full financing is available in order to meet the stated deadlines for any payments due. However, as mentioned above, a less costly alternative to commercial licensing is to apply for experimental licensing, which is possible if certain qualifying conditions can be met.
It is often possible to acquire this shorter-term license format providing you can demonstrate the mission is experimental in nature, involves the demonstration of a new technology and/or features novel use of existing technology or techniques.
An experimental license is usually cheaper, faster and easier to acquire, particularly for the ground segment. Do note however that an experimental mission will fly on a strictly non-interference basis and will be required to cease operations if and as soon as interference is experienced by another established operator and the experimental mission licensee is made aware of it.
Commercial missions using mature technology would not qualify for an experimental license but in-orbit demonstration (IOD) services may be able to. For any particular mission, it is strongly advised to initially consult with the regulatory staff to determine if it qualifies for the scope and conditions of the experimental licensing programme.
It can be much quicker to secure an experimental license, however it is important to note that you will still need to abide by ITU guidelines which may take some time to comply with, so build this into your mission plans.
As you hopefully now appreciate, there is a clear distinction between the licensing of the space segment and the ground segment. If you are managing both from an operational perspective then there is a lot of work to coordinate, but it is achievable if you prepare early enough.
Ensure the schedules don’t conflict – the initial space segment licensing steps need to be taken first as this application is necessary for and informs the ground segment license paperwork.
Although the regulatory frameworks of different countries and the mission’s own requirements will affect the specific nature of the process, the following steps are applicable in most mission scenarios:
When it comes to licensing a ground station it pays to prepare as early as possible – just like every aspect of a space mission!
If your company is a small startup needing one ground segment system for a simple mission, space and ground segment license acquisition is both achievable and cost-effective. This is particularly true if you can qualify for an experimental license.
However, for more complex needs and for commercial enterprises that need to meet operational scale quickly, there are a lot of steps involved in the compliance.
Such missions and services will require a secure and developed network, a high revisit rate, and advanced data processing at those locations.
Leaf Space is an experienced ground station operator based in Italy founded in 2014, operating an established global ground station network featuring all of these capabilities and helping clients get to market at a lower cost.
The company has built a network of ground segment facilities that are offered to satellite operators on a ground-segment-as-a-service basis. Moreover, since its establishment Leaf Space has handled over 15 ground segment licensing efforts, thus helping secure the ground infrastructure for all clients involved, while also supporting the development of their overall mission capacities.
Given the potentially large investment of resources that must be made when developing and licensing a mission’s ground segment, such services can play a valuable role in helping a young satellite operator get to market faster and start producing revenue sooner.
Find out more about the company’s history, services and expertise here or if you would like to speak to Leaf Space about your specific ground segment requirements, you can contact them through their satsearch supplier page right here.
]]>However, building and launching a CubeSat still costs in the order of tens of thousands of dollars and may not be affordable for all stakeholders, especially those in developing countries.
So how may teams without the resources to build an entire CubeSat mission gain experience in the processes involved in realising a flight model?
The space community is trying to address this need by creating low cost simulators, educational kits, and open source software and hardware projects that can make space accessible and affordable to all.
In this article we have put together a short list of educational products, courses, services and software that might be beneficial to educators, amateur groups or other motivated individuals wishing to gain a greater understanding of small satellite missions.
In this section, you can find a range of educational solutions available around the world. These listings will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
Click on any of the links or images below to find out more about the systems. You can also submit a request for a quote, documentation or further information on each of the products listed, or send us a more general query to discuss your specific needs and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
ESAT is an educational satellite designed to offer high-quality, hands-on training in space engineering at all levels. Potential users range from elementary schools, where STEM skills development is pursued, to university engineering courses, all the way up to engineering companies. The system aims to offer a realistic satellite simulation experience suitable for a wide variety of education activities.
Kitsat is a Finnish company that manufactures an educational satellite based on the CubeSat form factor. The Kitsat is used by teams and universities all over the world to teach a wide range of engineering concepts.
The product includes a full suite of sensors and many of the sub-systems typically found in a satellite including the Electrical Power System (EPS), Attitude Determination System (ADS), On-Board Computer (OBC), radio module for telecommanding and telemetry, and payload instruments for autonomous observation.
It is also available in a 5-pack bundle for teams that require multiple systems and a session of classroom teaching is also available for further information.
The GEN 5 nanosatellite simulator is designed to teach the fundamentals of satellite systems engineering, in either the laboratory or the classroom. It features all of the major sub-systems of a spacecraft including power distribution, rechargeable batteries, a configurable solar array, ADCS, two actuator-reaction wheels, and magnetorquers.
It also has sun/yaw sensors, thermal, heat pipes, copper rods, heaters, and alternative materials for emissivity/absorptivity studies, along with data handling and GSE equipment ground station GUI. The kits also come with a user guide that can be used as the basis for course/curricula development or adapted as a lab manual.
Spaceport is a European space educational platform that offers a range of specialised training courses on real satellite systems, following user-specific requirements. The courses offered are:
The Rise of the Machine – on emerging topics in the fields of autonomous machines, satellite systems and spacecraft architecture, and the future of robotics.
Mission: The Traveler – a wide-ranging overview of fundamental space science topics. Answering questions such as, how does the Sun work and how big is the universe?
The Final Frontier – a discussion of how space technology works and is developed. Explaining how satellites stay in orbit and what it takes to fly a spacecraft?
Mission: Phoenix – an educational course exploring how it may be possible to sustain life in space. Discussing long distance journeys, in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and more.
Mission: Atlas – an exploration of space and technology entrepreneurship and how to turn visions into reality.
Explorer’s Guide to Space – an course on exploring the solar system and the future of space exploration missions – to Mars, the Moon, asteroids and beyond.
Red Space – an educational course focussing on Mars. Exploring building and engineering of structures, satellites, robots and entire space systems on the red planet.
The CubeSat Simulator is a low cost satellite emulator that runs on solar panels and batteries, and transmits UHF radio telemetry. It has a 3D-printed frame and can be extended through the addition of other sensors and modules. This project is sponsored by the not-for-profit Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation, AMSAT®.
For teams looking for an even simpler and more cost-effective solution the CubeSat Simulator Lite is available. In fact, those with access to a Raspberry Pi will have nothing to build and may just download the software and install an antenna on one of the GPIO pins in order to receive simulated telemetry on any FM radio.
A professional development curriculum developed by engineering professionals from the KSF Space Foundation. The course is designed for universities, startups and industry professionals. It includes details on how to build a mission (including policy regulations), develop a nanosat, and then operate and de-orbit the system once launched.
Fly Your Satellite! (FYS) is an educational programme whose main focus is the verification campaign of CubeSats built by university students – a phase with high learning value for the students. The programme was kicked off with the help of six CubeSat teams selected in June 2013 and offers students the opportunity to benefit from the transfer of technical competence and experience from ESA specialists. In addition, by teaching best practises for spacecraft design, development and verification, the programme aims at increasing CubeSats missions’ chances of success.
The FYS programme is structured in four phases, from the integration of the CubeSat Flight Model up to the operation of the satellite in space. During each phase CubeSats have to undergo expert reviews which need to be passed in order for the student teams to gain access to the following phase. In the current edition of the programme the four phases are all run under the supervision of space experts .
The Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in Asia and the Pacific (CSSTEAP) builds capacity in Asia Pacific countries in space science and technology, and their applications. It offers a variety of post graduate courses, that are recognised by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), and also conducts various shorter courses on different themes such as remote sensing and GIS, small satellite missions, and navigation and satellite positioning systems based on user requests. An overview of the courses is provided below:
HEPTA-Sat (Hands-on Education Program for Technical Advancement) is a hands-on study of small satellite design and engineering over several days of intensive practical lessons. The HEPTA-Sat hands-on course focuses on establishing the knowledge of systems engineering by going through the entire process of system integration.
The course is designed to teach students how the system is broken down into different sub-systems, how to integrate the sub-systems into a fully functioning craft, and how to test/debug it once it has been integrated. The program is supported by an instructor community and is open to interested parties from any educational or professional background.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying an educational product or service for your specific needs please click here to send us a query and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find the information you need.
Have you noticed that your company or prganisation isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>During this unprecedented time all over the world, a Chinese space company called Commsat (company website, English version available) has brought some good news to the sector. It recently announced the completion of Series B financing for an amount equivalent to approximately 33.7 million Euros.
This article introduces the company with a particular focus on its products. At the end of this article a brief introduction of Tianwen-1 (the China Mars mission in July 2020) and New Infrastructure (a national development project including space technology) is given. A more in-depth piece about Tianwen-1 is also planned – so please watch this space!
Since it was founded in 2015 Commsat has launched 8 satellites. The first set of satellites validated the platform and the system developed by the company. If all goes to plan Commsat intends to deploy more than 70 additional satellites by the end of 2020.
As shown in the following figure, Commsat’s commercial service supports properties, animals and heavy machinery tracking, marine activities, transportation, and emergency rescue among other applications. These services are provided to companies and organizations such as Sany Heavy Industry Co., CITIC discastal Co. and Bifengxia Panda Base.
Besides these core services Commsat also offers full satellite development in a one-stop-shop solution.
In the sections below we take a closer look at the product and service portfolio of Commsat.
This series consists of CubeSats in different sizes, 6U and 3U. Six CubeSats have been delivered and several key techniques, e.g. Internet of Things (IoT) and mass production, have been validated. The management software for these satellites is developed independently.
This series adopts the same platform as Ladybeetle with a cutting-edge communication technique that has been validated. Importantly, the capability of efficient mass production of low-cost satellites is proven in the development of these models. The satellites weigh approximately 100 kilograms.
This terminal enables atmospheric and marine environment monitoring, remote control, and the forecasting of natural hazards. A customized service is also available. A constellation of these satellites is currently planned which will provide a global service.
This device is designed for species reintroduction, grazing management or scientific research. In order to track and protect animals, it collects location information as well as temperature and moisture data. The 450 gram device could work effectively for 2 years.
China recently announced further details on its first Mars mission Tianwen-1, to be launched in July 2020. The probe has two modules: an orbiter and a lander. The lander carries a rover which is designed to stay for 3 months on Mars. More details will be disclosed in a future article.
In addition, a new venture called the ‘New infrastructure project’ has also been announced by the Chinese government. This programme will provide an investment of up to 34 trillion RMB (around 4.3 trillion Euros) into important emerging fields such as 5G, IoT and cloud computing.
In good news for the space industry, satellite internet is incorporated into the project and I expect commercial space to significantly benefit.
Thank you for reading, further discussion is welcome through LinkedIn or email: LUCIANLIU1990@gmail.com.
Originally published on LinkedIn here.
For more on the space industry in China take a look at Yuxin’s article on the Long March 5B mission here.
]]>The primary role of the satellite EPS is to supply other systems in the satellite with the necessary electrical power to operate effectively.
The source of the power is the energy collected from the solar panels which are exposed to direct solar radiation or to indirect radiation from albedo.
Batteries are installed alongside the solar panels to store energy which can then be used when the satellite regularly passes through the shadow of the Earth. Batteries can also help to provide sufficient power during periods of peak demand by the payload on-board the satellite.
The collected and stored power must then be distributed to other systems throughout the satellite as needed by the EPS.
The satellite itself may need multiple voltage levels for different sensors and sub-systems. Managing these levels is another function of the system; the satellite EPS houses a power conditioning unit which is able to deliver the required amount of electrical power at several voltages.
It also plays an important role in monitoring spacecraft status.
The health of the satellite needs to be checked regularly to make sure that there are no major problems in any sub-system during its operations in orbit.
Collecting routine information from various sub-systems and sensors is also a core function of the EPS. This involves measuring various important voltages, currents, and temperatures which are called the “Housekeeping Parameters.”
These are communicated back to the ground as a part of the telemetry of the satellite for operators to keep track of the overall health of their system and guard against potential faults or poor performance.
The high levels of radiation in space can cause ”single event latch-up” in the semiconductor devices on the satellite.
This can damage some of the components on the satellite if the power is not turned off quickly enough, so the EPS is also required to protect the satellite and its sub-systems against over-currents.
There are certain electrical requirements that are recommended for the standard CubeSat form factor which EPSs should adhere to:
More information on these recommendations can be found in this paper on CubeSat Design Specifications [PDF].
In this section, you can explore Electrical Power Systems available on the global market. These listings will be updated when new satellite EPS products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
We have also put together an overview of CubeSat solar panels if you need additional power components to complete your satellite and an overview of on-board computers should you require ancillary control systems.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the products. You can also submit a request for information (RFI) on the product pages or send us a general query using our RFI tool to discuss your specific needs, and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
Please note that this overview primarily includes integrated EPS products which typically contain the following:
We will go into more detail on those components and modules that are commercially available in future overview articles.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
The NPC Spacemind GEMINI-Cubesat EPS is an electrical power system (EPS) for CubeSats, with a mass of 300g. It features 12 MPPT inputs and 6 independent channels along with up to 4 controllable 3.3V outputs and 4 controllable 5V outputs.
The EPS is PC104-compatible and features a battery safety system with over-current, over-charge, and over-discharge protection. It also includes a configurable charge and discharge mode as well as a configurable programmable outputs mode.
The Redwire Modular Array for the Direct Distribution of Integrated Energy (MADDIE) Electrical Space Power System is based on a modular architecture and integrates the PV, charge controllers, and battery pack components into a single standardized EPS module, minimizing NRE and lead time while simplifying AIT.
The system uses standardized and flight-qualified EPS modules in series and parallel combinations, enabling a high level of customization for a wide variety of spacecraft and applications. MADDIE is designed for operation from 300 km to 1000 km orbital altitude, has a mass of 156 g, and a mission lifetime of 5 years.
Ibeos manufactures three EPS modules to suit a variety of satellite sizes and mission requirements:
The 14V SmallSat Electric Power System (EPS) is a radiation-tolerant, flexible peak power tracking solution capable of efficient solar array power conversion and battery charging. The EPS card provides regulated 3.3-Volt, 5-Volt, and 12-Volt power, as well as unregulated battery power through switched and un-switched, current-limited outputs.
The 28V SmallSat Electric Power System (EPS) features a 200-Watt S/A input peak power tracker, 3.3-Volt, 5-Volt and 12-Volt outputs, and power distribution functions. It is radiation-tolerant by design and includes I2C and SPI command, control, and data handling interfaces, as well as two-fault tolerant spacecraft inhibits, and a spacecraft watchdog.
The Modular Power System is a customizable full power subsystem for spacecraft. It is suitable for missions that range from 200 W to 2.5 kW of power and delivers the functions of a full electrical power subsystem. The system includes solar array peak power tracking and conversion, battery charge regulation, low voltage regulated buses, and fault-protected power distribution switches.
Bradford Space / Deep Space Industries Nova PCDU is a power conditioning and distribution unit that has been specifically designed for spacecraft travelling beyond Earth’s orbit. It is characterized by a high specific performance with 2 independent 100W regulated lines, a 5—50V bus, solar array MPPT and battery management. The product also features 10 fully protected and telemetered output channels operating at up to 150W each that enable high-power sub-systems such as electrical propulsion or rover drive systems.
EPS – Power Module (Incl. Battery Pack) – designed to offer an efficient, high-power EPS solution that supports a wide range of outputs. The system is compliant with the CubeSat standard and has flight heritage, including ISS-level requirements.
EPS – Power Module I PLUS (incl. 2X Battery packs) – a CubeSat compliant system with twice the battery power of the EPS I. The system supports a range of outputs and has flight heritage.
Power Module Type II incl Battery Pack – built to support payloads with high power requirements; the EPS has multiple outputs and is compliant with the CubeSat standard.
Terma manufactures a wide array of EPS systems and associated products to meet different mission and application needs. The portfolio consists of various modules and ancillary sub-systems to deal with different aspects of the EPS function – a selection of products are detailed below and you can see the full portfolio here:
The Modular Medium Power Unit – A power unit designed for observation, navigation, science or low power communication spacecrafts. The design concept was qualified by it first application in Rosetta and has been reused in Mars Express, Venus Express, Galileo and Small Geo.
The Array Power Regulation Module – The APR module consists of a power regulator function supported by a Maximum Power Point Tracker capability. The design is targeted at any type of solar array technology.
The Battery C/D Regulation Module – the BCDR module consists of two power regulators, a Battery Charge Regulator (BCR) and a Battery Discharge Regulator (BDR). The design is targeted at Li-Ion battery systems, for systems requiring a regulated 28V power bus.
The Battery Discharge Regulator Module – For systems requiring a regulated 50 volt power bus a unique Battery Discharge Regulator (BDR) module can be provided. The BDR module consists of a power regulator and a cell balancing function. The design is targeted at Li-Ion battery systems. On demand the BDR provides a regulated discharge power to the bus until the battery End Of Discharge (EOD) voltage is reached.
The Equipment Power Distribution Module – For distribution of bus power to spacecraft equipment an Equipment Power Distribution (EPD) Module is available. The module provides sixteen Latching Current Limiters (LCL) that can be configured to individual load current classes. Each switch function can be commanded on / off via a dual command and monitoring bus, distributed by a backplane interface.
Starbuck Mini – a modular microsatellite PCDU (Power Conditioning and Distribution Unit) concept with focus on high reliability, resiliency and performance. The Starbuck Mini is scalable depending on the features and interface requirements of the specific mission. It provides high power 28V output and redundancy for power distribution as well as command and control via CAN or RS485.
Starbuck Nano – powerful electrical power systems that support platform sizes from 1U up to 12U, optimized for Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Each of the power systems are specialized for platform and solar panel size. The Starbuck-Nano range can support both body mounted as well as deployable solar panel configurations and supports Lithium Polymer Battery configurations.
Starbuck Micro – initially developed under a Swedish national mission and tailored to the requirements of the LEO microsatellite bus InnoSat. This is a state-of-the-art spacecraft architecture designed for innovative low cost research missions. The flexible and modular PCDU is designed for mission life of up to five years in LEO and implements both power conditioning and distribution of the regulated 28V battery bus as well an auxiliary isolated 5V bus.
The iEPS Electrical Power System is an off-the-shelf Electrical Power System available in three standard configurations (Type A/B/C), ideal for powering 1U – 3U Cubesats. It leverages wide bandgap semiconductor technologies, implementing GaN-FETs to improve solar power conversion efficiency and performance. The product is also equipped with an integrated heater, hardware-based Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) and hardware voltage and over-current protection.
The Modular Electrical Power System is designed as a flexible EPS targeting larger nano-satellites and microsatellites from 3U upwards. Using recent high-performance technology, the EPS provides improved efficiency over the previous version while minimizing EMI. The modular architecture allows the EPS to be tailored to the needs of the platform without needing customization.
The Nova PCDU is just 300g and fits in a 0.4U package. Due to the system’s modular and stackable connector it can be expanded to add new features and is scalable to increase performance according to the need of spacecraft. If needed, modules may also be duplicated to provide full dual-string redundancy – all without additional NRE.
The n-ART EPS is a power management board for use on CubeSats, MicroSats, and other non-standard spacecraft. n-ART EPS manages all the conversion and distribution processes of useable electrical energy generated by solar panels to charge batteries and supply satellite subsystems. Super capacitors provide high life cycle and robust thermal operating envelopes.
The n-ART EPS has different options for development and flight models. The system’s components used on the system are selected from previous missions and/or thoroughly TVAC tested to ensure high performance and reliability on orbit.
The Aphelion Cubesat Bus Module is an integrated electrical power system and on-board computer (OBC) solution designed for mission-critical, volume-constrained environments. By consolidating both the OBC and the EPS into a single integrated unit the system aims to offer mass and volume savings while simplifying system design.
The SkyLabs NANOeps-158W is an electric power system with scalable battery pack capacity of upto 158W suitable for nano and microsatellites. NANOeps is the second-generation flight proven system. The system is designed to be one of the most advanced EPS systems on the market due to the integration of battery management module with integrated battery pack and power control and distribution unit.
A power supply module designed for micro/nano/Cube satellite platforms. The EPS derives its input power from two solar panels and consists of a solar panel interface, battery interface, battery charge/discharge regulator, voltage regulators and distribution electronics. The EPS generates power by means of solar cells and stores the energy in batteries, regulates the battery voltage and distributes it to the load.
The main function of the EPS is to keep the satellite powered during the eclipse period and maintain the battery in charged condition during the sunlit period. It manages the load along with the Power Distribution Module (PDM) by powering ON/OFF the on-board electronic systems to avoid unnecessary power consumption during the satellite’s normal operation.
The linear EPS provides regulated +5V and +3.3V power and unregulated battery power (6 – 8.2Vdc) to modules compatible with the CubeSat Kit Bus from two (normal-capacity configuration) or four (high-capacity configuration) 3.7V Li-Po cells.
Each cell is a standard 1st- and 2nd-generation iPodÆ battery. Each battery consists of two cells, operated in series when discharging (i.e. supplying power to the CubeSat Kit bus) and in parallel when charging. Up to two batteries can be operated in parallel and non-latching relays are used to switch the cells between the series and parallel configurations. Two independent battery chargers each charge one cell (normal-capacity configuration) or two parallel-connected cells (high-capacity configuration) when operating in the charging mode.
A highly integrated device to control the power supply of a small satellite’s sub-systems. The VPCDU incorporates interfaces to solar arrays and batteries, and power outlets to the satellite’s sub-systems. It also features functionalities for separation detection micro switches, under voltage lookout, battery handling and power conditioning.
The power outlets that connect to the satellite’s sub-systems are equipped with resettable electronic fuses to prevent the system from damage in case of an overload or the malfunction of external devices. Most of the internal functions are controlled by a microprocessor unit in redundant configuration.
Magellan has developed power supplies for more than 120 sub-orbital payloads since the early 1970s. The modular “by the slice” architecture of Magellan PCUs allows customers to select the mission-specific functionality and level of redundancy (single- or dual-string) required. This enables the optimization of mass, power, and volume. Magellan offers flexible and high-reliability PCU solutions for many different mission requirements, from government flagship-class spacecraft to commercial megaconstellations.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying a satellite EPS for your specific needs, you can file a request on our platform and we’ll use our extended global networks of suppliers to find you some options.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>China launched the Long March 5B rocket at Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site at 18:00 on the 5th May 2020. For international space engineers this article aims to give a brief introduction to some of the technical details of the mission. I hope this is helpful to the English-speaking global space community. Highlights:
The Long March 5B rocket (CZ 5B, CZ is short for the Chinese Name ChangZheng) is a new model based on Long March 5 (CZ 5) which was previously launched in December 2019. The major difference between these two types is the number of core stages:
As shown in the above table, CZ 5B removes the 2nd core stage because it focuses on LEO missions, such as the Chinese Space Station (expected to be completed by 2022).
Each stage or booster consists of two engines. Instead of using dinitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, the CZ 5 system uses liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen for the 1st stage, kerosene and liquid oxygen for the boosters. This is environmentally-friendly and creates a higher Specific Impulse of 300~310 s.
The CZ 5B is shorter because using less stages but has a larger payload fairing (von Kármán ogive composite).
The new crew capsule made a successful return on the 8th May. The following 2 minute video shows the process of re-entry and landing (to remove commentary subtitles floating across the screen, please tick off ‘弹’):
The capsule stayed in the orbit for 67 hours. In order to test the thermal protection, the highest apoapsis reaches 8,000 km and the re-entry speed hits 9 km/s.
The new capsule uses two modules: service and re-entry. A previous Shenzhou spacecraft has three modules: service, orbiter, and re-entry. The new capsule has a room for 6~7 astronauts, while Shenzhou has room for 3. The advantage of the new capsule is that it has a maximum of 10 times re-use.
The designed lifetime is extended to 3 years so that it may stand by the space station. Two types with weights of 14t and 21.6t are designed for the space station and deep space missions, respectively.
The capsule employed a new approach to landing: three parachutes were deployed at 8 km successively for speed reduction and airbags pumped at 2 km to cushion the impact of landing.
Wenchang is the fourth launch site in China, the previous three are Jiuquan, Taiyuan and Xichang (sorted by latitude from high to low).
Wenchang has the lowest latitude of about 19 degrees. The site is located along the shoreline of Hainan island which means that transportation of the rockets can be carried out via shipping. The diameter of previous modules was limited by the necessity for railway transit.
Thank you for reading, further discussion is welcome through LinkedIn or email: LUCIANLIU1990@gmail.com.
]]>Space system architectures are inherently complicated due to the various segments, stakeholders and subsystems involved. It has been proven that changes to the architecture later in the design lifecycle are costly to implement, so informed decisions must be made early in order to select an optimal system architecture.
Furthermore, there exists no standard for guiding the optimal architecting process of a small satellite, which results in a sub-optimal management of resources and risk. Agile missions, such as CubeSat projects undertaken at universities and space startups, are characterised by their use of COTS components to achieve low-cost and fast-delivery missions, with a minimal focus on optimising the architecture to improve reliability and mitigate development risk.
A trade study provides a framework for understanding the differences between alternative designs in a project and allows for “informed and upfront decisions” early in the design lifecycle. These alternatives can be evaluated in terms of Measures of Performance (MOPs) and system lifecycle costs.
The NASA Systems Engineering Handbook describes trade studies as one of the final stages of the system design process after the functional requirements have been composed and alternate architectures have been produced. It recommends the use of quantitative models in these trade studies that consider the entire mission lifecycle, as well as selection criteria that consider constraining factors such as cost, development time, risk and reliability.
As part of my Bachelor’s thesis I implemented a quantitative tradespace model to assess low-level system architectures. I then applied this to a real-world university project to generate tangible results in optimising a pseudo-satellite bus that I was architecting within the team.
This was carried out in the following four stages:
In the first step, the key attributes used to score the system will be identified. They will then be ranked, and a weighting assigned to each with the sum of all weights equal to 1. It is crucial to note that all attributes must be quantifiable in some way to be used in this model.
Development time was a critical constraint on the project and was therefore ranked highest, as seen in the image below:
In this step, threshold values for attributes are determined which are the bare minimum performances that an architecture needs to achieve, and objective values are the desirable performance levels. It can be seen that this step is valuable in defining the MOPs for the system:
This step involves researching available alternatives for each design vector (i.e. OBC, communications and power) as seen in the image below. The satsearch platform would be instrumental to quickly find alternatives for any required satellite subsystem or category, with detailed datasheets easily available to extract relevant parameters for analysis within the trade study:
This stage involves multiple calculation steps, detailed in my thesis, resulting in a ranked list of design alternatives based on a ‘value engineering’ equation which factors in critical criteria as well as individual weighted scores, referred to as Overall Measure of Effectiveness (‘OMOE).
Various value equations can be formulated to assess alternatives against different critical criteria, as shown in the table below. For example, some rankings are minimised with a desired low score, such as ‘Months/OMOE/Density’ while others are maximised with a desired high score such as ‘OMOE/$/Month’.
In summary, I have implemented a tool to bring the design rigour found in large engineering projects down to small and agile projects such as university CubeSats. If you would like to know more about my tradespace analysis tool, feel free to reach out to me via LinkedIn.
]]>The Earth-space communication link is critical to every satellite mission and operational capability.
Various options for communication equipment are available and we have written about some of them on our blog including X-band transmitters, S-band transmitters and optical communication systems.
In this article, we discuss the S-band and use of antennas in satellite communication, as well as presenting a variety of commercially-available products from around the world.
The S-band is a section of the microwave band of the electromagnetic spectrum that covers frequencies in the range 2 to 4 gigahertz (GHz).
It is officially designated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and crosses the conventional boundary between the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Super High Frequency (SHF) bands at 3.0 GHz.
In 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US approved satellite-based Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) broadcasting in the S-band from 2.31 to 2.36 GHz in 1995. This range is currently used by Sirius XM Radio.
The S-band has also been heavily employed by NASA to communicate with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS).
The FCC has also approved the use of sections of the S-band between 2.0 and 2.2 GHz for the creation of Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) networks.
In 2009, the European Commission (EC) awarded portions of the S-band to Inmarsat and Solaris Mobile (a joint venture between Eutelsat and SES, now EchoStar Mobile) to develop pan-European MSS services.
The S-band is also popular for smaller satellites, as it is simpler to use than UHF/VHF bands from a regulatory standpoint.
In order for ground stations to communicate effectively with spacecraft in orbit, satellites need effective and accurate antennas.
S-band antennas can be mounted on different parts of the spacecraft, depending on the application and communications preferences of the mission.
The devices are often treated to avoid electrostatic discharge (ESD) effects, which can damage or destroy the antenna due to solar flux. This is particularly an issue for polar orbits, even at low orbit.
Wideband antenna designs enable engineers to define the desired range and order of operating frequencies at a later stage, unlike patch antennas, as they aren’t dependent on a pre-defined, narrower frequency allocation.
When selecting the right S-band antenna for your equipment and mission, there are several key criteria that should be taken into account.
We recommend a simple 4-step approach for the preliminary selection of an S-band antenna for your mission, as explained below:
Key performance criteria for S-band antennas include specifications such as:
In this section, you can explore S-band antennas available on the global marketplace for space.
This list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
We also have market segment overviews of S-band transmitters and X-band transmitters if you are looking for a transmission solution too.
In addition, if you are looking to pair your selected antenna with the right ground segment option for your mission requirements we have also published an overview of ground station service providers.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the solutions. You can also submit a request for information (RFI) on the product pages or send us a general query using our RFI tool to discuss your specific needs, and we will tap into our global network of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
Thanks for reading! If you would like further help identifying an S-band antenna for your specific needs, you can file a request on our platform and we’ll tap into our global network of suppliers to help you pinpoint the right choice.
Noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>In the late 90s CubeSats were a very new form factor system for the launch vehicles serving the market. Unlike larger spacecraft, which have their own adaptors to mount on launch vehicles, CubeSats have a very small volume with little room available for mounting equipment.
The CubeSat development community had to come up with new ideas to maintain the safety of the launch vehicle as well as ensure that the satellite would be delivered to space.
This led to the creation of standardized separation systems for CubeSats in the form of canisterised dispensers called Picosatellite Orbital Deployers (PODs).
PODs act as simple deployers or dispensers and allow the separation of multiple secondary payloads from a launch vehicle. The standardization of CubeSats themselves also led to the adoption of a standardized deployment system which could be factored into all new CubeSat mission development.
In addition, with the evolution of form factors within the CubeSat standard, there are now different sized PODs in use, such as 3U, 6U, 12U and 16U launch separation systems.
The separation systems essentially minimize the risks for the primary payload and for the launch vehicle.
CubeSats are ejected from the piggy-back PODs after reaching the relevant orbital altitude. The common form factor and standardized weight of the CubeSats is necessary to ensure that they are properly integrated into the CubeSat deployer without requiring customization or hindering its effective operation.
PODs feature spring plungers that act as simple mechanisms which provide a basic push to the CubeSats once the doors on the PODs are open on orbit.
Deployment switches are used to ensure that all CubeSats are inactive during launch and pre-launch activities.
In the section below you can see an overview of several launch separation systems available on the global market that can be used by CubeSat and small satellite developers to put their systems into orbit.
This list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
If it is a more general launch option that you are looking for then please note that we have also previously published an overview of launch service providers for CubeSats and smallsats.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the solutions and can submit a request for information (RFI) on the pages that open or send us a general query using our RFI tool to discuss your specific needs and we will use our global network of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
EXOpods are designed to ensure easy integration, safe transportation and reliable separation of Cubesats. In the basic configuration the 12U EXOpod can feature up to 4 separation slots, each the size of a 3U Cubesat. This way one deployer can carry up to four Cubesats. Special adaptors can be used to load 1U and 2U Cubesats in a 3U slot. Individual slots can be connected allowing a 12U EXOpod to carry two 6U or one 12U Cubesat. The 16U version of the EXOpod can accommodate two 6U XL, two 8U or one 16U Cubesats respectively. It is made in Germany and is not subject to export restrictions.
The Canisterized Satellite Dispenser (CSD) is designed to be a reliable, testable, and cost-effective deployment mechanism for small secondary or tertiary payloads. It fully encapsulates the payload during launch and thus provides mission assurance for both the primary payload and launch vehicle. All material in the primary load path is Table I for stress corrosion cracking. All external surfaces are electrically conductive chem-film aluminium alloy.
The CSD is easy to use and operate. The act of closing its door automatically preloads the payload tabs. There are no pyrotechnics. The door initiator is a DC brush motor with substantial flight heritage. The CSD can be cycled in a matter of seconds without consumables. The motor is a high torque transducer and provides valuable feedback to the health of the mechanism by monitoring voltage and current during each operation. The CSD has unique features that allow mounting to any face. This reduces the necessity for heavy interface structures and allows the CSDs to be densely packaged on the launch vehicle.
The XPOD Separation System was developed for nanosatellites and small microsatellites. The XPOD is an enclosed “jack-in-the-box” container for separating nanosatellites from virtually any launch vehicle. Various models are available, including models compatible with the CalPoly CubeSat standard. Once a deployment signal is received from the launch vehicle, a power supply inside the XPOD activates a release mechanism causing a door to open and the spacecraft to be ejected.
The XPOD implements a single-failure fail-operational design, and is customizable for spacecraft up to 16kg with arbitrary dimensions. Also available are semi-enclosed (or “open concept”) designs that accommodate fixed appendages. XPODs come in various standard models – the XPOD Single, XPOD Triple, and XPOD GNB models are pictured above.
The QuadPack, DuoPack and ISIPOD deployers are very well-known and some of the most flown CubeSat launch adaptors in the world. Developed by ISIS – Innovative Solutions In Space to accommodate CubeSats on-board a large variety of launch vehicles, through ISIS’ turn-key ISILaunch Services, or with tailored integration support.
The QuadPack and ISIPOD deployer product lines can accommodate any type of CubeSat or nanosatellite, from 1U, 2U, 3U, 6U up to 12U and 16U, while custom formats and volumes can be quickly realized. Each ISIS deployer provides simple, well-defined interfaces for CubeSats internally and the launch vehicle externally, with an optimized balance between internal versus external volume and payload versus deployer mass. All ISIS deployers are fully qualified with flight heritage on 6 different launch vehicles so far.
The PicoSatellite Launcher (PSL) family is designed to ensure the safety of the CubeSat and to protect the launch vehicle (LV), the primary payload and the other satellites to be launched. After the safe transportation of the device into the relevant orbit, a deployment with a high reliability and a low spin rate is achieved using patented design principles. Following successful deployment, a telemetry signal is available for the launch provider.
The family of CubeSat Deployers consists of the Single Picosatellite Launcher (SPL), the Double Picosatellite Launcher (DPL) and the Triple Picosatellite Launcher (TPL). The SPL is used to deploy one 1U CubeSat. The DPL is used to deploy one 2U CubeSat or two 1U CubeSats etc. The product line relies on a modular and redundant design approach with focus on high reliability of the chosen space proven parts and principles.
The Nanoracks CubeSat Deployer (NRCSD) is a self-contained CubeSat deployer system that mechanically and electrically isolates CubeSats from the ISS, cargo resupply vehicles, and ISS crew. The NRCSD design is compliant with NASA ISS flight safety requirements and is space qualified.
The NRCSD is a rectangular tube that consists of anodized aluminium plates, base plate assembly, access panels, and deployer doors. The NRCSD deployer doors are located on the forward end, the base plate assembly is located on the aft end, and access panels are provided on the top. The inside walls of the NRCSD are a smooth bore design to minimize and/or preclude hang-up or jamming of CubeSat appendages during deployment, should these become released prematurely. However, deployable systems shall be designed such that there is no intentional contact with the inside walls of the NRCSD.
For a deployment, the platform is moved outside via the Kibo Module’s Airlock and slide table that allows the Japanese Experimental Module Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS) to move the deployers to the correct orientation for the satellite release and also provides command and control to the deployers. Each NRCSD is capable of holding six CubeSat Units – allowing it to launch 1U, 2U, 3U, 4U, 5U, and 6U (2×3 and 1×6) CubeSats.
The GPOD is available in 1U, 2U, 3U, 3U+ and customized versions. The triple unit (3U) GPOD may be used both for dedicated 3U CubeSat launches and shared CubeSat launches consisting of a combination of smaller-sized CubeSats. Example combinations are: 3x1U, 2×1.5U, 1U+2U and 3U or 3U+.
The system features accessible panels – all the side panels of the GPOD deployer allow the access to the integrated CubeSat. This means that the whole area between the guide rails over the entire CubeSat length may be freely accessed. The door of the GPOD is also equipped with a round open area to access the top of the satellite. In case of a 3U CubeSat in a UniSat Platform-Satellite mission, this top access zone may be used to power the CubeSat until the integration of the UniSat satellite inside the rocket.
Antrix Corporation’s portfolio features non-pyro dispensers for nano satellites. In the launch separation systems the satellite is kept inside a rectangular structure and locked by a swinging door. The systems also feature a redundant heating element for wire fusing mechanism to initiate the separation and helical spring to jettison the satellite. Micro switches to monitor the door opening and reed switch to confirm satellite ejection are also included. Three models are available:
– INLS 1U – for 1kg class nano satellites
– INLS 2U – for 2kg class nano satellites
– INLS 3U – for 3kg class nano satellites
A number of different-sized Albapod systems are available which can deploy up to 96p of PocketQubes (e.g. for constellation development). Suitable for 1p, 1.5p, 2p or 3p PocketQube format satellites the deployer has a 10mm envelope for larger deployables and antennas and is compatible with MR-FOD style PocketQubes.
Tabbed systems reduce contact points from four to two and the deployment system can be integrated onto any launch vehicle. The Albapod v2 is spaceflight proven as part of Alba Cluster 2 (Rocketlab Electron launch vehicle) and the company is now actively working with customers to launch clusters for different mission requirements.
In order to separate microsatellite-sized objects in space a variety of technical solutions are employed. The two main systems are compressed spring pushers and pyrotechnic separators.
Pyrotechnics can be hazardous and are non-reusable, though they require very little input energy and are low in weight. They are sometimes deployed as explosive bolts to decouple objects where they can provide almost instant force with a very small amount of input energy.
Systems that incorporate pyrotechnics come with the risk of creating space debris, which is an important and growing consideration for space engineers in all application areas and orbits.
They can also generate shock waves of high frequency and magnitude that can cause damage to sensitive components.
In order to avoid these issues various alternative systems have been developed that are designed to be used on different launch vehicles, where they can provide separative force that can be rapidly deployed while minimising shock.
Here are some suppliers of microsatellite launch separation systems available on the global marketplace:
CarboNIX is a family of separation systems for small satellites, it was fully qualified in space in 2019. CarboNIX uses a unique shock-free technology to reduce the risk of damaging sensitive satellite optical payloads and electronic components.
CarboNIX’s unique spring pusher system separates the satellite before the shocks are generated. This means that all shock forces can only reach the spacecraft by travelling through the linkages, and since shock forces are attenuated by joints and distance, the shock loads that reach the spacecraft are much reduced. In addition, the mechanical linkage system has a separation action up to 7 times longer than competing systems, providing the spacecraft a much gentler separation experience. All these features make CarboNIX one of the lowest-shock separation systems available.
CarboNIX is cluster-compatible and can be adapted to any launch vehicle. It is made in Germany and is not subject to export restrictions.
The ISIS Micro Satellite Separation System (M3S) is a three-point microsatellite launch adaptor, suitable for a wide range of satellite configurations and sizes. Based on an innovative hold-down and release mechanism design, and building on ISIS’s heritage of its satellite launch adaptor family, this system offers a cost-effective solution for the launch of microsatellites as either a primary or secondary payload. Not limited to any size, the M3S system is designed to adapt to the satellite and to the needs of the customer.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying a launch separation system for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>SATLANTIS MICROSATS is a Spanish company whose core product iSIM-170 (integrated Standard Imager for Microsatellites) will be launched to International Space Station (ISS) on May 21 2020 (this is the currently planned launch schedule as of 12/5) from Tanegashima Space Center, in Japan, via HTV-9.
Once on the ISS, iSIM will be installed on the IVA-Replaceable Small Exposed Experiment Platform (i-SEEP), which is the external experiment platform of the Japanese Experiment Module Kibo, and start its In-Orbit Demonstration (IOD). The mission will start in the summer of 2020 and it will make iSIM gain heritage and increase its current Technology Readiness Level (TRL).
This article features the iSIM demonstration mission operated by SATLANTIS and the Tokyo-based startup Space BD who provides this one-stop IOD service using ISS, focusing on the potential use of this IOD platform i-SEEP.
SATLANTIS was originally founded in Florida (US) in 2013 and then established its HQ in Bilbao (ES) in 2014. The company is specialized in developing very high-resolution Earth Observation optical payloads for small satellites and it is built upon an expertise in the areas of Astrophysics, Space Engineering, and Business.
The core technology is iSIM: a line of high-resolution, innovative, and cost-effective imagers for Microsatellites and CubeSats. The design combines class leading performance, via the utilization of cutting-edge technologies, to significantly reduce build times and provide a new level of affordability. This approach provides industries and governments with the ability to acquire and access unparalleled high-resolution data.
i-SEEP is a very easy and efficient IOD platform by leveraging the safe and stable capability of ISS. Users can utilize the power and communication systems of the ISS, thus, they can run the missions without preparing the bus section or applying for frequency permission.
i-SEEP has the potential to be used in various ways. In the past, JAXA researched a new material by exposing it to harsh space environments. As its flexibility in terms of size and setting requirements, it can also be used for astronomical missions.
This time, SATLANTIS utilizes i-SEEP for the demonstration of the payload functionalities and performance. The payload is positioned facing towards Earth and instructed to take images at pre-determined intervals. The data collected is then processed onboard and downloaded through the ISS lines of communications.
Furthermore, people expect that i-SEEP can be used from scientific uses including earth and deep space observations to commercial uses including making space-related products like toys and accessories, advertisement, etc.
Utilizing the proven and effective technology of the JAXA i-SEEP, as the platform for the integration of the SATLANTIS iSIM, has led to a significant reduction in the costs and development times, when compared to the more conventional forms of in orbit demonstration missions.
Says Stuart Davis, Senior Space Engineer at SATLANTIS.
JAXA has started the transformation of various services by its space assets to private companies since 2018 to promote commercialization, especially in the Low Earth Orbit. Following this initiative, Space BD was selected by JAXA as the official service provider in three areas, i-SEEP utilization, SmallSatellite deployment from the ISS, and piggyback launch of SmallSatellites with the Japanese next-generation launch vehicle H3.
So far, Space BD has a total of 25 service agreements in those areas and is providing one-stop integration support to launch their customers’ payload.
Utilizing JAXA’s proven and reliable existing assets makes everyone have easier access to space. Specifically, the success rate of the HII-B rocket carrying the HTV has been 100% (see Mitsubishi Heavy Industry data). Besides, the payloads are packed with cushions when they are launched to the ISS, which makes the vibration requirement very low.
One of the missions of Space BD is to open Japanese existing space assets services to the global market. With our expert engineers, we take a very hands-on approach in the integration process such as the support for safety assessment review to make access to space easier.
Says, Mac Kanazawa, Director General, Satellite Launch Services, Space BD.
The launch of iSIM from Tanegashima on May 21 is symbolising the movement of ISS commercialization. We hope that many players will utilize the ISS as the testbed to accelerate commercialization in space.
]]>Communication is key to the success of any space mission. Establishing and maintaining the right communication systems throughout the lifecycle of a satellite operation begins with Launch and Early Operations (LEOP).
LEOP allows engineers to check the health of the satellite as it enters orbit; stabilising it and running health and safety checks to be able to then commission the payload on-board. The routine operations of a satellite involve collecting its health status through telemetry and collecting the payload data (e.g. in case of a camera, the scenes previously captured and stored onboard of the satellite are downloaded). Teams can also fix bugs on-board the satellite and update software by uploading new code and patches.
Communications are established through ground stations that are installed in fixed locations on Earth. These ground stations may operate in different bands within the electromagnetic spectrum such as UHF/VHF, S-band, X-band, etc.
One of the key challenges for teams building satellites is to make a decision to either invest in building their own ground station or to subscribe to a service that allows them access to an established ground station network.
In the rest of this article we take a look at the key factors that need to be considered when weighing up whether to install your own ground station or subscribe to a ground station network.
Ground stations work on line of sight which means that location is one of its most important features. The location of your ground station against the orbit of the satellite will ultimately determine how frequently you can contact that satellite and how long each of these contacts can be.
For example, if you have a ground station located in the North pole and have a polar low earth orbit (LEO) satellite at 600km, you will have up to 15 passes for communication and each contact may last up to 20 minutes.
Having a single ground station somewhere on the equator for a polar LEO satellite might limit your contact to only 3-4 passes maximum, with contact durations ranging from a few minutes to about 15 minutes.
As Taylor Silvio Dorigatti, Business Developer & Sales Engineer at Leaf Space, explains;
A peculiar issue to point out for the polar ground station example is that although you will have one pass per orbit, the polar region is highly congested with other satellites placed in polar or near-polar orbit.
These satellites’ orbits all intersect above the polar regions, and predictably generate an area of higher interference with respect to a ground station operating in mid-inclination or equatorial regions.
In addition, infrastructure placed in polar regions tends to have higher operational costs due to the limited real estate availability and harsh environmental conditions, compared to mid-latitude sites.
Your operations base may often be restricted to a certain city or town and establishing a ground station at your facility will have implications on the time and frequency of your contact. This is where a ground station network can help, as it will have stations present in multiple locations. A ground network often has ground stations located in multiple locations around the globe that will allow you to downlink and uplink to your space asset more frequently.
One of the most important drivers for ground stations is the mission requirement of how quickly the data from the satellite is needed by the end-user and how often you’ll want to be in touch with the satellite.
If the end-user of your satellite application is looking for near-real time information collected by the craft to be made available to them as soon as possible, you are most likely going to rely on multiple ground stations on Earth.
This is a situation in which you may benefit from access to a ground station network. Depending on the changing requirements of your end-users you may be able to negotiate flexible subscriptions to ensure the costs can be optimized while using a ground station network.
If your mission does not have such real-time operations constraints, you will have more flexibility in using your own station, either alone or in combination with some network capacity.
Establishing a ground station also involves interfacing with local regulators in terms of getting clearance for a site to host the station and receive a license to effectively communicate with your satellite, often a time-consuming process for the ground segment. You have to be mindful of the rules that apply to uplinking to your satellite at a certain frequency and ensure that you do not cause interference with other terrestrial radio frequency sources.
Be sure to check the list of rules and compliances that govern the location where you intend to install your antenna. A site clearance process is common among many countries to make sure that satellite antennas being installed in a particular band, with a certain amount of output power, are not causing problems to other radio sources.
Using an established ground network service allows you to avoid these bureaucratic hassles altogether since it is the responsibility of the service provider to ensure ongoing compliance.
In addition, ground segment service providers typically have significant expertise in the regulatory process across different countries in order to get the satellite licensed; a capability that could be very helpful when starting a space mission, whether a single satellite or a constellation with global coverage.
Depending on the operating frequency, the size and type of antenna as well as supporting equipment (such as Low Noise Amplifiers (LNA), transceivers, etc.) will drive the cost of a ground station.
A Do It Yourself (DIY) ground station can be very easily built for a few thousand dollars if you plan to operate within the UHF/VHF band for all purposes of communication with your satellite.
However, going into higher frequency bands such as the S-band, X-band, etc., increases the size and the complexity of design choices in antennas and other equipment.
Typical design choices might include whether you will use a wire mesh against a dish for the antenna or choose between traditional modems and Software Defined Radio (SDR) based solutions.
One also has to keep in mind other issues such as hazards due to weather, ensuring the safety of the installation, and incorporating proper electrical power access as well.
Teams also have to be mindful of the maintenance aspects since ground stations rely on a number of mechanical elements, such as rotators, which may need regular servicing.
Therefore, you will have to take into account the overall cost of installing and maintaining a ground station against the duration of the mission itself. Often, it is quite time-consuming to set up agreements with teleports providing hosting and maintenance services for your ground station, something that a ground segment service provider instead takes care of independently.
Reliability figures should also be taken into account when designing or purchasing a ground station system and setting up hosting agreements. Typically, as much as you spend for hardware the more you’ll spend on maintenance to keep your reliability figures in your operational range. Since the ground segment is a key component of your mission success chain, its reliability has a huge impact on the mission.
As an example, if your mission is only for 6 months using the S-band for payload operations, the cost of developing your own station and operating it may be much higher than choosing a ground station network subscription. As Taylor explains;
This is usually the case for the majority of small satellite missions when you extensively analyze the numbers of the ground segment part of your project.
Communication systems come in pairs; they have to match in order to be able to communicate without problems.
Satellites carry radios that communicate with the ground and ground stations feature complementary radios to communicate with satellites. Often there is a setup cost to ensuring that the radios that the satellites are carrying are compatible with the ground equipment.
If you use different radios for each of your satellites you need to ensure that the ground station is compatible as well.
The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) was created in 1982 for governmental and quasi-governmental space agencies to discuss and develop standards for space data and information systems for this very reason. Sticking to globally accepted standards will also ensure very easy cross support and space link services from other ground stations.
Ground station networks often come with a list of readily compatible radios for satellites. This ensures that the setup time for ensuring technical compatibility is shorter and the integration simpler to manage. As Taylor states:
Moreover, a ground segment as-a-service provider, such as Leaf Space, may use Software Defined Radios (SDRs) in its ground stations. These systems are capable of becoming compatible with the transceiver used by your satellite thanks to deployable software patches developed or already available to the provider.
In addition, this can help you be flexible with your supply chain in terms of selecting vendors for the radios for the satellite each time.
There are a host of free software programs available online if you are looking to fly a satellite. They allow you to very easily interface your ground station to a computer in order to be able to control the ground station and manage the communication with the satellite without having to write your own code.
However, they may not come with support for simple scheduling of multiple satellites and missions, as Taylor explains:
The automatic scheduling functionality is available with Leaf Space’s service provision. We take care of scheduling in an optimized way satellite passes over the distributed ground station network, based on your specific requirements.
Innovations by ground station network providers today allow the use of rest-APIst to interact with multiple ground stations and allow automating much of the operations in a far simpler manner. As Taylor describes;
Leaf Space provides a versatile and easy to use API interface to customers for the ground segment operations management of their mission, while real-time uplink and downlink communication is controlled by the customer through a dedicated interface using a message queuing protocol. In addition, Leaf Line is already compatible with main Mission Control Software Providers, making even painless and faster to start operate your mission.
There are many factors that need to be carefully balanced before you make a choice between setting up your own ground station or choosing a ground station network provider.
You need to be mindful of the various issues discussed above, such as the number of satellites, requirements of your end-user for near real-time access of information, autonomy and assistance in scheduling operations of your satellites, compliance with your local regulations, and ensuring fit with different radios and communications standards.
Ultimately all of these drive the total cost of ownership and convenience of either setting up your own ground station or subscribing to a ground station network service that can provide you with a high quality and reliable service, also satisfying required SLAs.
We hope that this article has made that decision a little clearer for you!
If you would like to find out more about how ground station networks operate and view the different commercial options that may be suitable for your missions, please get in touch with Leaf Space today.
]]>Traditionally, the S-band was very popular for satellite tracking, telemetry and command in spacecraft operation. However, with the invention of CubeSats, the UHF/VHF bands saw a rise in popularity due to the lower constraints (e.g. omni-directional antennas and low cost) while operating in these bands. Given that the technologies in many of the payloads onboard CubeSats are also maturing and so require higher data rates for telemetry, the S-band is gaining greater traction in the CubeSat world too.
From a regulatory standpoint the S-band offers an advantage by potentially mitigating the paperwork for two separate bands (UHF/VHF). However, S-band transmitters need antennas that are directional, and when the satellites are still in tumbling mode establishing contact can be very challenging.
Therefore, teams need to ensure that their satellite can de-tumble and point quite well in order to establish communications with the satellite if they use the S-band alone and in order to have a good link.
S-band based Software Defined Radios (SDRs) are also highly popular due to the flexibility they offer in terms of architecture and implementation.
Several suppliers are now focusing on developing S-band transmitter solutions with the CubeSat form factor in mind and are optimising the power, mass and size constraints of their transmitters to align with the structure, volume, and power consumption of CubeSats.
In the section below you can see an overview of several S-band transmission systems available on the global market that can be used by CubeSat and small satellite developers to fit their telemetry and telecommand requirements.
We have also previously published overviews of the X-band transmitters market segment and the emerging optical communications segment.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the products and can submit a request for information (RFI) on the pages that open or send us a general query using the link below, and we will use our global network of suppliers to find a system to meet your needs.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying an S-band transmitter for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>The situation is changing rapidly as the virus spreads, and in order to get a sense of the current outlook from industry stakeholders, we recently ran a short survey to get a snapshot of prevailing attitudes. We presented respondents with a number of statements about the impact of Covid-19 on the sector and asked them to share their views.
We received responses from 155 stakeholders across the space industry from a range of different institutions.
Almost half of the respondents were engineers, managers and entrepreneurs from companies across the space industry and another 11% were consultants, both on an independent basis and with larger firms.
Around a fifth of respondents were academics and researchers, while another 12% were based at national space agencies or other government departments carrying out space-related activities and oversight.
Finally, 11% of respondents were from online communities, space industry hubs and/or media companies with an interest in the sector.
More than 100 respondents provided their geographic information and 29 different countries were named as can be seen below.
Here’s what survey respondents indicated about the impact of Covid-19 on the sector:
Governments all over the world are having to take very tough decisions about how best to protect their citizens and secure their economies and societies.
These extraordinary measures are going to cost a lot of money so it’s therefore to be expected that most respondents believe public money available for space will decrease next year.
However, it is interesting to note a level of optimism too, with more than a fifth of respondents thinking this may not be the case. Perhaps in some countries government spending could stay the same or even increase.
Following on from above, it is unsurprising to see that more than two-fifths of respondents believe that emerging space economies will see a reduction in government investment; but the picture is a little more mixed here.
More than a quarter of respondents are neutral on the issue and almost 30% believe that government investments in emerging economies will not decrease.
The socioeconomics of countries with nascent space programmes and industries are usually very different to the larger and more established players, so it will be very interesting to follow the space sector’s recovery and development in the near future.
This question evoked one of the strongest responses in the survey with more than 70% of respondents selecting ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree.’
Companies in almost all industry sectors are currently taking huge losses, and a looming global recession is likely to severely restrict available private financing in the short- to medium-term.
In many ways, the space industry is still in its infancy and relies on regular injections of capital to support large-scale projects. A combination of immediate financial losses as a result of the pandemic, and investment being shifted to other sectors in its aftermath, is likely to restrict the availability of seed and growth capital for space companies.
The majority of survey respondents disagreed with this statement or were neutral on the topic.
Although not implicitly asked, it is reasonable to assume that many of those respondents believe that employment and hiring will be negatively affected, given the impact of the virus on business growth.
At the same time, it is positive to see that around a third of respondents believe that employment will be unaffected and hopefully reflects some optimism for the future.
Most respondents believe that short-term cashflow could be an issue for many companies.
The economic impacts of the pandemic are still in the early stages but it appears that many in the industry are expecting businesses to have to deal with delayed payments at some point this year.
Over 60% of respondents believe that these emerging services are going to be negatively affected in the aftermath of the pandemic.
Although we’ve seen a number of deals and missions in these areas continue unaffected, it is likely that most of them were financed prior to any of the major impact on business, as a result of Covid-19, being felt.
More than a quarter of respondents disagree that these markets will contract next year however, so again there is some optimism in the industry.
In some further signs of optimism, a majority of respondents agree that those areas of the industry most able to support economic recovery globally will continue to attract investment.
The space industry has always been able to demonstrate its direct value to people outside of the sector through services that provide the vital data to keep everyday processes running, and this will be no different as we re-build after the pandemic.
Smaller companies in the industry who aren’t involved in such services, and who feel exposed by the effects of Covid-19 on the sector, may consider how they can best position their commercial products and services to help contribute to economic revival in the near future.
The majority of survey respondents agree with the sentiment that the satellite broadcasting industry faces both a challenge and opportunity in this disrupted time.
Social distancing legislation and travel limitations have already had an impact on many traditional broadcasting clients, although with more people staying at home than at any time in living memory satellite service providers to this sector could see growth (or at least limited losses) in this period.
More than 60% of our respondents agree or strongly agree that space policy-making will slow down as a result of the pandemic, with just over a fifth of respondents neutral on the topic.
Although work is continuing on major policy frameworks (the White House signed a new Executive Order on cooperation in space resource use for example) in countries with emerging space programs it is likely that these efforts could take a hit.
Space policy and legislation has been a growing area of research and practice for a number of years and is increasingly challenged to act at a fast enough speed to keep pace with new technologies – take space debris issues that constellation manufacturers are having to deal with for example – so it will be interesting to see what happens in this area for the rest of 2020.
Satsearch is committed to supporting the space industry at large during a time of unprecedented crisis. This sentiment survey marks the first step towards our goal of helping chart the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the sector. The results from this survey point to the fact that there is a lot of uncertainty about the short- and long-term effects of the global pandemic on prospects for space organizations.
We believe that a number of factors will determine how the industry tackles this difficult period:
Ultimately, the space industry is not insulated from the global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the sector comes to terms with this crisis, we are open to supporting organizations across the board. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this survey or contribute your own thoughts and ideas about how the industry can navigate this crisis, we’d love to talk to you. Please get in touch today and we can help to amplify your message to a global audience.
Stay safe and healthy!
]]>Unlike larger satellites where the surface area available on the external structures is much greater, CubeSats, nanosatellites and other small satellites have far less volume that can be given to solar panels.
A 1U CubeSat for example will have an area of just 10 cm x 10 cm on each face in order to accommodate a solar panel.
In addition, solar panels can also not be mounted on surfaces that need to accommodate other components, such as planar antennas, optical sensors, camera lenses, and access ports.
In spite of these limitations there are several different solar panels available on the market, featuring a variety of solar cells for space applications, which work with the severe physical restrictions imposed by smallsats and the CubeSat (and smaller) form factor.
Aside from the size of the panels themselves, there are several important criteria to consider when choosing the satellite solar panel or array:
Alongside the supplier location, heritage and similar commercial factors that influence satellite solar panel costs, these criteria should be used to assess what system will work best for your mission and timescales.
For a satellite solar panel to work effectively it needs to be successfully integrated into the craft alongside the other equipment in use.
Here are a few tips and tricks on how to integrate a panel efficiently with other sub-systems in order to gain more value than simply generating power:
Traditionally smaller satellites have not had deployable arrays to generate more power for advanced missions or more power-hungry payloads.
Today, due to advances in new technology and electronic minitiarisation, it is possible for smaller satellites to use various deployable solar array solutions.
Such technology typically utilises a ‘hold down and release mechanism’ using a spring-loaded slider that ensures safe and effective hold down functionality for the deployable panels.
The slider is locked by a locking arm system that can be released with a dedicated pin-pusher for deployment.
In the list below we have rounded up a range of commercially-available satellite solar arrays and panels on the global marketplace for space.
If you require further information on structural or power generation satellite sub-systems we have also published roundups of Electrical Power Systems (EPS) and satellite structures on the global marketplace.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the marketplace – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying a solar panel for satellites you are designing, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>Modern software development for spacecraft is very conservative and limited to a small set of experts in the industry. This is due to various existing constraints on space hardware and to the typical criticality of space missions.
But the landscape is changing, particularly where CubeSats are concerned. These small satellites have become very popular in recent years, causing space components to become smaller and cheaper, and therefore making them accessible to a wider number of organizations.
On-board processors with large amounts of processing capability are allowing the space community to move towards spacecraft capable of executing actual operating systems such as Linux. This on-going transformation is similar to what happened for smartphones a decade ago and the European Space Agency (ESA) is taking the lead with the NanoSat MO Framework, an advanced software framework for small satellites inspired by the latest technologies that already exist here on Earth.
This cutting-edge software framework is actually making it possible for more people than ever to launch apps in space!
Traditional on-board software is developed for a specific mission and rarely gets updated. Future updates imply patching specific memory areas and often the software is developed for embedded devices and will never be updated again.
When thinking of today’s flight software a useful analogy to make is to compare it to the software from the old Nokia 3310 phones. The software development processes for flight software have not changed significantly in the last decade unlike what has happened with our widely available phones, as these once simple mobile devices have transformed into advanced “smartphones”!
The emergence of smartphones rebranded the concept of “software applications” into “apps” that can be easily developed, downloaded, and launched on a smartphone platform. This concept has revolutionized the way we think of software and today there are literally millions of apps available for smartphones that can be downloaded by anyone around the globe. [1]
The European Space Agency (ESA) is involved in multiple CubeSat projects, one of which is OPS-SAT, a CubeSat mission with the objective of testing new operational concepts in space. The mission has an experimental platform composed of a system-on-chip device with 1 GB of RAM, an ARM processor with 925 MHz and a lightweight version of Linux. This allows a wide range of software experiments to be carried out in space that would have never flown otherwise.
The use of such high-performance hardware offers the opportunity to apply various innovative emerging software advancements in the realm of flight software. [2] OPS-SAT was launched on the 18th of December 2019 and is open to experimenters all around the world who can try out their new ideas, by developing apps using the NanoSat MO Framework.
The OPS-SAT mission is the first software-defined satellite from ESA which has the ability to reconfigure its software while in space. This class of satellites are known as “smartsat” or “smartsatellite” and are being enabled by flexible software environments, such as the NanoSat MO Framework, which provides the ability to carry multiple applications on board the satellite.
For example, the OPS-SAT mission has apps with artificial intelligence (AI), new compression algorithms, CFDP, advanced on-board autonomy, MO services, EDS, and many other technologies.
In 2014 the European Space Agency started an academic collaboration with TU Graz in order to investigate an advanced software framework for flight and ground software in spacecraft. Just like Android and iOS, ESA developed a software framework which allows flight software to become “apps” and run effectively in space.
This investigation was conducted in the AGSA Lab, a ground-breaking research laboratory at ESA’s premises which studies advanced software concepts for space missions. The innovative framework developed was called the NanoSat MO Framework and its main objective is to facilitate the development of software apps for small satellites and to simplify their orchestration.
Using the NMF, new software can be easily deployed in a satellite through starting and stopping apps. [3] The core functionalities of the framework are:
The overall design of the framework is inspired by current smartphone technologies. ESA not only included the concept of apps but also developed a Software Development Kit (SDK), a packaging mechanism for the digital distribution of apps, and abstract services (such as the GPS service or the Camera service) that allow any app to control and retrieve information from the spacecraft platform.
The cutting-edge framework is now successfully in operation in ESA’s OPS-SAT mission. Software experimenters use the framework’s SDK to develop their bleeding-edge software in a rapid manner, without having to understand the low-level details of the platform.
This approach reduces the software development efforts and also increases reuse across future missions. In addition, the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt has developed a web-based Mission Control System that is able to connect to the NanoSat MO Framework apps.
This project is known as EUD4MO and allows monitoring and control of apps that are running in space. The EUD4MO is used with a web browser such as Chrome or Firefox and allows OPS-SAT users to remotely access apps from the comfort of their home or office. Earth Observation (EO) satellites can significantly benefit from the ability to reconfigure software in space in this way.
Today, EO satellites are still used mainly to collect raw data from the instruments and just ‘dump’ this data to ground for additional processing elsewhere. The NanoSat MO Framework gives users the ability to develop AI apps that can carry out image processing using neural networks directly on-board. This is known as AI edge computing and it significantly reduces the amount of data that is required to be transferred from space as it is processed locally on the satellite.
Smartphone apps always cover very specific functionalities, for instance, a dedicated app to take pictures with the camera or a dedicated app to access the contacts list. These apps are never intended to cover a large set of tasks.
By extending this idea to the space domain, a new set of space software focused on particular satellite operations and functionalities can be created. Just as the Uber™ app and Snapchat™ app have very different purposes to the user, an app to transfer files between ground and space is different from an app that can determine the cloud coverage in a set of images using AI.
By shifting the software development approach to a low-risk activity that is focused on specific functionality rather than the traditional development of a complete system, smaller startup companies are now able to specialize in particular satellite functionalities and can more easily enter the space software arena by creating a software product that can be reused by different satellites.
The flight software landscape is changing and a new world of space apps is now an exciting emerging reality!
Do you want find out more about the NanoSat MO Framework? Check out the satsearch page here and build your space app!.
[1] N. 2017, “App stores: number of apps in leading app stores 2017 – Statista”, Statista, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/. [Accessed: 15/09/2017]
[2] “OPS-SAT”, European` Space Agency, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/OPS-SAT. [Accessed: 15/09/2017]
[3] C. Coelho, O. Koudelka and M. Merri, “NanoSat MO framework: When OBSW turns into apps”, 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2017.
In this post we give a brief overview of how EO optical payloads are used in small satellites and share listings of multiple products available on the global marketplace – if you would like to skip the introductory material and instead get straight to the product listings, please click here.
Space engineers have been looking to lower costs by using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) innovations for the last few decades. This is true at all levels, from individual electronic components to complete satellite cameras.
Alongside this commercial drive, experiments into the use of COTS components and sub-systems have been carried out at universities such as the University of Surrey and TU Berlin for several years.
In fact, the foundation of experimental satellites built by universities, such as the UoSAT and TUBSAT series of satellites, has provided the basis for realising cost-effective spacecraft that are packed with decent Earth Observation (EO) capabilities.
It is worthwhile to note interesting observations made by Professor Sir Martin Sweeting (Figure 1) of improvements in performance criteria such as Ground Sampling Distance (GSD), data rate, data storage etc., having a very close association with Moore’s law.
One could argue that the cost of satellites themselves has possibly followed the same trajectory (given the same GSD) due to factors such as reliability of COTS electronics and the decrease in launch costs.
A whole generation of universities and NewSpace companies have leveraged such cost-effective spacecraft development in the small satellite world and have taken advantage of the increase in computing capabilities to generate much greater progress in the last thirty years.
The invention of CubeSats led to further interest in COTS EO payloads by students and engineers and has also enabled the translation of academic research interests into the development of innovative NewSpace EO ventures.
The most well-known example of this is Planet Labs, which has flown over 200 satellites based on CubeSat standard.
When selecting any piece of technology for your mission it is important to be aware of costs, lead times, integration and testing requirements, as well as the physical requirements of your system.
In addition, here are some of the key performance criteria to consider when assessing satellite cameras on the global market, to see which could suit your needs:
For more information, we have also published an in-depth guide on 9 factors to take into acount when selecting the best optical payload for your mission, produced in collaboration with satsearch member Simera Sense.
We have also interviewed Rafael Guzman, founder and CTO of satsearch member SATLANTIS, on the latest advances in Earth Observation (EO) technologies and optical payload performance, on the Space Industry podcast.
In the list below we have rounded up a range of commercially-available EO optical payloads for small satellites (<100 kg) on the global marketplace for space.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
In this section you can find cameras that are used to image the satellite (or other spacecraft) itself.
These are typically used to visually confirm processes such as the successful implementation of solar panels or other deployable systems, or the docking of external vehicles.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying an optical payload for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>In this post we give a brief overview of how satellite OBC systems operate and share listings of OBCs on the global marketplace – if you would like to skip the introductory material and instead get straight to the product listings, please click here.
A satellite or spacecraft is made up of many different sub-systems that all need to work together as an integrated system. Avionic architectures have a key role in making this possible, linking together modules and equipment from different manufacturers and with varying functionality so that the entire craft can be managed and operated effectively.
One of the core components of the avionics system is the on board computer (OBC) – the piece of hardware that runs the system’s on-board software, which controls the vital functions the system needs in order to perform effectively.
In this article we took a brief look at the role OBCs play in a satellite or spacecraft and present several products available on the global space marketplace.
On modern satellites there are a number of systems that can essentially provide computing power (including payload processors and edge computing hardware for example), the term on board computer typically applies to the computer of the satellite’s avionic sub-system.
The satellite OBC is the unit that runs the satellite’s on-board software i.e. the computer programs that manage the core functions of the system. They are often referred to as the brain of the satellite and selecting this sub-system is one of the most important tasks of any mission designer.
In particular, OBCs perform attitude and orbit control, data packeting activities, manage data storage, handle certain communication tasks, monitor and report on the status of certain subsystems, general housekeeping, implement control law, and actuate aspects of the system’s avionics setup.
Because of the wide range of these tasks, along with the requirement for an OBC to essentially be ‘always on’ (or at least; ‘always accessible’) it is very important that effective scheduling and load balancing is incorporated.
A satellite OBC is typically divided into 3 distinct subsystems
A range of standard and non-standard interface formats are in use in OBCs today (e.g. RS485, CAN, SpaceWire, SPI and I2C) and the OBC itself can be provided as an integrated unit in the satellite bus and avionics system, or as a modular device capable of working with various other pieces of multi-vendor equipment.
On board computers play several roles in the effective operation of a spacecraft or satellite. These functions usually include:
Increasing modularization and standardization of space technology is leading to greater options for suppliers all over the world. In addition, the miniaturization of electronic components are making it possible to develop new hardware concepts for space missions.
With this greater choice available, engineers need to ensure they select the best option for their specific mission requirements from the array of on board computers on the global market.
To assist, we recommend considering the following key performance criteria when making a decision:
Processing capability – the computing unit must be able to handle the processing capacity needed to operate the payload and the sub-systems supporting it (e.g. attitude control, communication, power distribution, etc.).
Memory (storage and RAM) – both the capacity and memory format should be chosen to meet your needs. An OBC typically includes both volatile and non-volatile memories with differing capacities.
Interoperability and interfacing capabilities – as a central controlling unit it is vital that the OBC can work effectively with the required interfaces (e.g. USB, I2C etc.) and has enough capacity and ports for the external sub-systems it will connect to.
Reliability of software – the OBC needs to have reliable software running on it in order to be able handle event sequencing, monitor health and performance of all systems, and handle any problems on orbit.
Power requirements – although OBC power requirements are generally low compared to other sub-systems, it is important to factor in what power is needed to your overall calculations.
Size and weight – the system you choose needs to fit into your current mass and volume budget to avoid more extensive redesigns.
In addition, a modern satellite OBC is also likely to include a variety of additional secondary features and functions which may be important for your mission, such as:
Also note that most systems will include duplicate elements for all critical components in order to reduce the risks of single points of failure, and/or to provide additional processing or storage resources if particular applications require. Ensure that you select an OBC with a redundancy architecture that suits your system’s risk profile.
Finally, as with any product, it is important to assess whether your engineers can work effectively with the supplier. An OBC is mission-critical and may require multiple rounds of engagement with the supplier’s technicians in order to integrate and test – so it is important to work with people that you collaborate with effectively.
Below you can see on board computers from multiple suppliers all over the world, along with useful overview information, images, and links to the supplier pages on satsearch.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
You can click on any of the links or images below to find out more about each of the products. You can also submit a request for information (RFI) on the product pages or send us a general query using our RFI tool to discuss your specific needs, and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying on board computers for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today We’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
One challenge that EO missions face essentially lies in allowing spacecraft to downlink as much data as possible with as little power, mass, and volume taken up by the transmission equipment.
With such drivers in communication needs for satellites leading the industry, suppliers have been working to develop efficient transmitters in the X-band region with data rates in the order of 100-300 Mbps.
Alongside the high data rate requirements, the CubeSat form factor is also driving some of the new designs.
Several suppliers are now focusing on developing X-band transmitter solutions with the CubeSat form factor in mind and are optimising the power, mass and size constraints for their transmitters to align with the structure, volume, and power consumption of CubeSats.
Below you can see an overview of several X-band transmission systems available on the global market that can be used by CubeSat and small satellite developers to fit their downlink requirements.
In addition, if you are interested the emerging alternative technology of optical satellite communication systems we also have a product roundup post on the lasercomms market segment.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list to get all the updates.
EnduroSat’s X-Band transmitter features a high data rate and supports a variety of modulation schemes and data interfaces. The module operates in the 7.9 – 8.4 GHz frequency band.
The system features two modes of operation; Transmit mode in which the device sends data from the internal memory or from the payload through the LVDS interface to the radio channel, and Idle mode in which the internal memory can be accessed to set transmission parameters and store data. In both modes all transmission parameters can be changed in real time.
Syrlinks manufacturers a range of CCSDS-compliant X-band transmitters suitable for a variety of satellite sizes and mission requirements:
EWC28 – For medium-sized spacecraft with a minimum lifetime of 5 years in LEO, operating in the 8025-8400 MHz and 8400-8500 MHz (optional) frequency ranges. Offering an excellent SWAP (1kg 1 litre) design integrating a DC/DC converter (galvanic isolator), low power consumption and RF output power programmable from 30 to 39 dBm. Developed in collaboration with CNES and ESA, and reached TRL 9 in 2013.
EWC27 – Miniaturized version of the EWC28, delivering up to 140 Mbps (optional), with an estimated lifetime of 2 years in LEO. Highly flexible with multiple options for transmission capacity in the X-band (8GHz – EO & DS) and featuring smart power amplifier control in order to boost efficiency for each RF power level, permitting extremely low power consumption. Developed in collaboration with CNES and ESA, and reached TRL 9 in 2015.
N-XONOS – An enhanced version of the EWC27 with increased performance up to 350 Mbps. A state-of-the-art modular device with optional features in both hardware and software including different functions and waveforms. Suitable for Cube-, nano-, mini- and microsatellites and including extended product assurance.
EWC30 – 8 GHz X-band transmitters developed with CNES. Fully compliant with ECSS-Q-ST-60C standard (CLASS 3 or CLASS 2 according product reference) and operating in the 8025–8400 MHz frequency range while exhibiting a data rate up to 400 Mbps. Operating lifetimes of a minimum of 7 years (CLASS3) and 10 years (CLASS2) in LEO missions.
The IMT SRL X-Band Transponder is a transponder suitable for deep space exploration and Earth Observation and is CubeSat compliant. The system is made of COTS components and has three separate assemblies: Main Assembly / LNA Assembly / HPA Assembly. STBY, RX, RX & TX are the available operation modes of the system.
An efficient data downlink solution in the range 8.0-8.4 GHz for CubeSat and microsatellite platforms. Weighing just 500g and with a low power requirement, the SPACE-SI X-band transmitter enables a broad input voltage range from the bus and provides telemetry data in thermal, current and RF power formats. It also features low RF carrier phase noise, and low harmonic and spurious spectral content.
Advanced transceiver systems for X-band communication links with small satellites in LEO. The mechanical dimensions can fit a 1U CubeSat as well as larger satellites. The radio interface and protocol are created according to standard CCSDS protocols and the product is developed in cooperation with TU Berlin.
The SWIFT family of Software Defined Radios (SDR) are designed to provide high-performance communications for small satellite operations. SWIFT radios are built on a modular platform which provides diverse software control of any RF parameter. The products also feature flight heritage.
The AgilSpace PDT series X-band transmitters offer high-performance payload data transmission with high speeds and bandwidth.
The PDT-300 X-Band Transmitter – is a highly flexible transmitter that can utilise various data rate configurations to suit different mission types and offers a data downlink of up to 300 Mbps. The transmitter consists of Solid-State Power Amplifier (SSPA) modules along with two RF transmission chains offering increased redundancy and communication coverage.
PDT-50 X-Band Transmitter Suite – with a 50 Mbps data speed and featuring a unique 8-patch antenna design that offers high mission flexibility and robustness in data transmission. With complete ground coverage, any of the 8 antennae may be used as a downlink to the ground stations. The PDT-50 Transmitter Suite consists of 8 selectable patch antennae with individual Solid-State Power Amplifier (SSPA) modules, as well as 2 RF transmission chains for increased redundancy and communication coverage.
A space-qualified transmitter designed to maximise X-band data downlink capabilities. The system features a powerful CCSDS Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) code. Standard operation is SQPSK modulation at the traditional 8.2 GHz downlink band, with options available for Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Ku-Band or Ka-Band operation.
A space-optimized SDR mission data transmitter based on the powerful Xilinx Zynq® SoC platform (Kintex 7 FPGA + Dual ARM9 Cores). An RF Transmitter supporting X-band (8.025—8.4 GHz) and optional S-band (2.2—2.3 GHz) RF outputs. The S2DR HRTX transmitter provides 28 modulation and coding schemes enabling flexible link design and effective link robustness / link rate tradeoffs.
For X-band phased array radar applications. The module employs MMIC amplifiers and thin film circuits manufactured using chip & wire technology. The receive path provides protection against high power signals and a female type Micro-D connector is used for control/supply voltages.
A compact X-Band transmitter designed for CubeSat missions. The transmitter implements OQPSK and QPSK modulation with transmission data rates of up to 50 Mbps. It also implements a CCSDS specification which allows this product to be compatible with commercial off-the-shelf satellite demodulators.
Part of Innoflight’s Software-defined Compact Radio (SCR) family and designed for performance and reliability in a substantially miniaturized package. It incorporates advanced modulation, encoding and transport methods through modern highly integrated application-specific chipsets (RF) with a high-density System-on-Chip (SoC) FPGAs. Frequency, power, waveform, modulation and other features are selectable and can be controlled on the fly. An optional enclosure with smallsat mounting tabs is also available.
Honeywell provides a family of flexible, high-efficiency DownLink products to the space market. The HR Variant is an innovative DownLink transmitter with flexible SDR functionality and has been optimized for small- to medium-sized missions that demand high data rates and established PA standards.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying an X-band transmitter for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>This demand for improved performance and control follows a trend we’re seeing in the in-space propulsion sector, which you can read more about on our recent post discussing CubeSat thrusters.
In this article, we take a high-level look at how sun sensors work, what to take into consideration when searching for a sun sensor for your satellite, and give an overview of some of the products currently available on the global marketplace for space.
If you would like to skip the introductory material and go straight to view the available products, please click here, otherwise please read on.
Sun sensors in satellite’s navigational systems determine the direction and position of the sun relative to the satellite itself.
They enable attitude determination of satellites by providing two-axis information on the orientation of the satellite using the azimuth and elevation of the sun vector.
To be able to fully ascertain the attitude the third-axis information needs to be realized, which can only happen by adding an additional sensor such as a magnetometer or earth sensor.
Obviously, a sun sensor will not work in the eclipse period in orbit and, if only a very crude identification of the direction of the sun is needed, it can be determined quite easily using the voltage variations in solar panels.
In general, there are three main categories of sun sensor:
Sun sensors are also used for solar array pointing – orienting photovoltaic energy collection systems (e.g. deployable CubeSat solar panels) for the most effective irradiance – and can also play a role in fail-safe recovery processes and gyroscope updating.
The following paragraphs aim to provide some insights into the differences between these categories of sun sensors and their relative merits.
This category of sun sensor consists of models with a single photodiode for which the generated current is a measure of the incidence angle. This current varies with the cosine of the incidence angle in a first approximation.
As the derivative of the cosine is 0 at nominal incidence (or zenith) there is a very small measurement signal for angles nearing zenith.
As temperature variations of the diode will lead to signal variations, it is difficult to discriminate between angle and temperature variations at angles close to zenith.
Next to this, radiation degradation will directly influence the calculated angle because the angle is determined on the absolute magnitude of the current generated.
As a result, the zenith accuracy is seldom higher than around 5° while the accuracy can increase to around 3° for angles from 10-50°.
For higher angles, the accuracy again decreases due to tunnelling effects in the cover glass (required to protect the devices against cosmic radiation), changes in the anti-reflex coatings, and variations in the absorption debt.
Next to a low generic accuracy, it should be noted that this type of sun sensor is very sensitive to albedo signals and reflections from satellite parts.
In order to detect the Sun’s attitude in two directions, at least three coarse sun sensors are usually needed, unless a pyramid coarse sun sensor is used.
These sensors (examples of which are shown in above Figure 2) are basically a number of photodiodes mounted on a common structure so as to define the nominal incidence angles for the individual photodiodes.
By combining the signals of a number of diodes the zenith accuracy can be improved over a limited field of view (FOV).
This is mainly due to the fact that the incidence angle is not near normal for the individual diodes (leading to a higher response) and that the ratio of the currents can be used to calculate the angle, removing the need for an accurate temperature compensation.
Even though these sensors are more accurate and can even have internal redundancy, they are not commonly used on small satellites due to their large volume and high costs.
As can be seen in the picture, these sensors are generally equipped with mission-specific baffles to avoid reflections from spacecraft parts having a negative effect on the measurement accuracy.
These sensors operate by virtue of the fact that a translucent window provides a light spot which shifts over the sensing element with changing Sun attitude. The most common implementation of which is using a four quadrant photodiode and is shown below.
A membrane is suspended at a known distance above a sensing element (typically a four-quadrant photodiode or position sensitive device (PSD)).
Sunlight, shining through the translucent part, creates a light spot on the sensor. This light spot generates currents in the four independent diodes which can be used to calculate the Sun’s attitude in two directions, if the height of the membrane with respect to the diodes is known.
The formulae that can be used to calculate this attitude are quite simple:
If α is negative: the sun is to the top of the sensor.
If β is negative: the sun is to the right of the sensor (both when viewed from the top side).
NOTE: The illumination given in Figure 3 above is for positive α and positive β.
High quality analog fine sun sensors, such as the Bradford mini-FSS, and the Lens R&D BiSon64-ET and MAUS, can provide an accuracy of better than 1° at zenith and 3° over the entire FOV on the basis of these formulae only, though higher accuracies will always require the use of a number of calibration tables.
Using calibration tables accuracy below 0.5° can be realized, although it should be noted that this is without measurement errors caused by albedo signals, which can reach up to 10° or even 15° depending on orbit height, pointing and cloud cover.
In order to minimize albedo errors stray light baffles can be added as an alternative to creating larger (and more expensive) sensors, for example:
For sensors with this type of accuracy it is important to note that the re-mounting accuracy is part of the pointing budget.
Because of this, all sensors shown in Figure 4 above have a similar mounting strategies that use a ‘highly-toleranced reference hole’; a slotted hole with a high tolerance in one direction combined with an oversized hole that ensures the sensors can be put back in the same orientation with a high degree of confidence.
The reference hole shown on location E5 in combination with the slotted hole detailed in location H7/8 will ensure repeatability of the X- and Y-axis where the flatness of the mounting feed specified in location B9 will guarantee the Z-axis repeatability.
This repeatability is determined by the mechanical tolerances on the mounting holes, the accuracy of the attachment hardware, and the distance between the mounting points.
For very small sensors, such as those shown in Figure 7 below, the re-mounting accuracy can easily exceed the specified accuracy due to the close proximity of the mounting holes in combination with a poor mechanical tolerance on the mounting hardware.
One should be aware of these issues when using very small sensors while desiring a high pointing accuracy. In the end the obtainable re-mounting accuracy could mandate a re-calibration after the sensors are mounted to obtain the desired accuracy.
This will obviously complicate the manufacturing process and might well compensate for a slightly more expensive sensor that doesn’t require such a re-calibration.
It should be noted that the re-mounting accuracy is not only an issue to be considered with the smallest sensors. For the Solar MEMS sensors shown below, the mounting holes are specified to be 3.2 mm wide.
The advised mounting hardware is a stainless steel screw according to ISO 4762-2005. The outer diameter of these screws is only 3 mm so there is 0.2 mm of play between the screw and the side of the hole.
The distance between the two holes of the A60 is 4 cm, which means that it is possible to rotate the sensor by as much as 0.4 mm over 4 cm or 0.57°. This is more than the specified 0.3° accuracy of the sensor.
Although these deviations may not be important for the application, it is good to be aware of them, much like the implementation differences that exist.
Solar MEMS Technologies sun sensors for instance use four quadrant photodiodes, but in an immersed configuration as shown in Figure 9.
In an immersed configuration, the cover glass that provides a certain degree of radiation shielding is used as a spacer to hold the membrane through which the sun is shining. This allows for the development of a very compact sensor core and potentially a very small sun sensor.
There are however a number of disadvantages to such an approach, the first of which is that it is very difficult to provide additional radiation shielding without causing multiple reflections.
Another more significant disadvantage is the fact that due to the refraction inside the glass, there is a cross-coupling between the X- and Y-axis which causes the formulae given in Formula 1 above to be rendered invalid.
As a consequence, this type of sensor will always need a calibration table or a more complicated formula. In addition, it will require a temperature compensation if full accuracy is to be obtained because of the refractive index sensitivity to the operating temperature.
Other implementations use a position-sensitive device instead of a four quadrant photodiode. This type of sensor typically uses a much smaller pinhole-like aperture, through which a small sun spot is created on the position-sensitive device; a specific type of silicon detector with four electrodes.
By reading out the sensor, the centroid of this light spot can be determined and thus the direction of the incident sunlight. This is an alternate way to produce an analog sun sensor which is not often chosen because PSD detectors are more prone to radiation degradation, and the smaller pinhole creates less signal thus mandating the availability of proximity electronics.
Despite the smaller pinhole, the sensors have a similar albedo sensitivity to a four quadrant based detector because the relative amount of signal generated is mainly depending on the FOV, accommodation and shielding provisions.
In practice, digital sun sensors are currently a much smaller market segment than analog sensors.
There are various sun sensors on the market which are advertised as digital, but which are actually analog sun sensors with a digital interface.
These sensors will exhibit the same albedo sensitivity and will not allow the ability to exclude certain parts of the FOV from evaluation through digital programming.
Some models feature novel sensing principles with innovative arrangements of linear arrays and a double slits.
Digital sun sensors can also be developed with low mass and small physical footprints, though there can be a potential trade-off with radiation tolerance.
We recommend a simple four-step approach for the preliminary selection of any new piece of hardware or software for a satellite or other space system.
Note that this is just a basic guide based on what we’ve learned helping hundreds of buyers select products within our marketplace and get rapid responses from suppliers.
It is just meant to help engineers make an initial assessment and shouldn’t replace formalised systems engineering approaches such as the INCOSE Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) CubeSat frameworks.
These criteria are explained in more detail below.
The first step is to fully understand the currently known mission parameters, including both the critical applications and desirable, but not necessarily essential, objectives.
Typically the more precise mission parameters will only be established later in the process – usually iterated upon in a number of loops by considering the “system of systems.”
But having an idea of what functions your selected technology is likely to need to perform, and on what schedule and duration, will make selecting the most suitable model mch easier.
Also consider the launch stresses, testing processes and regulatory compliance that the product will need to go through in order to make it into orbit, as well as any obsolescence procedures once the mission is complete.
Next, keep to hand all currently known design information about the entire unit.
This can include the volume, weight, primary structural material and more basic things such as the location, storage and transport arrangements of the major components.
You will need to make sure that the new piece of technology you choose will be suitable for these parameters.
Once you are clear on exactly what tasks the new product will need to perform and the design characteristics of the satellite or other unit that it will work within, the next consideration is the full range of technology that will sit alongside the product to make sure that everything is compatible.
You may not yet know the entire range of accompanying technology (and you might need to first choose the product model you are interested in in order to make decisions on other components), but make sure you have access to all available technical specifications of sub-systems and structural components that are most likely to be used, as per the current mission plans.
It is important to understand how different sub-systems and components will interface with each other to create a high-performing satellite.
Balancing the available mass, power and volume budgets is also important, which can only be done with a clear plan of which components will be used.
Also consider how the product will work with the planned or existing ground segment to ensure effective data transfer and communication stability.
Now that you have a clear idea of what sort of product is needed for your mission, system, and existing platform setup, the next step is to compare the commercially-available products that meet these criteria according to the most relevant performance metrics.
There are a number of design and performance criteria which dictate the selection of a sun sensor model:
In the article above we have mentioned a number of sun sensor products in order to demonstrate various core features and differences. Below we have included a more comprehensive list of products available on the global marketplace for space.
These listings will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
If you need more information on other smallsat and CubeSat sub-systems we have also put together roundups of several categories such as star trackers, on-board computers, and GPS receivers available on the global market.
Please click on any of the links or images below to find out more about the systems. You can also submit a request for a quote, documentation or further information on each of the products listed or send us a more general query to discuss your specific needs, and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
If you would like our assistance in finding a suitable sun sensor for your needs from our extensive network, please fill out a request for information or proposal, and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.
Sun sensing technology is a large and active area of the market and the listings above are not exhaustive – we are actively working on updating this information and will share any updates via our email list below and on social media.
Noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>As the numbers of satellites in orbit continue to rise there is a greater need for effective communication solutions that can handle increasing data volumes. Optical communications may hold the answer, enabling operators to get more data from space to Earth faster and more efficiently.
The drive for optical communication is also due to the crowding of traditional radio options in frequencies such as the S-band and X-band, which have been used for decades for satellite communication.
Space-space and space-ground communications are the primary use cases for optical laser communications (lasercom) and in this article we take a look at how the technology works and share some of the products available on the market today.
In the article below we provide a gentle primer of optical communications systems for satellites discussing their history and giving the advantages and disadvantages that they bring, as a quick guide to understanding the promise of the technology. If you are familiar with the technology and would prefer to skip down to see the product listings, please click here.
Do you know of any optical communication products for small satellites that we’ve missed? Please drop us a note at info@satsearch.co or on Twitter. Alternatively, if you’d like to list your products and services on satsearch, get started here.
Early demonstrations of optical communications technologies date back to the mid-90s. The Communications Research Laboratory (CRL) in Japan successfully demonstrated the Laser Communication Experiment (LCE) on the Japanese Engineering Test Satellite-VI (ETS-VI) satellite in 1994 with the first purpose-built lasercom satellite for demonstrating space-to-ground laser communications.
The ARTEMIS program, a European-led mission, demonstrated bi-directional laser communication between a geostationary orbit and the European Space Agency (ESA) Optical Ground Station (OGS). This incorporated narrower beam divergences than the LCE mission, which allowed higher data rates and enabled a better understanding of atmospheric impairments, particularly at low zenith angles.
The geostationary satellite-based missions allowed for the use of a fixed ground terminal to conduct repetitive measurement of link parameters over many days and have enabled the improvement of propagation models and design changes of subsequent lasercom missions.
Small satellites predominantly operate in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and offer a low-cost platform for researchers to test technologies such as satellite laser communications. For example, the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) in Japan and the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) have used such platforms to successfully demonstrate laser communications using satellites in LEO over the last few years.
Table 1: Recent significant missions incorporating small satellite laser communication terminals
SOTA | OSIRISv2 | |
---|---|---|
Operator | NICT, Japan | DLR, Germany |
Launch date | May 24, 2014 | June 22, 2016 |
Satellite | SOCRATES (48 kg) | BIROS (130 kg) |
Mass | 5.9 kg | 5 kg |
Size | 18×11×10 cm | 25×20×10 cm |
Beacon | 1 µm unmodulated | 1560 nm modulated |
Downlink | 800, 980, 1549 nm | 1545, 1550 nm |
Modulation | On-Off Keying | On-Off Keying |
Max. bitrate | 10 Mbit/s | 1 Gbit/s |
As satellites are getting smaller the need to fit in communications systems that will allow the reduced form factor at lower power and with higher data rates has generated significant interest in laser communications for CubeSats.
The first (brave) attempt to demonstrate laser communication on a CubeSat was on-board FITSAT-1, a 1U system developed at the Fukuoka Institute of Technology in Japan. The satellite carried two arrays of high-power light-emitting diodes (LEDs) along with an experimental RF transceiver and was deployed in October 2012 by the robotic arm of the International Space Station (ISS).
FITSAT-1 used a neodymium magnet as a passive attitude control system with a panel containing 50 green 3W LEDs, achieving 200-W pulses and modulated with a 1-kHz Morse-code signal.
A photomultiplier coupled to a 25 cm ground telescope was used to receive the signals on the ground. Interestingly, the flight model of the FITSAT-1 laser communication payload was tested between the beach of the Fukuoka and the rooftop of the eight-story building of the university which were 12 km apart from each other.
In August 2018, The Aerospace Corporation in the US tested a laser communication system during a mission named Optical Communications and Sensor Demonstration (OCSD) with two LEO CubeSats known as AeroCube-7B and Aerocube-7C. The satellites successfully transmitted data at a rate of 100 Mbps.
Today there are various lasercom products available or approaching the marketplace that have built on these early developments, bringing some significant benefits compared to existing solutions.
Optical communication systems have several advantages over traditional radio equipment including:
On the other hand, there are some aspects of optical satellite communications products that can cause issues such as:
As commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components have become more prominent and widely used in small satellites/CubeSats, and the Earth Observation (EO) sector particularly has seen an increase in the number of manufacturers adopting small satellites, the need for higher data rates is growing every year.
This presents a great opportunity for the manufacturers of satellite laser communications equipment and below we have listed a number of products available on the global marketplace in various stages of development, testing and maturity.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list at the link below for updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
If you would like our assistance in finding a suitable optical communication product or service for your needs from our extensive network, please fill out a request for information or proposal, and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can.
Please note that the listings above only include those suppliers for whom we have the full information about their products. There are a number of other companies with technology at various stages of development and testing that haven’t been included, but who may be able to help provide you with a solution.
Noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today today we’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community!
]]>In many ways a small satellite is only as valuable as the data it sends back to Earth. Unless the test and demonstration of the launch aspect was your primary goal, without an accurate and predictable way of communicating with a spacecraft it may as well be an expensive cube-shaped rock stuck in Earth’s orbit for a few years!
Every year we’re seeing new sensing, propulsion and control technologies for smallsats come to market, opening up affordable opportunities for manufacturers and mission designers. But these new sub-systems require effective data up- and down-links, and a modern ground segment solution, if the full value is to be gained.
Ground station services are a sector where innovation in recent years has dramatically simplified the demands on satellite operators, particularly through the development of shared networks. In this post we discuss shared satellite ground station networks and how a satellite operator can connect to one, using the example of Leaf Space’s Leaf Line network.
A ground station network is a distributed collection of existing (and proprietary for Leaf Space) ground station facilities and antennae spread around the world. It is accessed through a single, consistent system that provides value-added coverage for Earth-satellite data exchange.
A shared ground station network brings several distinct advantages compared with developing a bespoke solution:
In addition, for companies unable to develop their own ground segment a ground station-as-a-service is imperative for applications that require enterprise-level security and reliability for the network. This is particularly important for commercial ventures.
It is important to consider which ground control station solutions will work best for the mission very early in the design process.
The type of communications equipment required needs to be carefully chosen to achieve mission goals (minimising weight and volume) while also working effectively with the satellite ground segment solution needed to control the satellite and access your data.
In addition, although a shared network such as Leaf Space’s Leaf Line is a simple and highly scalable option, there is a small investment of time and resources required so that everything can get up and running seamlessly. Adding a ground station solution at short notice could result in the mission not achieving its full potential in terms of data access, or worse, cause a delay in launch.
However, advancements in interoperability and software mean that is possible to access the Leaf Line network if your satellite is already in orbit under certain conditions.
In addition, one of the ways that Leaf Space has worked to minimise the setup requirements and simplify mission planning is in the pre-integration of radios. Thanks to the SDR-based ground stations, a number of common radio models have already been integrated by developing and deploying specific DSP software patches on the shared network, so that satellite developers using these products can get up and running faster and for lower costs.
The following radios are pre-integrated in the Leaf Line service (with further models in development which will soon be integrated):
Radio | Manufacturer | Frequency | Modulation |
---|---|---|---|
SR2000 | GomSpace | 2025-2120; 2200-2290 | QPSK |
AX100 | GomSpace | 140-144; 399-403 | GFSK/GMSK |
SRS-3 | Satlab | 2025-2110; 2200-2290 | GMSK |
Li-1 | AstroDev | 137-144; 399-403 | FSK/GMSK |
Connecting a satellite to a ground station network is a straightforward process that can be carried out at various stages of a mission’s planning and development (though the earlier the better, as explained above).
We’ve broken down the main steps that customers typically follow to get up and running on the Leaf Line network, which are broadly similar to comparable services.
Firstly, you need to know the main specifications of the service that your satellite or constellation will require. This will include details such as:
In addition, it will be very helpful if you understand what frequencies would be most suitable for your mission’s needs. The Leaf Line network includes ground stations that can operate in the following frequencies:
Once the service provider has received your initial set of requirements there will be a process of discussion and refinement of the solution between you and the engineers responsible for overseeing the network.
This is a vital part of the process. As a mission designer you are probably clear on your specific coverage and pass timings/frequency but it will help to discuss all the options with the ground segment network provider.
You might find out that there are alternative or additional setups that could add new capabilities and capacity to your mission with little or no extra cost or resource, maximising your investment.
Leaf Space has found for example that many missions don’t require ground antennae based at the poles, which can lower costs and simplify ground network requirements.
Once the requirements are understood and all necessary equipment is up and running, your mission can then be integrated into the satellite ground segment network (potentially including integration of the transceiver protocols in the SDRs used for the ground station network, if they are not currently supported by Leaf Space’s ground station network).
This stage will enable you to further tweak and refine the parameters of your ground segment use for your particular needs.
Once integration is complete the next task is to test the entire service, either on the ground or with the satellite in orbit.
Both the up- and down-links (where relevant) will be tested as well as your access to the data that the ground station network acquires and secures on your behalf.
This is an opportunity to calibrate your mission control and management software systems to work optimally with the incoming data.
Now all systems are ready for use and you are good to go!
Once your satellite is launched (or re-calibrated if already in orbit) you will then be able to access your data according to the requirements and schedule that you have agreed with the service provider.
And if your requirements change during the mission’s lifetime, it is possible to scale the service up or down as needed enabling you to react and respond to the exciting opportunities that space is bringing to us all.
To find out more about Leaf Space and see the details of the Leaf Line shared ground station network service, please view their supplier page here on satsearch.
]]>Please note that this article was originally published on LinkedIn at this link.
Inspired by the LinkedIn editorial team’s recent post on 20 big ideas for 2020 we’d like to share with you our own list of thoughts on where we see the space industry going next year.
The list certainly isn’t exhaustive and not meant to be polarising in any way – just our honest assessment of some aspects of the industry, based on speaking and working with hundreds of great companies throughout 2019.
In January this year we did a brief review of some expert predictions for the space industry in 2019 and it is interesting that most of the major themes are still in discussion here. This reflects the fact that there are only a relatively small number of major drivers in the industry (though this is increasing) and that space ventures take a long time to get right.
Which leads nicely into our first big idea…
Not quite a shocking start, but this is a genuine prediction. By many of the measures used to track the space industry (e.g. number of companies, deals, products, services etc.) there has been steady and sustained growth over the past few years and we expect that trend to continue in 2020.
Although the mega-constellations are set to drive a lot of new satellite development in the near future, the democratisation of the industry is also a real and growing trend. Right across the industry we’re seeing new, smaller buyers and suppliers complete deals and create new partnerships that are leading to commercial results.
And here at satsearch we’re all very excited to play a part in this in 2020!
As mentioned, satellite constellations are set to dominate a large part of the smallsat manufacturing sector pretty soon, if they don’t already. And as greater demands are placed on developers we expect to see new tools, approaches and technologies integrated into manufacturing operations.
Many of these will be inspired by lessons learned in the automotive industry, a topic we discussed back in August, and companies with the ability (and track record) to provide optimised satellite manufacturing capabilities could find plenty of new opportunities in 2020.
Space is a difficult endeavour and smaller companies often need to find partners with both public and private organisations in order to progress. Traditionally the smaller players in the industry have dealt with each other on the fringes of conferences and industry events, developing new collaborations to overcome their lack of resources in comparison to the defence giants and agencies.
But as the industry gets more and more dynamic these partnerships are becoming increasingly valuable to the participants and so we expect that more time and effort will be put into them from all sides. This will be seen in both the presentation and promotion of a new collaboration as well as the commercial results it can generate.
In an industry trend not just confined to space, we’re increasingly seeing many industry processes offered by third parties as a service. The idea is that the customer is able to deal with a single expert partner or tool that can handle everything, simplifying processes and lowering costs.
Easy to understand and easy to buy – the ‘X-as-a-service’ model makes a lot of sense for both parties where there is discrete value creation. We have seen this emerge in many areas, from ground segment-as-a-service to ‘done-for-you’ launch provision and management, and this is a commercial offer and marketing strategy that we expect will be even more popular in 2020.
For those outside of the industry bubble it is the big exploratory missions that usually generate the most interest. This is usually a good thing – the big missions that push the boundaries of our understanding and progress in the universe get the general public, as well as businesses who haven’t otherwise thought they could benefit, thinking and learning about space.
Next year for example we’ll hopefully see further major tests and possibly launches for:
You can find out more about these missions, and a range of others, in this article.
Space debris is no longer a fringe topic – it is now a critical area of discussion for the space industry and the decisions made over the next few years could have major ramifications for space missions in the next few decades.
There are some major missions in progress that seek to one day develop a really scalable, efficient and cost-effective solution to the problem of space debris, such as ESA’s CleanSpace-1 mission. In addition, the US Air Force also recently began trialling a sophisticated object tracking system called Space Fence that could help alleviate the problem. We’re also seeing new policies brought in by regulators and industry bodies that recognise its importance.
Maybe 2020 will be the year when a space debris collision is serious enough to warrant some other further, immediate action. Or maybe not. But commercial and political pressures are gradually moving the needle when it comes to finding ways to mitigate the issue and this will only intensify next year.
If they don’t already, we think that in 2020 upstream clients will come to expect suppliers to provide certain products in a modular format as standard. We’re seeing large numbers of leads come in for a wide variety of modules on a one-off basis, with customers specifying the requirements of their existing system setup.
This industry trend should see suppliers continue to work on standardising their products and solving interoperability issues to demonstrate how their technology fits with other third-party systems. An excellent example of this is satsearch member Leaf Space’s pre-integration of common radio models, manufactured by other suppliers, into their shared ground station network.
It is possible that China will lead the world in number of launches in 2020. In addition, buoyed by the partial success of the Chandrayaan 2 mission (despite the failed landing on the Moon), India’s ISRO is also planning to use an expected budget increase to expand operations next year.
On the satsearch platform we see a lot of activity around companies in India, Japan and other countries across Asia – and this shows no signs of slowing down!
2019 was a very exciting year for space but we think 2020 will be even bigger. Concerns over debris and militarisation persist but with each new launch concept, innovation and startup entering the market, the solutions to the issues and roadblocks that affect the industry are being steadily overcome.
The space industry is employing more people and creating more value than ever and we can’t wait to see where things get to by this time next year!
What are your predictions for space in 2020? Which big ideas are you most excited by?
Let us know on Twitter!
]]>For several decades rockets were built to deliver satellites that weigh several hundred or thousand kilograms. None of the launch providers were really interested in just putting satellites into orbit that were the size of a shoebox or typical refrigerator, because of the insignificantly low returns they would get in accommodating these satellites against larger payloads.
However, over the last decade, the CubeSat and small satellite revolution has created a growing demand for launch services for these satellites.
In this article we provide a brief primer to the topic of how the demand for CubeSat and small satellites has evolved and give an overview of some of the launch service providers currently available on the global marketplace for space.
In the next few chapters we take a brief look at how launch service provision works and discuss what key performance characteristics need to be taken into account when selecting a product for your operation. If you would instead like to skip down to view the product listings, please click here.
Do you know of any launch options for CubeSats and small satellites that we’ve missed? Please drop us a note at info@satsearch.co or on Twitter. Alternatively, if you’d like to list your products and services on satsearch, get started here.
Please note that this aspect of the supply chain has recently been undergoing a number of changes with new suppliers and services coming to market – we will therefore keep this post updated over time with new product and service information. To stay up to date, please consider bookmarking this page and subscribing to our weekly newsletter at the link below.
The sudden emergence of an avalanche of CubeSats and small satellites in the space industry over the last decade has created a classic problem of demand and supply for space launches. Essentially, because the big rockets had to find a way to accommodate and adapt to servicing multiple CubeSats and other small satellites on their rockets.
Given that only a handful of launches are available for any satellite to get to orbit every year, multiple satellite manufacturers have been trying to get on board launch manifests as quickly as possible to ensure their satellites can deploy and provide services to their customers. This demand-and-supply problem has created an opportunity for service providers who can streamline the entire process of procuring a launch, and the space industry has seen the emergence of several launch service providers.
In this article we look at some of the factors that should be taken into account while selecting a launch service provider. We also provide an overview of a number of launch service providers on the market, all of which are listed on the satsearch platform to help you select the best option.
Once a satellite is built there are several aspects that need to be taken care of in the process of launching it into space to ensure safety and success:
Launch service providers make life easy for teams trying to launch their satellites by taking the risk of booking a launch with the rocket (launch provider) and offering slots as individual contracts. Once a potential launch provider is selected, the details of interfacing the satellite into the launch vehicle and complying with the requirements of the launch vehicle are all provided on behalf of the launch operator.
Launch service providers package the provision of launch adapters and Picosatellite Orbital Deployers (PODs) so that both the launch provider and the satellite manufacturers don’t need to bother about having the right mechanical and electrical interfaces with the launch vehicle. Once a decision is made to choose a particular launch option, all the legal and regulatory aspects of launch support, provision of the deployers, the necessary environmental tests, transport of the satellite, clearance of customs, running of final tests and integrating the satellite with the rocket is all taken care of by these launch service providers.
However, this landscape is now evolving with launch operators such as SpaceX and RocketLab themselves looking to provide services. This phenomenon may become bigger as many other small satellite rocket operators may come online to make the entire process of getting to orbit smoother for CubeSat and small satellite manufacturers.
The Small Satellite Orbital Deployer (SSOD) attached to the Japanese module’s robotic arm is used by astronauts who seal the airlock on the ISS, open the other end up to space, and command the station’s Kibo robotic arm to pick up the deployer to bring it outside for satellite deployment. ISS based launch service providers are specific to US and Japan as they are key stakeholders in using the Kibo robotic arm. The ISS can also be used to perform experiments inside the station.
This problem is creating another opportunity in the launch service provision industry to create a service to deliver satellites launched as a part of a constellation on the same rocket to go into different inclinations. We call this the ‘orbit as a service’ model.
Now that you’re armed with the knowledge of what are the important aspects to consider in selecting a launch service provider, you can make an informed decision from the available launch service providers, based on your preferences.
Below we have listed several launch options for CubeSats and small satellites that are currently available.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more.
EXOLAUNCH began as spinoff from the Technical University of Berlin and today offers launch services, mission management solutions and deployment systems for small satellites.
The company offers a tailored launch service designed to meet the specific needs of each smallsat customer with a variety of launch opportunities are available including LEO/SSO and GTO/GEO.
Previous clients have included some of the world’s most ambitious startups and established companies along with universities, space agencies and scientific institutions.
Spaceflight Industries provide services to help clients identify, book and manage rideshare launches. The company aims to offer a straightforward and cost-effective suite of products and services that includes
Ultimately, Spaceflight enables commercial, non-profit organizations and government entities to achieve their mission goals – on time and on budget.
Alba Orbital has developed strong partnerships with several launch companies and brokers to offer a range of PocketQube launch opportunities to companies, universities and teams. The company currently runs an annual launch service to ensure reliable access to space for PocketQube teams. As demand increases they expect to increase this cadence to offer biannual then quarterly launch opportunities.
The secondary payload market allows small satellites to be flown alongside other satellites. Existing launch brokers have typically not been interested in PocketQubes, as you need a large number of satellites to fill any launch vehicle. Alba Orbital’s PocketQubes launch service can offer a highly cost-effective solution compared with other options launching CubeSats to LEO, democratizing access to space.
SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.
SpaceX offers competitive pricing for launches on its well-known Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy systems. The company can also offer discounts for multi-launch purchases for clients able to commit to a longer term contract. In addition, SpaceX can also offer crew transportation services for certain LEO destinations.
Rocket Lab created its flagship Electron program to deliver frequent and reliable access to space for smallsats. Electron is an entirely carbon-composite vehicle that uses Rocket Lab’s 3D-printed Rutherford engines for primary propulsion.
The vehicle is a 2-stage rocket that is 17m in length and has a diameter of 1.2m. The vehicle delivers nominal payloads of up to 150kg (maximum is 225kg) to a 500km sun-synchronous orbit.
Space BD is a space services and launch company based in Tokyo, Japan. After its founding in 2017, the company has grown rapidly to become the leading company in ISS utilization, and was selected by JAXA to provide smallsat deployment service from the ISS “Kibo” module. It can deploy cubesats up to 6U as well as 50-kg size microsatellites.
It recently won the RFP by JAXA to provide rideshares using Japan’s flagship launchers, H-IIA and H3, to SSO/LEO and GTO.
Space BD also provides in-orbit demonstration service using i-SEEP, an external platform on the exterior of the Kibo module, to allow space equipments and instruments to gain valuable flight heritage to increase its TRL. Users can receive power and communication capacity by attaching their payload to the platform via plug-and-play interface.
Space BD aims to lower the burden of accessing space and contribute to the commercialization of the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) region by providing solutions through business-driven approach to overcome various obstacles with the industrialization of space.
Payloads launched to date – Space BD deployed the cubesat for its first commercial customer in Nov 2019, with further 17 contracted projects for J-SSOD and i-SEEP combined
Note: Prior to commercialization, during 2012-2019, JAXA has deployed 41 cubesats with J-SSOD for academic projects.
NanoRacks LLC was founded in 2009 in Houston, Texas and is a market leader in commercial small satellite launches from the ISS. NanoRacks CubeSat Deployers provide the opportunity for customers to deploy CubeSats up to 6U in size ranging from 1 to 50 kilograms.
The deployment platform also allows for multiple satellites to be deployed in sequence, enhancing abilities to create CubeSat constellations. Additionally, NanoRacks has for the first time launched its External CubeSat Deployer on OA-6 that is mounted to Cygnus, and will deploy after Cygnus departs ISS.
On-board the ISS, NanoRacks provides plug-and-play microgravity research facilities, allowing standardized payloads to use a range of platforms. NanoRacks aims to enhance space utilization in low earth orbit and beyond.
D-Orbit is a NewSpace company with solutions covering the entire lifecycle of a space mission, including mission analysis and design, engineering, manufacturing, integration, testing, launch, and end-of-life decommissioning.
D-Orbit states that its competitive advantage is the versatility of launch and deployment services available, which can be tailored to the customer’s needs. From the launch procurement of a single spacecraft using standard deployment strategies to the precise deployment of a full constellation with ION CubeSat Carrier, a free-flying dispenser developed and operated by D-Orbit.
ION CubeSat Carrier can host any combination of CubeSats with a total volume of up to 48U and release them individually into distinct orbital slots, enabling deployment schemes previously unavailable to spacecraft with no independent propulsion.
Momentus provides in-space transportation services for satellites between various orbits out to deep space. The company’s water powered in-space rockets provide last mile logistics, connecting customers from where their rockets drop them off to their final destination. Momentus’ mission is to provide the most efficient in-space transportation powered by deep space resource utilization services.
Precious Payload is a digital space mission management tool that features manifests and rideshare slots posted directly by launch operators and services from other suppliers, such as ground segment providers, insurance brokers, and hardware manufacturers. The aim is to reduce costs and time associated with procuring mission management by adopting standards and introducing automatic matchmaking algorithms.
Precious Payload advocates for building a GDS-like (global distribution system) architecture for space launches, ground segment and other market players similar to what has been done for airlines and cargo shipments when those industries entered the internet age.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying launch services for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
]]>Each article features multiple commercially-available products from suppliers all around the world, along with our advice and insights on how to make the right choice for your mission.
We also keep these updated when new products come to market, or older models are obsoleted, so please sign up for our mailing list to be notified of any updates.
To help you more easily find components, services and sub-systems for your space applications please take a look at the pages linked to below.
On each page you can submit a request for a quote, documentation or further information on any of the products listed or send us a more general query to discuss your specific needs and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
Also known as momentum wheels, reaction wheels store rotational energy to deliver three-axis attitude control, without external sources of torque, so that satellites can re-position while in orbit.
Also known as magnetic torquers, magnetorquers provide in-built attitude control, allowing a smallsat to maintain orientation with respect to an inertial frame.
In-space CubeSat propulsion systems that enable dynamic control of CubeSats and smallsats in orbit – for complex manoeuvres, collision avoidance, constellation positioning and other applications.
GPS receivers for satellites provide a vital communications link to help contribute to a wide range of Earth-focussed missions.
The emerging market segment of optical/laser communications systems for both space-space and space-ground data transfer holds great promise for future missions.
Commercially-available Earth Observation (EO) optical payloads for small satellites (<100 kg) that provide a wealth of data for a wide variety of missions and applications.
Cutting-edge satellites use star trackers to scan the starscape and determine the satellite’s attitude while in-orbit.
Attitude determination sensors that can determine the direction and position of the sun relative to a satellite to aid navigation and positioning.
Vital satellite radio equipment designed to enable satellites and spacecraft to downlink as much data as possible with as little power, mass, and volume taken up by the transmission equipment.
Satellite communication products that transmit data in the S-band for a wide range of technologies and applications.
A range of antennas for use with S-band communications equipment – a section of the microwave band of the electromagnetic spectrum that covers frequencies in the range 2 to 4 gigahertz (GHz).
A range of fixed and deployable solar panels and arrays to provide power to satellites.
Power and energy management systems that ensure consistent supply of power to other sub-systems in the satellite so they may operate effectively.
On-board avionics computer processing units that coordinate a wide variety of data and system functions to keep a spacecraft running smoothly.
An overview of deployers and dispensers for CubeSats, picosats and smallsats that enable the separation of one or multiple secondary payloads from a launch vehicle to the required initial orbit without damaging the vehicle, satellite or primary payload.
Every year more and more launch options are becoming available to teams looking to deploy a satellite in orbit. This article breaks down the different formulations of service available and details the major providers active in the marketplace.
Service providers around the world are providing satellite operators with access to both dedicated and shared ground station networks to enhance communication and data exchange.
Is your company or product missing? Or would you like to discuss the development of any new market overview articles? We’d love to hear from you – simply send us an email today and we’ll be in touch asap.
]]>Established in the heartland of Italy’s automotive industry, NPC Spacemind has been bringing cutting-edge design and manufacturing expertise to the space industry for more than 10 years.
In this article we discuss NPC Spacemind’s work helping space mission designers understand and integrate high-quality structural components and systems to enhance efficiency and performance.
Please note that this is an advertorial article discussing NPC Spacemind’s satellite structure portfolio and was developed in partnership with the company.
In nanosatellite design the structural elements are sometimes undervalued compared to other sub-systems. With so much emphasis placed on innovation of the vital navigation, computing, control, propulsion, sensing and communication systems onboard, mission designers can sometimes overlook the opportunities that lie in optimizing mission critical structural components.
This attitude has been exacerbated due to the introduction of the CubeSat standard. In CubeSats the structures and bus have been standardized which has led some users to think that all of the margins for improvement and performance enhancement have already been reached in products described as state-of-the-art.
In reality this characterization is far from the truth; structural design and effectiveness are still key aspects that engineers can optimize in order to achieve the maximum level of performance and deliverable application for mission design.
In addition, the continuous evolution of payload development and application scenarios is placing even greater emphasis on structural aspects of the satellite while opening up new possibilities for engineers.
These opportunities arise in two distinct areas; the performance of the structural element and the handling capability during satellite development.
Performance – It might seem obvious at first glance, but it is important to remember that simply satisfying a design’s performance requirements is not the same as achieving the best possible performance available. Where structural equipment is concerned, taking the approach that requirements should just be satisfied will limit the performance that could be achieved as well as the range of mission goals that may be considered – this is particularly true where nanosatellites are concerned.
Handling – In a similar manner, handling requirements are also often neglected in the early stages of mission or platform design, yet can become critical during the advanced phases of development. However, when a satellite is in the latter stages of integration and testing the actions that can be taken to mitigate poor handling capabilities are very limited and any structural issue uncovered can result in significant and costly delays.
Mission and satellite designers who are seeking to develop the best possible system to meet their goals should carefully consider whether the structural decisions made early in the process could severely limit their potential further down the line.
NPC Spacemind’s decades of experience in electromechanical manufacturing and assembly of complex robotic groups has given the company a deep appreciation of best practices in structural component design and manufacture. This can help satellite producers avoid placing these limitations on their equipment unnecessarily and has enabled the company to develop an innovative portfolio of structure products.
NPC Spacemind’s portfolio of SM structure products has been designed to address the challenges and opportunities that satellite manufacturers face on a daily basis.
SM structures are high-reliability CubeSat structures that suit a range of CubeSat unit sizes. The structures have been designed for flexibility and to maximize performance in terms of available space, volume and mass. The products have the following key features:
Lightweight – SM structures are currently the lightest structural products on the market. This enables engineers to extract the maximum levels of performance and capacity in spacecraft design, allowing the mass budget to be better exploited for payload and sub-systems.
Redundant switches – SM structures feature a redundant number of deployment switches with respect to CDS guidelines. This key aspect allows incredible flexibility for the user, bringing the possibility of including multiple independent payload/sub-systems. Nevertheless, this feature also allows full compliance with specific launch providers (e.g. as specified by companies such as Nanoracks) which usually require a redundant inhibition system while in the deployer.
A flexible design and assembly concept – SM structures are intuitively designed in order to simplify the assembly and design processes of the satellite allowing a huge margin of flexibility. The structures are precision-engineered to introduce the minimum number of design/interface constraints allowing the spacecraft design to be free and highly focused on the functional objectives.
Structural products should secure, enhance, support and facilitate the components and sub-systems that make up the rest of the satellite. SM structures help achieve this through a standardized product that can be adapted to specific satellite requirements and development constraints.
For example, customers are free to determine stack configuration in terms of length, use of frames, mounting direction and orientation. These design aspects greatly enhance versatility in the case of 6U and 12U form factor satellites where the ability to mount stacks not only vertically, but also horizontally and transversely, increases the possibilities of satellite design and integration of complex payloads.
In addition, it is also possible to select different end-frame configurations in order to allow for the integration of multiple payloads.
SM structures are also carefully designed to enable compatibility with other commercial components. Today’s satellites are often produced using a variety of different vendor hardware in order to get the best trade-off in terms of functionality and cost. However, many commercial solutions still limit the user’s ability to incorporate third-party equipment, due to compatibility and interface issues.
This can limit the creativity and engineering capacity of a nanosat developer and is something that NPC Spacemind has worked hard to minimize. All SM structures are designed to embrace compatibility with the majority of commercial hardware and standard layouts available.
The products are also designed to be subordinated to the assembly of the sub-systems without interfering with the process. This allows the user to dedicate effort to the assembly and testing of sub-systems without the structural parts constituting an obstacle or slowing down development.
This capability is vital in situations where it is necessary to assemble and disassemble the satellite several times for tests and iterations. A good structure must be designed not to introduce difficulties or long and complex assembly/disassembly methods that can waste time and costs and that is the exact approach NPC has taken.
Spacemind was set up in 2013 and operates as the aerospace division of New Production Concept S.r.l. (NPC). Increasingly, NPC Spacemind is assisting clients across the space sector with complex design, manufacture and assembly challenges – particularly in the use of structural components for CubeSats and nanosats.
Electromechanical manufacturing companies have spent decades optimizing approaches to complex manufacturing and NPC Spacemind is able to bring direct experience of this thinking to the space sector. Working as an expert partner on mechanical systems projects, the company is able to help satellite manufacturers with both individual projects and build development capacity for the future.
A wide variety of technical challenges relating to satellite manufacture can be addressed through a more sophisticated approach to design and assembly. NPC helps clients make better choices at these stages, such as optimizing structural stability for optical payloads or simplifying iterative assembly processes.
To find out more about NPC Spacemind’s heritage, products and services, please view our spotlight article discussing the business here on the satsearch blog.
]]>For thousands of years explorers used the stars to navigate across the globe. Around 6,000 stars are visible to the naked eye under the best possible conditions (the sort you might get hundreds of miles out at sea for example) and mariners have typically used one or more of 58 navigational stars to chart a course on the open ocean.
Today’s explorers are pioneering new technologies and ideas in a completely different environment. Instead of mighty wooden ships they’re seeking new horizons with small satellites that can be just centimetres in length.
The technologies that combine in the build, launch and operation of these smallsats are some of the most advanced that humanity has ever created. But incredibly, these highly technical systems can still use the same approach that sailors have employed for centuries as part of their navigation – through the use of simple components called star trackers.
In this post we take a look at this fascinating piece of space equipment, look at how star trackers for satellites work, discuss what to think about when selecting a star tracker for your satellite, and give an overview of some of the products available on the global marketplace for space.
If you’d like to skip the primer information and go straight to the product list, please click here.
Please note that this article is for information only and is not purporting to be an assessment of any of the products listed. If you need more information at any time, please don’t hesitate to contact us. In addition, while we try to be as comprehensive as possible new star trackers are coming to the market regularly and we will keep this article updated with new models and suppliers over time – so please check back often or consider bookmarking this page.
In essence a star tracker is a simple navigational tool that can determine the orientation of its host satellite relative to certain stars.
It scans the starscape to pick out known stars and constellations contained in its catalogue and uses these to determine the satellite’s attitude to enable star tracker navigation.
The stars are located using cameras or photocells and onboard processing systems identify the images and process the measured position in the reference frame of the spacecraft.
Around 50-60 main navigational stars are primarily used to determine the satellite’s position, although for larger and more complex missions and spacecraft entire star field databases can be referenced in order to determine orientation.
In order to work effectively a star tracker needs to be able to record accurate measurements of star positions during the satellite’s orbit. It needs to account for interference effects of light reflecting from the satellite’s surfaces or exhaust plumes during propulsion sequences.
The sensitive sensing components also need to be adequately protected from high radiation levels to continue working effectively and should also consume as little as power as possible.
As with most smallsat equipment, mass is obviously a factor. In addition, with many satellites incorporating a wider range of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) and bespoke sub-systems, interoperability and assembly options are also important when selecting star trackers for satellites.
In this section, you can find a range of star trackers for satellites available on the global market. These listings will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.com – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We have also put together an overview of sun sensors if you require additional sensing equipment.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying a star tracker for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
]]>There is growing demand for Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers that enable small satellites to achieve attitude and orbit control, orbital transfers, and end-of-life deorbiting.
In this article we provide a gentle primer to the topic of selecting a smallsat or CubeSat GPS receiver for a satellite mission and give an overview of some of the navigation and positioning products making waves in the global marketplace for space.
In the next few sections we take a brief look at how GPS receivers work and discuss what key performance characteristics need to be taken into account when selecting a product for your operation.
Selecting the most appropriate CubeSat GPS receiver, or small satellite version, can be a tricky challenge.
The rapid growth of the NewSpace sector has led to greater use of modular components and several manufacturers are now producing CubeSat GPS receivers as independent products.
Selecting the right GPS receiver is important for ensuring the ease of operations of your satellite.
In this article, we look at some of the factors that should be taken into account to make this decision. We also provide an overview of a number of GPS receivers on the market, all of which are listed on the satsearch platform to help you select the best option.
GPS receivers are ubiquitous in many ground-based applications, from large-scale industrial transport navigation systems to fitness trackers and smartphones. However, using GPS receivers in space is a much more challenging task compared to normal terrestrial use.
Most terrestrial applications use Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) components designed for specific operations and featuring typical characteristics needed for ground-based use. The difference between such uses and space-based GPS is not just in the components used but also in the software embedded, as GPS receivers made for terrestrial use typically are not tuned to accommodate the large variations in the received signal Doppler frequencies that are usually the case with satellites orbiting the Earth.
Aside from such technical limitations there are also regulatory issues such as the requirements set by the International Traffic on Arms Regulations (ITAR) which do not allow GPS receivers to provide navigation outputs after they exceed the ITAR limits of 60,000 feet and 1,000 knots. Therefore, GPS receivers often come with export control restrictions that depend on the end-user requirements. Be sure to check with the suppliers if they are able to actually serve you before considering testing a particular GPS receiver at the design stage.
Despite the limitations GPS receivers have been shown to be very useful for a range of in-orbit processes such as:
Now that you’re armed with the knowledge of what a GPS receiver needs to do you can make an informed decision from the available products, based on your required performance characteristics.
Some of the potential key specifications and performance criteria to evaluate for each product are:
These provide a snippet of the technical details that are necessary to evaluate as part of your selection process. In addition, there are the typical criteria for any major purchase such as; cost, delivery time, supplier reputation and location (particularly regarding any export controls, as mentioned above), contract details and maintenance conditions to take into account.
Finally, it’s important to note that selection of a GPS receiver for your satellite is an iterative process, as is the case for virtually every other component of your overall system.
In this section, you can find a range of GPS receivers available on the global market. These listings will be updated when new gps receiving products are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We have also put together overviews of X-band transmitters, S-band transmitters and S-band antennas to help you evaluate additional satellite communications systems.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying a GPS receiver for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
]]>Engineering teams working on satellite constellations continue to pop up all over the world. Scaling up production across the supply chain to meet the demands of batch production is an emerging challenge. Vendors across the supply chain are faced with the stiff challenge of decreasing lead times and costs per unit, while maintaining quality and reliability.
Satsearch is conducting a survey among engineers and managers of teams building space missions, to get insights into the current challenges they face when interfacing with suppliers in the space industry. Our investigation includes the entire supply chain lifecycle: from identifying vendors and dealing with export control issues, to working with technical documentation and troubleshooting post-sales issues.
We are happy to share some preliminary results from the survey, with the aim of providing stakeholders across the value chain with key insights into the current challenges faced by engineering teams building space missions.
Over half of the people we’ve surveyed so far work with component manufacturers. This speaks to the fact that richness of the supply chain at every tier is important for the viability of future space missions.
Most people in our survey restrict their supplier search to a handful of candidates. Is this because they only need to explore a handful to find the right product or service? Or is it because it’s just too time-consuming to extend the search to other options?
This is perhaps the most striking result from our survey. Contrary to what many people assume about the space industry, a large fraction of engineers actively assess alternative procurement options on the market. This opens the door for an open, vibrant, competitive marketplace that can only reap benefits for the push towards commercialization.
For any given component, subsystem, entire spacecraft, or service, there are a plethora of suppliers across the world that can be considered in the procurement process. Need some help navigating through all the options? Let us help you identify suppliers for space products and services. We’ve helped countless teams save time and pinpoint the right solutions for their space missions.
Export control issues seem to be less of a pressing issue for procurement. Is this related to the fact that engineers restrict their search to only a handful of (known) suppliers? Would this become more of an issue if the trade space became easier to navigate?
Clearly, documentation leaves a lot to be desired. On the plus side, there’s lots of room for improvement!
Again, customer service and after-sales support can be drastically improved in the eyes of space engineers. Does this indicate that suppliers focus their effort primarily on securing sales, rather than building a reputation for excellence across the whole procurement lifecycle?
For the commercialization of space, it’s imperative that systematic delays, a depressing signature of the space industry, are consigned to history. Over half of the survey respondents are faced with weeks to months of delays. How much is this costing the space industry? How many suppliers lose sales because they just can’t deliver on time?
CTO of an Earth imaging constellation spacecraft company says:
Identifying the right supplier with proper heritage is always a challenge.
A subsystem designer at an SME says:
We often are faced with bad documentation by suppliers, which doesn’t allow us to work efficiently.
An experienced scientist at a space agency says:
Delivery of sub-quality parts and the resulting time delay is a big problem. Some manufacturers are not keen on offering compensation when they deliver components not up to standard and not according to the previously set requirements.
An engineer working on component development says:
I have had suppliers provide datasheets detailing one set of Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) requirements and then deliver hardware that consumes 30% more power than stated.
A professor leading a satellite lab says:
There is no reliable information on finding the right type of component with least delivery/lead time online.
An engineer at a large satellite manufacturer says:
Procurement process at our institution is in itself a lengthy process and affects our ability to work quickly.
Participate in the satsearch supplier engagement survey to contribute your insights. The survey takes less than 3 minutes to complete.
If you want to reach out to us or have any further questions, please write to us at info@satsearch.co.
]]>There are over 75 satellite manufacturers globally, battling it out in the market to work with teams putting payloads into orbit. Here is a brief overview of satellite manufacturers that are operating in the space industry to deliver spacecraft that range from a few hundred grams to 150 kg.
Service providers such as Planet, Spire, etc., who also build their spacecraft have not been included intentionally in this list, since they do not sell their satellites commercially.
For any given component, subsystem or entire spacecraft, there are a plethora of suppliers across the world that can be considered in the procurement process. Need some help navigating through all the options? Let us help you if you need to identify suppliers for space products and services. We’ve helped countless teams save time and pinpoint the right solutions for their space missions.
Do you want a copy of this infographic in high resolution or want to let us know we’re missing manufacturer? Email us at info@satsearch.co.
]]>Space BD is a space services and operations company founded in 2017 and based in Tokyo, Japan, with a vision to play a major role in transforming space into a growing commercial industry.
The company’s primary services include:
In particular, Space BD has become a market leader in the smallsat launch service segment in Japan, particularly for customers carrying out smallsat development projects, such as space start-ups, universities, regional governments and public organisations.
We spoke with Ryuichi Sato, Space BD’s European representative, to find out more about the company’s history, services and future plans. He explained that;
“Most entities in the space industry specialize in one thing, and there’s often a need for someone to fill in the gaps.”
“For example, start-ups have technical expertise and regional governments are good at establishing policy initiatives, but they might lack the commercial know-how and strategic viewpoint to coordinate the activities and grow them into sustainable businesses and programs. That’s where Space BD comes in.”
Ryuichi explained that the Space BD team consists of business development professionals with extensive experience in diversified areas, as well as satellite engineers and mission managers for launch campaigns.
“We help lower the barriers for companies developing innovation by providing one-stop solutions to various commercial and regulatory challenges that they face, so that the experts can fully devote themselves to their technology development.”
A few members of the experienced Space BD team.
The smallsat sector is one of the fastest growing areas of the space industry and there is a substantial market for proven launch solutions.
For Japanese satellite manufacturers and operators Space BD offers a unique launch proposition due to its long standing partnership with the Japanese Space Agency, JAXA.
In just over one year, Space BD has secured as many as 16 contracts for its CubeSat deployment service from the International Space Station (ISS), putting it in a leading position in the nanosatellite launch market in Japan. As Ryuichi explains;
“As part of our smallsat launch service we provide a deployment service from JAXA’s “Kibo” module on the ISS. Since we were selected by JAXA in May 2018 to be the official commercial service provider, several launch campaigns are currently underway. The first satellite for our customer, “AQT-D” developed by the University of Tokyo, was just launched on September 25th, 2019. AQT-D will demonstrate water-based propulsion system.”
“We have regular and flexible deployment slots once a quarter and we take care of all the documentation and technical integration for the required safety assessments. We also provide logistics services for the satellite hardware in order to offer a complete package solution to our customers. “
The second major operational service provided by Space BD is an in-orbit demonstration service on the ISS. The company was selected by JAXA in early 2019 to be the only commercial service provider for i-SEEP, the external platform on the JAXA “Kibo” module. Space BD has already begun providing the service to Satlantis, a Spanish start-up company, which aims to demonstrate their high resolution optical camera in-orbit. Ryuichi describes the service as follows:
“Customers can attach satellite components and observation instruments to gain valuable in-flight heritage and get to TRL of 7, 8 or 9. This is of particular importance for space start-ups and SMEs to obtain market acceptance.”
Space BD also offers various other solutions in the space supply chain including procurement and import support for purchasing overseas space components and hardware, business development and market analysis, and project management. As Ryuichi puts it;
“We can handle all the nitty-gritty, business aspects of any space technology development project.”
We asked Ryuichi what makes Space BD different from other solutions providers seeking to support the development and implementation of new space technologies for third-party clients; he explained:
“There are three main things that make Space BD unique. Firstly, we are a space services company – we don’t own or develop hardware but instead provide services to facilitate aspects of the space supply chain and remove obstacles inhibiting developers. As a service provider, we are expanding the space market by making it easier to access space through improvements in the launch service quality.”
“Secondly there is the strength of our team – Space BD has a unique team consisting of top-level personnel in business development, sales as well as engineering with different backgrounds, from both space and non-space industry. We are working together to achieve our big vision, which is to realize the Industrialization of Space.”
“Finally, we have a strategic partnership with NanoRacks and ISISpace. By utilizing the strengths of each country and company in the spirit of international cooperation, it enables us to contribute to the space development for humankind more rapidly. we have strengthened our engineering expertise through unique strategic partnerships and by boosting our internal engineering team. This ensures we provide high-quality engineering support to our customers, primarily in our smallsat deployment and in-orbit demonstration services.”
With such a strong track record of working effectively with JAXA, and growing expertise in both the engineering and commercial aspects of the modern space market, Space BD is in a very interesting position today, with a number of avenues for growth open to it.
We asked Ryuichi for more information on what the company’s vision and plans are moving forwards:
“We are cultivating several opportunities within the space supply chain, and our aim is to become a global top-tier company in satellite launch business in a few years.”
“We want to lower the barriers of space industrialization with our commercial approach and reduce the burden of technical development for companies. To achieve this, we will become a platform to provide one-stop solutions to tackle various challenges for the industrialization of space.”
“We hope to help accelerate the commercialization of space by removing the obstacles hindering technology development for space start-ups, SMEs and universities.”
“The space industry has traditionally been dominated by large companies and government contracts and, just like satsearch, we hope to encourage more players to enter and create new businesses.”
“One of the major issues for new start-ups is obtaining affordable and flexible access to space and gaining in-flight heritage to mature their product or service. Therefore, we have structured our services to be a one-stop shop for everything relating to space development projects.”
Today, Space BD is growing in a number of areas as they work to fulfil this vision. At the 2019 Small Satellite Conference in Utah they announced a new Collaborative Service Agreement with ISISpace for example.
This partnership will facilitate Space BD in providing small satellite deployment service in European region. Find out more about the agreement here.
We are very grateful for Ryuichi’s input and delighted to be working with Space BD to bring their expertise to the global market.
In the coming weeks and months we’ll be taking a closer look at Space BD’s commercial offering, as well as sharing more information about other news at the business. In the meantime, for more details on the company please view Space BD’s page on the satsearch platform.
Finally, if you would like to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program, and discover how your business can benefit from the support we are offering to companies like Space BD, please click on this link.
]]>SpaceShare is a joint initiative by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and satsearch member Exseed Space.
The aim is to provide freely available volume for 10 Eurocard-sized printed circuit boards (PCBs) in the SpaceShare Chassis which will launch on the December 2019 (as currently scheduled) Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV).
Space for each PCB will be provided to a member of an academic institution or NGO in India in order to expand and deepen ISRO’s burgeoning space program.
The 10 individuals or teams chosen to provide a PCB will be selected according to the quality of a written proposal, which will be judged on its usefulness to both the ISRO’s future missions and to India in general.
Each payload will need to conform to the strict specifications given in the full SpaceShare terms and conditions in order to work effectively with the launch vehicle and other equipment on-board, and some testing will be required (which participants will need to pay for) to ensure each PCB will operate according to ISRO’s requirements.
Representatives from winning teams will be invited to Hyderabad for a 1-day workshop and there will also be an opportunity to speak with ISRO engineers at your own site. Please note that expenses for both of these events will not be covered in SpaceShare.
We think this is a really exciting way to test new ideas and experiments in space, grow participation in ISRO’s activities and develop new innovations that could benefit all of India.
Space missions are complex, expensive and time-consuming, so being able to participate in a launch that has already been planned and developed in this manner is a major opportunity.
If you are interested in hearing more about SpaceShare please send us a request for information and we’ll get back to you with the full details of the program. If you are interested then please register for SpaceShare here.
]]>Building satellites is a challenge in itself. However, ensuring that the satellite is maximizing its utility once in-orbit involves a series of complex steps and technology that needs to be accurately and efficiently deployed in order to get quality results.
This requires making sure that antennae are available on the ground to constantly monitor satellite status and provide an opportunity for the operators to download the data required by their customers.
Small satellites zip around the globe at speeds that result in them getting just 10-20 minutes of communication time with ground-based antennae, depending on the location.
Therefore, a critical challenge for smallsat operators is how to maximize the amount of time a satellite can talk to an antenna on the ground.
However, it is complicated, expensive and time-consuming to develop a single new ground station, let alone several, based around the world, that would be required to increase available uptime in contact with the satellite.
One of the possible solutions is the use of a network of existing ground stations spread across the world to increase the possibility for communication between the satellite and the ground.
In this post we focus on companies that are offering this service to operators, allowing them to use an established set of facilities so they can run more effective space missions.
We discuss the how ground stations as services work, the benefits that service providers can bring to satellite owner/operators and give an overview of some of the key players in this sector of the modern space industry.
Please note that this aspect of the supply chain has recently been undergoing a number of changes with new suppliers and products coming to market – we will therefore keep this post updated over time with new product and service information. To stay up to date, please consider bookmarking this page and subscribing to our weekly newsletter at the link below.
You may be familiar with many different aspects of the space segment, but have you often wondered; how do satellite ground stations work?
Ground stations are essentially antennas that exchange electromagnetic waves with satellites or other systems in orbit. They may also incorporate equipment to store, manage, process, and deliver data to end-users or to satellite owners as required.
Sometimes referred to as an Earth terminal or Earth station, the ground station is a crucial part of the overall system, providing the vital link to space-based assets that pass over them.
Ensuring a stable and consistent link to a quickly moving satellite, which is only accessible in a limited window depending on the ground station site, is no easy task. But ground stations often need to do this for multiple satellites, and so use complex scheduling systems to reduce interference, and provide enough time and bandwidth for up- and/or down-linking the data for each satellite.
Stations typically follow certain standards and licensing arrangements overseen by a division of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) called the ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R). The major satellite operators also publish their own norms and standards for ground segment service providers.
Ground antennas and stations are located and function differently, depending on the primary uses of the satellites they serve, though many individual stations or networks are equipped for multiple mission types or frequencies.
Satellite ground stations come in various shapes and sizes, and their structure and applications determine the best terrestrial location for the site.
They are often situated in locations with little interference in the target frequencies, with good access for the operators, and that have the required coverage for the satellite mission or service.
The largest ground stations form part of teleports (or telecommunications ports) – hubs that connect terrestrial telecommunications networks (such as cellphone signal towers or the Internet) to the satellite networks that serve them.
Some of the major Earth station complexes, for example, are Goonhilly Satellite Earth Station in the UK, the 7 Estrack ground stations based around the world and the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California, USA.
Newer ground stations for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites are often much smaller facilities and are either sited alone or as part of existing teleports.
They have the additional challenge of having to deal with satellites moving at very high speeds relative to Earth.
Polar stations are popular as they are able to connect to the many satellites on a polar orbital path – satellites which can essentially cover any point on the Earth’s surface, depending on the time of their complete orbital rotation.
Equatorial stations are also used, as there are many locations with little interference and that can cover several orbital paths.
Ultimately, selecting the right location for a ground station network or individual facility will depend on a lot of different factors driven by the mission.
In addition, the ground station location is also often not the optimal site for command and control decision-making and signalling to originate, due to the additional resources and capabilities this requires. This means that ground station will need to provide efficient connectivity to the relevant command center.
In order to remove many of the potential costs and pitfalls that can come with the need to site and develop an individual satellite ground station, service providers that manage networks of facilities offer more flexible options. This is the ground station as a service business model.
The two main distinct models followed in the industry for the ground segment-as-a-service providers are:
Dedicated ground network as a service – in which companies who have installed dedicated ground stations across the world are renting out the capacity available at these stations.
Ground station capacity aggregators – in which companies are able to offer the spare time on existing antennae spread around the world that were installed by legacy industry operators or agencies.
Below we have included the details of a variety of services available on the global marketplace for space in these two categories.
The primary benefit of a ground station network is its coverage. A station spread across the world (particularly at the poles) will enable operators to communicate to satellites and access space-based data far more often so that clients can be better served.
However, building your own ground station network can be extremely expensive and involves not just financial challenges, but also a myriad of regulatory hurdles, as every country may have different rules on the operation of ground stations in their territory.
We recently discussed the existing body of space law on our blog, highlighting how national rules and procedures play a vital role in governing space activities. This is particularly true of ground stations that are permanently situated in a territory and these compliance requirements can prove very arduous for smaller satellite operators to meet.
As an alternative, ground station service providers offer potential savings in time and money by allowing clients to access communication assets already in place, whenever they are required.
Ground station services can be thought of as an example of the sharing economy applied to the space industry, allowing clients to access ground stations based on different metrics such as pay-per-pass, pay-per-data and so on.
In the list below we have included details on a variety of dedicated ground station network providers who can help you take advantage of their network for communication with your spacecraft.
These listings will be updated when new service providers are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
Within the network of ground stations, satellite operators can usually choose to use dedicated single stations or to downlink over many stations based on their requirements. This enables setups to be optimised in terms of capacity, latency, data transfer path, and cost-effectiveness.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Satsearch member Leaf Space is an Italy-based company pioneering the concept of ground station as a service in the modern market. Leaf Space offers access to their managed ground network in two services:
Leaf Line – a shared ground station network of globally-standardised systems that enables satellite operators to flexibly access high-quality ground facilities at low costs.
Leaf Key – a customised ground solution tailored to a client’s individual needs. Leaf Key solutions can be designed to cope with the most challenging requirements for latency, capacity, data transfer paths, and cost-effectiveness.
Leaf Space also offers a free satellite radio integration service and has developed partnerships with various businesses and organisations to expand the capacity and capabilities that can be offered to its clients. You can find out more in our recent member spotlight article on the company here.
Groundcom is a satellite communication service provider and ground station operator based in the Czech Republic. Groundcom builds and operates ground station antennas, and related equipment, in the VHF/UHF/S/X bands.
The company also manages a fully integrated and automated global network of shared ground stations, offering shared, dedicated, or hybrid services for various LEO orbits.
Norwegian company Kongsberg Satellite Services (KSAT) has offered ground station services and solutions since 1968. Today KSAT offers a global network consisting of more than 170 remotely-controlled antennae situated in more than 20 individual sites around the world. KSAT’s primary focuses include maximising speed and availability, particularly in Earth Observation applications.
KSAT offers the ground segment service KSAT Lite – a global network of small-aperture communication equipment and facilities designed for scalability and versatility and featuring an optimised scheduling system to maximise availability. KSAT Lite supports the following Satellite-to-Earth (downlink) and Earth-to-Satellite (uplink) communication options:
SSC is a global provider of space solutions including launch services for rockets and balloons, and engineering assistance for space missions. SSC also operates one of the largest civilian ground station networks in the world.
Through the SSC Infinity service, SSC provides access to a variety of flexible communication services with communication options optimised for small satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
Ground stations are situated at several strategic locations around the world enabling frequent satellite contact for telemetry, command and data download purposes with low latency data recovery. Standardised configurations involving pre-qualified radios and limited mission configurations, versatile web and API access for pass scheduling, and automated rescheduling across the network all help keep operations simple and costs low.
A spin-off of the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI), CONTEC provides a suite of services to satellite operators and other space businesses around the world. This includes advanced and intuitive web-based access to the company’s global ground station network CONTEC-ONE.
CONTEC-ONE has locations in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia which together are able to provide a high-level of monitoring for spacecraft. The ground stations can be accessed using the internet where missions can be arranged in a few simple steps, and the facilities possess VHF, UHF, S-Band for TT&C and X-Band high-performance receivers for high data rate reception.
Sfera Technologies has developed the HomePort platform – a software solution that enables satellite operators to create a virtual ground segment for their mission by renting station capacity on a real-time marketplace. HomePort then automatically routes the satellite data from the stations straight to the cloud for processing.
This has been designed to enable satellite operators to continuously optimize their ground segment as new capacity becomes available: it is possible for any station with relevant capabilities to join HomePort and offer its services without specific hardware or brokerage. For commercial purposes the HomePort ground segment offers two main types of station rental: per pass or per minute.
ATLAS Space Operations runs an innovative ground segment network that utilises a software-centric, cloud-based approach. Called The Freedom™ Ground Network, the network is designed to provide a high data-flow, low-latency option for satellite operators.
ATLAS’ software-driven network consists of 21 operational and planned antennae, each in a carefully planned location. Both shared solutions and fully dedicated antennae are available, and the company offers a streamlined solution to enable customers to gather more data, faster.
BridgeComm, Inc. is developing a global network of optical communication ground stations. The network will support complementary fixed and mobile terminals and be designed to offer rapid point-to-point data transmissions via beams of light that connect telescopes using low-power, safe, infrared lasers in the terahertz spectrum.
The Libre Space Foundation has developed an innovative open source ground station network known as satNOGS. The satNOGS network enables users all around the world to participate by building and operating their own simple ground station setups. A basic ground station can be built using commonly available commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components and can consist of a single, static omnidirectional antenna or a more complex arrangement with multiple movable antennas.
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites are the primary focus and VHF and UHF bands are well covered, though satNOGS can be extended to other bands. The network is developed using open source practices and modular architecture to enable web-based remote access and flexible design options that meet a wide variety of user needs. Click here to find out more about satNOGS including what it takes to build your own ground station.
The basic difference between dedicated ground station as a service network providers and capacity aggregators are is the latter are primarily looking to make available the spare capacity on legacy antennae already installed around the world.
There are a number of traditional industry players and space agencies who have installed ground stations over the last few decades and have been using them to operate their own space assets. In many cases these systems are completely or partially out of use, but are still in full working order and more than capable of meeting the needs of satellite operators.
The aggregators provide an opportunity to benefit from the spare capacity on these antennae and may also offer to install new dedicated antennae alongside to make up for the communication requirements.
The list below includes a variety of ground station aggregators and services available on today’s market:
The StellarStation platform links satellite operators to antenna owners so that spare capacity and idle systems can be used and monetised. The cloud-based software enables antenna owners to earn credits when their system is used that they can then spend on access to other ground stations. Users without an antenna can use any compatible station in the network, with pay-as-you-go billing and no upfront costs.
The RBC Signals Global Ground Station Network is another aggregation option for satellite owner/operators wishing to take advantage of an existing ground segment infrastructure. Antennae and ground station owners have the opportunity to earn extra revenue by monetising unused capacity as part of RBC Signals’ worldwide network.
The Amazon Web Services Ground Station service enables satellite owners to access to fully managed ground segment services for applications including weather forecasting, surface imaging, communications, and video broadcasts. Through their advanced ground station network Amazon gives access to AWS services and the AWS Global Infrastructure, including a low-latency global fibre network located where data is downlinked into the AWS Ground Station.
Another emerging ground segment service formulation in the modern market is the concept of Mission Control as a Service (MCAAS), pioneered by companies such as Spaceit.
Spaceit’s MCAAS offer aims to provide a one-stop solution for satellite-ground communications that is flexible and scalable enough to meet the changing demands of satellite operators looking to provide the highest levels of service and performance for their clients.
The service involves access to a global network of ground stations and use of a cloud-based Mission Control System (MCS) that includes:
The ground segment is your critical link to space assets that have taken so much time and effort to build, test, launch and operate successfully.
For many space applications the quality of the ground segment is also crucial to defining the overall value of the service that can be offered to clients and end-users.
As the space industry grows and barriers to entry lower for new stakeholders, innovative services such as ground network owners and aggregators could have an increasingly important role to play.
We’re looking forward to seeing how this sector progresses!
Thanks for reading! If you would like more information or any further help identifying a ground station as a service provider for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
You can also see more details on our ground stations portal here.
Please note that copyright and ownership of all images used in this article lies with the companies listed in the post and images are intended to be included under fair usage principles. To comment on or dispute any usage please contact info@satsearch.co and we will respond as soon as possible.
]]>Leaf Space is based in Italy and offers innovative ground segment solutions to customers around the world, with bespoke systems developed and a managed network of antennae and facilities available on-demand.
GomSpace is based in Aalborg in Denmark and offers innovative components, platforms and systems for the global nanosatellite market. The business has a strong record providing solutions and services for multiple successful missions across the globe and in a variety of sectors.
The two companies aim to explore several ways of working together including integrating GomSpace transceivers in Leaf Space’s Leaf Line system and adding Leaf Space’s services to the GomSpace Mega Constellations Operations Platform (MCOP).
]]>Since the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the activities of any government, company, academic institution or any other organisation that take place in, or have an effect on, the environment above and beyond Earth’s atmosphere (and sometimes within it), have been regulated by space laws and policies.
Today, anyone working in this field will at some point encounter legal issues relating to the entry and use of space, protection of the space environment, insuring of missions and equipment, and several other areas that needs to be dealt with properly.
In this article we give a brief overview of some of the major pieces of space legislation in force and review areas of the field that the small satellite supply chain should be aware of.
We begin with efforts by the United Nations (UN) to define and codify legislation relating to space.
Formed by the UN General Assembly in 1959, the Committee governs the use and exploration of space for the benefit of humanity in terms of peace, security and development.
Two subsidiary bodies were established in 1961; the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and the Legal Subcommittee, and today COPOUS performs a vital role in monitoring and responding to legal space issues at a global level.
The Committee was instrumental in the creation of the five treaties and five principles of outer space which arguably form the bedrock of most space laws that apply to companies, governments and researchers today.
This collection of legislation is usually referred to as the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, or simply the Outer Space Treaty for short.
The UN has been instrumental in the development of effective legal frameworks that govern how space can be accessed, understood and used by all nations and companies with the ability to do so.
In international law the majority of space-related legislation is based upon these treaties and principles at some level. Here they are in more detail:
The Outer Space Treaty – this is the basis of most space law and covers issues such as limiting the use of the Moon and other bodies for peaceful purposes, and preventing the placement of nuclear weapons in space. It was first agreed between the USA, UK and Soviet Union in 1967 and to date over 100 other countries have become party to it.
The Rescue Agreement – this legislation compels countries to take all possible action to help and to rescue astronauts in distress, and return them to their home nation. It also stipulates that states should help recover and return objects that land on Earth outside of the territory from where they launched.
The Liability Convention – also known as the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, this agreement ensures that the country which caused a launch to occur is liable for any damage that may be caused by that launch. The only claim that has so far been made under this convention was in 1978 when the nuclear-powered Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 crashed in northern Canada, leading to a costly cleanup called Operation Morning Light. Following arbitration, under the terms of the treaty, the Soviet Union eventually paid Canada C$3 million.
The Registration Convention – with the full title Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, this 1976 law has been ratified by 69 states and requires each of those to give the UN details about the orbit of every space object launched from their territory. A registry of these objects is maintained with the aim of understanding how best to use and manage orbits to ensure sustainability and safety in space.
The Moon Agreement – this piece of legislation, which came fully into force in 1984, expands on aspects of the Outer Space Treaty relating to the Moon and other celestial bodies. It stipulates that these locations should only be used for peaceful purposes, that disruption to their environments should be minimised, and that the UN should be given the location and purposes of all stations and facilities established on these bodies.
Establishing effective international law requires agreement on a common set of definitions and principles to ensure that all stakeholders understand and appreciate the detail.
In order to develop and strengthen the existing body of law, the UN has developed five sets of technical and legal principles with the following titles:
If you are interested in understanding more about the technical details held in these sets of principles, the best place to start is the website of the COPUOS which has been included in the references list below.
Together with the five treaties, these principles have formed the basis of a rich body of law that has governed space activity for decades with reasonable success. However, recent innovations in the small satellite sector have led to some instances where new legislation is needed and the existing rules have been updated for the latest industry requirements.
In recent years small satellites have become a major driver of space industry growth and innovation. New launch options, miniaturised components and low-volume payloads have lowered the costs and barriers to accessing space for stakeholders all around the world.
While many aspects of the launch, operation and decommissioning of small satellites (CubeSats, nanosats etc.) are covered by the Outer Space Treaty, there are some specific areas where existing regulations need particular attention or are being tested such as:
Launch safety – prospective satellite owner-operators are usually required to demonstrate that the launch solution they have elected to use doesn’t pose a risk to human health. Where smallsats are concerned the launch provider is often contracted and liability needs to be clearly defined and understood by all parties.
Failure rate – small satellites can have a higher failure rate than larger systems. Equipment failures, and the resulting knock-on effects that can be caused, need to be factored in to compliance and insurance requirements.
De-commissioning – we’re all aware of the growing threat of space debris and the need for satellite missions to consider effective mitigation strategies. In particular, regulators are increasingly pressuring operators to demonstrate how they plan to deal with equipment reaching the end of its life.
Control – although we are seeing a growing number of in-space propulsion systems come to the market, many small satellites can still only be controlled to a very small extent, if at all, once in orbit. This provides challenges in both a practical sense (e.g. how can a smallsat avoid a collision if it cannot maneuver?) and a legal sense (e.g. who is responsible, and what does responsibility actually mean, for a satellite that cannot be controlled?) Even when ongoing control is possible, legal issues can still be complex if the operators are based in more than one territory and possibly subject to different national laws. This will be particularly important for constellation operators for instance.
Humble heritage – traditionally, some of the larger stakeholders in the industry have viewed smallsats as being for hobbyists, not the domain of businesses with the resources to adhere to strict compliance rules. Although this perception is changing as the market develops, it is important for smallsat operators to demonstrate the capability to gain authorisation under space law and engage effectively with relevant international rules, such as frequency coordination regulated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
Location of ground station or ground segment operations – the territory in which the ground segment servicing a particular satellite is based will usually define which national laws will apply to the satellite’s activity. In order to reduce the requirements on satellite operators, companies such as satsearch member Leaf Space are offering ground segment-as-a-service solutions that have the potential to lower costs and, crucially, simplify compliance.
Tracking and registration – it is important that relevant national and international bodies are made aware of the launch of any new satellites from their territory or that can affect the citizens they protect. In some cases a lack of adherence to this law has led to significant issues, such as a $900,000 bill levied at Swarm Technologies, Inc. by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the unauthorised launch and deployment of four satellites in 2018.
Radio band licensing – in order to communicate effectively smallsats often use radio transmission systems that need to be registered and licensed to ensure they don’t affect other systems, on and off Earth. Complying with the relevant legislation in this area can be time-consuming though it is very important to minimise the potential for disruption. One emerging alternative is the use of laser communication pioneered by companies such as satsearch member AAC Clyde Space, who have developed a modular lasercomms system called CubeCat, and it will be interesting to see how regulation of this field develops in the future.
There are several other areas where space legislation is becoming increasingly important to activity and growth in the modern industry and many of these are expected to be tested in the short- to medium-term, for example:
We’ll dig into some of the issues more deeply in the future, but if you have any questions or comments about specific areas of space legislation that relate to your work, we’d love to hear from you. Please feel free to email info@satsearch.co with any feedback.
If you are interested in finding out more about what space law is and how it can affect your company’s operations, the following links are a good place to start:
Leaf Space was founded in 2014 by Jonata Puglia, Michele Messina and Giovanni Pandolfi, building on their combined expertise in space technology and engineering.
Prior to founding the company they had all played a leading role in the Milan-based non-profit organisation Skyward Experimental Rocketry which helped students design, build and launch experimental rockets as well as promoting space education.
In 2016 the company raised over $1 million to fund a telecommunications service dedicated to smallsat operators. Italy-based VC firm RedSeed Ventures led the round along with various other private and institutional investors including Como Venture, Key Capital and PoliHub.
Since its inception Leaf Space has focussed on developing the highest quality ground station services and technology with the goal of creating the most efficient and valuable ground segment solutions available on the modern space market.
To date, ground station services have been successfully launched and developed in several countries including Italy, Lithuania, Spain, and Ireland. In addition, in 2017 Leaf Space partnered with Solenix GmbH to combine their mission control system with Leaf Space’s ground segment services.
In 2018 Leaf Space was awarded 1.3 million Euros by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 research funding framework to further develop its technology. This was followed by an agreement with Astrocast to provide ground station solutions for its 64-unit global IoT network.
2019 has also seen Leaf Space continue to reach new commercial milestones, discussed further below, as well as gain further recognition through winning the “Expanding in China” special prize at the Italian Master Startup event in Rome.
Leaf Space is pioneering the concept of the ground segment-as-a-service for forward-thinking satellite operators around the world.
Leaf Space believes that operators can benefit from increased performance, higher availability and lower costs by working with a trusted, reliable and expert partner in the ground segment area, rather than building and managing their own systems.
To help their clients realise these benefits, and ultimately provide better results for their own customers and end-users, Leaf Space has developed two flagship services:
Leaf Line – a shared ground station network that helps satellite operators access high-quality ground station services, at lower costs, through a flexible subscription model. Leaf Line allows operators to:
Leaf Key – a custom solution enabling bespoke communication with an operator’s chosen space assets. Leaf Key is tailored to each client’s individual needs and can be designed to cope with the most challenging requirements for latency, capacity, data transfer paths, and cost-effectiveness.
Leaf Key turns ground segment operations into predictable assets with clear and transparent ongoing costs. Leaf Space deal with all resourcing, supply chain logistics and deployment needed to get things up-and-running and are then on-hand to provide expert advice and support through the entirety of each contract.
By offering high-quality ground segment services in an efficient, scalable and cost-effective manner Leaf Space has built a formidable business over the past few years.
To find out a bit more about the company’s progress we spoke with Taylor Silvio Dorigatti, Business Developer and Sales Engineer, about Leaf Space’s biggest milestones so far. He told us;
“Our Leaf Line service has now been active for more than 2 years and we’ve built on our strong early performance as a business.”
“In 2018 we developed and deployed a ground station for Fleet Space Technologies’ Australian operations centre in just 6 months and then provided LEOP services for two test satellites launched on Falcon 9 SSO-A and PSLV-C43.”
“Earlier this year we also launched a free satellite radio integration service covering a number of popular systems. By pre-integrating the installed radios on smallsats we enable our customers to simplify the setup and deployment process, for a faster result at a lower cost.”
“We currently have the potential to grow further in the next few years. A number of smallsat manufacturers and operators are very interested in our service concept and we’re working on expansion in the US and far East markets.”
Leaf Space is in a strong position to capitalise on its growth to date and recently announced two significant new contracts at the 33rd Annual Conference on Small Satellites demonstrating this progress:
As Taylor explains:
“Over the next 12-18 months we intend to expand our Leaf Line network and increase our delivered capacity. We also have a new Leaf Key service order for Astrocast coming online and a number of other ongoing contracts to close and fulfil.”
“We’re also excited about building on the collaborations, synergy and integrations that we’re developing with other smallsat technology and service providers. Mainly we intend to expand the portfolio of pre-integrated radios and continue to improve our systems’ compatibility with third-party mission control software.”
“Finally, a key part of our mission is to increase awareness of the importance of the ground segment for smallsat missions and communicate our vision for ground segment-as-a-service.”
Helping our members achieve their commercial goals and share their unique vision and story with the world is an important part of our work here at satsearch and we are very pleased to partner with Leaf Space to help them achieve this.
We asked Taylor about what attracted Leaf Space to list their services on the satsearch platform and join the membership program, he explained:
“The satsearch platform helps us to increase our exposure in the global marketplace and become a part of an active smallsat community.”
“We also benefit from close relationships with the team members and the availability of satsearch to work together in order to reach defined milestones.”
To help our community stay on top of the industry, and to delve deeper into what is driving our member companies, we ask representatives what they believe are the most important emerging trends. Taylor explained;
“One of the key trends driving growth in the smallsat sector is, of course, the development of satellite constellations.”
“But alongside this we’re also seeing a lot of interest and opportunity as a result of demand for in-orbit demonstrations (IOD) and in-orbit validation (IOV) missions.”
“In some ways the smallsat sector finds itself at a turning point between IOD and IOV missions and the large commercial constellations, so there is a lot of potential for growth and business.
“We’re also seeing changes to licensing procedures that operators need to keep track to ensure they don’t disrupt plans.”
“Finally, we believe that our work developing the concept of ground segment as-a-service is starting to become a bit of a trending topic for smallsat operators due to the new opportunities and capabilities we can provide. It’s an exciting time here at Leaf Space!”
In the coming weeks and months we’ll be taking a closer look at Leaf Space’s commercial offering, as well as sharing more information about other news at the company. In the meantime, for more details on the company and the Leaf Line and Leaf Key services, please view Leaf Space’s page on the satsearch platform.
Finally, if you would like to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program, and discover how your business can benefit from the support we are offering to companies like Leaf Space, please click on this link.
]]>Companies in the space sector are facing a variety of new challenges and opportunities when it comes to the design of technology and missions.
New satellite innovation (in terms of functionality, size, launch options, communication, in-orbit control etc.) are giving engineers a greater range of options to account for, while changing commercial pressures are also requiring the development of efficient, high-performing systems at lower costs.
In addition, as the industry continues to open up around the world projects are becoming increasingly collaborative; crossing timezones, markets and international borders.
As a result, many engineers are investigating new ways to more easily exchange high-volume information during design and development.
One potential solution that has been gaining a lot of attention is Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) – an approach to the design of systems that involves a common set of domain models and ongoing data-sharing, and that can be applicable throughout the entire system lifecycle.
In this post we give a brief explanation of what MBSE is, detail some of the benefits it can bring, and review its use in a number of space applications and settings.
Before getting into the detail it should be pointed out that MBSE is just one potential systems engineering paradigm that can be used for certain relevant space-related applications. This article doesn’t advocate for MBSE over alternative approaches but simply serves as an introduction to the approach.
MBSE is a formalised approach to information exchange designed to make the design process more seamless and improve technical results.
It involves the specification of a set of related domain models for design, analysis and validation that use common design standards. These standards enable design concepts to be more easily explained and co-developed between multiple stakeholders.
The models rely on formal visual modelling principles that result in highly accurate blueprints of aspects of the overall system. Together the collection of models are sometimes referred to together as the Total System Model (TSM).
MBSE itself is also sometimes known as Model-Based Systems Development (MBSD), Model-Driven Development (MDD), or Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) and it can also play an important role in streamlining the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
Planning the Apollo missions could presumably have been a little easier with modern approaches such as MBSE!
MBSE requires all relevant assets, datasets, documents, diagrams, 3D models and specifications to be digitised in order to facilitate information-sharing.
These assets are transferred into a modelling environment and a comprehensive system architecture model is developed, which provides a framework for the entire project.
This approach can bring a lot of value to users at all levels.
These MBSE approach offers a number of benefits, particularly when compared with more traditional approaches, for example:
Customer/requirements-driven – MBSE models can be continually assessed and tested against changing requirements to ensure that new design changes are tracked back to meet specific user needs.
A common design environment – a single source of truth for the collaborative design of new systems to ensure every stakeholder is clear on the most up-to-date design.
Seamless collaboration – the ability to cooperate across multiple systems and between partners in several different organisations and countries.
Reuse of existing models – future missions and system designs are made more efficient through the ability to reuse and adapt existing models.
Faster, safer testing – effective testing of space equipment is difficult, time-consuming and costly. By enabling virtual testing of some relevant model elements, it is possible to make the testing process simpler and easier. Although model testing can’t replace the rigour of physical tests, it can simplify some aspects of it.
No single point of failure – as MBSE models are collaboratively developed and shared amongst participating stakeholders there is usually no single system, data centre or program that would result in a catastrophe were it to fail.
It should be noted that MBSE does have drawbacks, particularly when it comes to the need to use digitised assets in domains where documents and data are often closed and private.
The security of sensitive information is also important – MBSE relies open sharing of quite specific details. The stakeholders involved need to ensure that only information that they are happy to transmit (and have the legal right to use) are input into the models used.
Facilitating more beneficial approaches, such as MBSE, to the design of new products and missions is one of the reasons we are working to open up the industry here at satsearch through the digitisation of datasheets and other product information.
We’re also working with a range of partners to plug the global space supply chain into different space engineering software packages, including MBSE tools, by connecting our growing database to third-party tools – you can find out more about our various software integrations here. For example, two of our valued integration partners are:
Valispace – the Valispace platform improves collaboration between engineers. The data-driven software integrates different tools and data into a single hub so all engineering design parameters can be worked on, in real-time, in the same place. Used by some of the most innovative space companies around the world, Valispace is a leader in smart collaboration for challenging projects.
The Valispace platform is linked to the satsearch database through a simple integration designed to enhance the capabilities and experience of engineers. Information from our global database of thousands of space products can be pushed from satsearch into Valispace projects so that engineers can use the latest information from all around the world to make the best choice for their needs – find out more here.
Oakman Aerospace, Inc. – experts in modular open-system architectures (MOSA), and rapid and responsive space system designs, Oakman Aerospace, Inc. help forward-thinking companies bring space concepts to life.
We are currently developing a new partnership with Oakman Aerospace, Inc. to integrate supply chain into early-stage concept design in order to improve assembly, integration, and test (AIT). By linking our extensive database of space technology with Oakman’s MOSA ACORN product we also hope to develop a universal standard that will support MBSE in space and improve all aspects of mission design and implementation.
MBSE is today in use in several areas of the space industry to improve the system-level design of new missions and technology. Here are a few examples:
The European Space Agency (ESA) is engaged in a large project called e.Deorbit which is addressing the growing issue of space debris.
e.Deorbit is a demonstrator mission that will find, capture and remove a derelict ESA satellite from orbit so it can burn up in the Earth’s atmosphere upon re-entry. The ultimate aim is to develop new ways to actively find and remove debris from Earth’s orbit.
The project team and contractors have made use of MBSE at several stages of the mission including modelling the physical architecture, tracking verification methods, and establishing ‘single truth’ data exchange at a system level.
You can read more about the benefits and challenges that this approach has brought to the project, as well as how this intensive use of MBSE is opening up new opportunities at ESA and beyond, in this article.
With more and more modular components and sub-systems available, from thrusters to reaction wheels, CubeSat design is another area where MBSE approaches are adding value.
Systems engineers are tasked with understanding and testing a greater range of technology than ever, as well as assessing the potential for applications that were unthinkable even a decade or two ago.
As mentioned above, the growth of the global industry is also placing demands on teams to work together effectively from multiple locations around the world.
All of these changes are resulting in the need to more efficiently consider a wider range of equipment and operational mission scenarios, and approaches such as MBSE can facilitate this.
MBSE is already in widespread use in building design.
Building Information Modelling (BIM) systems have had a huge impact on large construction projects in recent years, simplifying collaboration between stakeholders and improving the speed and accuracy of design and testing.
New launch facilities, observatories and ground stations can benefit from MBSE, particularly when international partners are working in collaboration.
Purpose-built satellite manufacturing factories are also being developed for high volume orders and constellation development, and these designs may also use MBSE.
Finally, emerging plans to build permanent facilities on the Moon and Mars will also need to rigorously designed and tested, and are another area in which MBSE may have a role.
MBSE clearly has a lot to offer in the space sector and is being used in a variety of projects around the world.
Issues of interoperability, data security, IP protection and the effective use of non-digital assets do pose challenges and may limit its use in certain areas.
However, the potential benefits that MBSE approaches can bring to a complex project make it worthy of assessment in relevant areas and it will be really interesting to see what common uses emerge in the coming years.
This post has just given a brief overview of the use of MBSE in space and there are many more considerations and examples that can be discussed. If you have expertise in this area and would like to share your insights, feedback or contribute a comment to this article, then please contact Hywel Curtis today to discuss.
Finally, if you are interested in exploring the world of MBSE further, the following links give more detailed information on concepts and popular tools:
In today’s post we meet NPC Spacemind, an Italian space services and equipment manufacturer providing advanced solutions for nanosatellites and tracking mounts for professional observatories.
Spacemind was set up in 2013 and operates as the aerospace division of New Production Concept S.r.l. (NPC).
Building on more than 10 years’ experience in assembling complex automatic machines and developing cutting-edge solutions for the space industry, Spacemind aims to offer a complete package of services for nanosatellite manufacturers and operators.
The company is also building on other areas of dedicated experience at the forefront of the industry by providing products and services for professional observatories in the field of astronomy, SSA/SST and laser ranging.
From product design, through mission development support, to the creation of innovative technical solutions for emerging space applications, Spacemind is well-placed to support a range of businesses in the sector, for both today and tomorrow.
Spacemind manufactures a range of precision-engineered space components and sub-systems designed to support nanosatellite manufacturers and operators develop more efficient and reliable technology. The core portfolio consists of:
SM CubeSat structures – high-reliability CubeSat structures to suit a range of CubeSat unit sizes. The structures are designed for flexibility and to maximise performance in terms of available space, volume and mass. The individual products are:
Building on the success of this portfolio Spacemind is also launching a 12U structure very soon to cope with even larger and more demanding satellites and applications.
The MORAL M1000 – Suitable for demanding observation applications in astronomical and defence scenarios, the MORAL M1000 is an advanced mount for 1m class telescopes. High levels of precision and controllability are ensured with the up to 60°/s slew rate combined with 1” of pointing accuracy. The system can operate effectively with payloads of up to 1,000 kg and with a maximum aperture of 1.3 metres.
The ARTICA de-orbiting system – the Aerodynamic Reentry Technology In Cubesat Application (ARTICA) system is a standalone de-orbiting drag sail designed to help mitigate the growing problem of space debris.
The system is designed to be plug-and-play for the user, resulting in a small module of just 0.15 U and capable of autonomously deploying a sail of around 2 square metres.
Alongside this growing portfolio of high-reliability equipment, Spacemind also offers a range of services to space industry companies and stakeholders such as:
We spoke with Niccolò Bellini, Space Business Developer and Space Systems Engineer at Spacemind, about the company’s major achievements. He explained that;
“Together with the University of Rome we designed and developed the 1U Cubesat 1KUNS that was launched in April 2018.”
“In the same month we were also among the first companies able to track the Chinese space station Tiangong-1 in the important phases immediately prior to re-entry in the atmosphere.”
“We used our telescope mount MORAL M1000 and obtained footage featuring 6 minutes of continuous tracking that has been used to find out the light curves of the station, and was reported all over national newspapers and television programmes in Italy.”
In addition to these projects Spacemind is also gaining significant traction developing the business side of operations. As Niccolò explains:
“More commercially speaking we have supported multiple universities in their nanosatellite missions, providing hardware as well as design and consultancy services. In particular, all the nanosatellite structures currently proposed on satsearch have been provided to at least one user.”
We asked Niccolò what attracted his business to list the company on satsearch and join our Membership Program:
“The possibility to receive commercial assistance and visibility on a democratic and fair platform.”
“We hope to acquire more customers and cooperate with multiple users thanks to satsearch’s support and intermediation. This will also allow us to increase our product and service portfolio.”
To help our community stay on top of the industry, and to delve deeper into what is driving our member companies, we ask representatives what they believe are the most important emerging trends in the industry. As Niccolò explains:
“One of the trends we are focusing on is related to nanosatellite constellations.”
“Our company structure is very skilled in the assembly and procurement of complex electromechanical machines at high volumes and with high regimes of throughput, and we have a really wide supply network that allows us to satisfy large and demanding procurement requirements across multiple batches.”
“Satellite constellations are a sector in which we can be really competitive, combining the cutting-edge aerospace skills of Spacemind with the strong industrial and manufacturing approach of our parent company NPC.”
“Our approach applies to both nanosatellite sub-systems and ground equipment. In particular, we also have a strong focus on the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) sector and we are able to provide enabling solutions to raise the level of both scientific research and defence applications.”
“We think that constellation developments and the industrial mass production of nanosatellites will be key trends in the near future.”
In the coming weeks and months we’ll be taking a closer look at Spacemind’s commercial offering, as well as sharing more information about other news at the company. For more details please view Spacemind’s page on the satsearch platform.
Finally, if you would like to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program, and discover how your business can benefit from the support we are offering to companies like Spacemind, please click on this link.
]]>Magnetorquers produce a magnetic field around the satellite which interacts with the Earth’s own magnetic field, thus producing a torque on the satellite. In this manner the angular momentum of the satellite can be changed and controlled.
In this article we discuss how magnetorquers work, the tasks they perform, the advantages and disadvantages of using them, and give an overview of some of the products currently available on the global marketplace for space.
If you would like to skip the introductory material and go straight to to view the available products, please click here, otherwise please read on.
Note that these products are just some examples of the magnetorquers available on the market today – we are actively updating the post with new models and suppliers.
Magnetic torquers are routinely used in initial de-tumbling maneuvers – the process of stabilising the satellite’s angular momentum after orbital insertion. Magnetorquers have low power consumption, which matches the very low power availability during the initial orbital phases, after the satellite is injected into the orbit by a launch vehicle.
Magnetorquers are also used as a part of a three-axis control system when low power and little physical volume is available on-board the spacecraft.
They can be stably mounted on surfaces of the satellite body and if three magnetorquers are mounted to three orthogonal surfaces then they can provide three-axis stabilisation.
They can also be used to unload the momentum of complementary control actuators such as reaction wheels.
Where satellites are concerned, the required control torque is determined by control law. This torque is generated by passing the electric current, determined by the control law, through the torquer.
Considering the structural and material aspects of magnetorquers, the following main factors affect its performance:
There are a number of distinct advantages that using a magnetorquer provides over alternative control systems:
Despite their unique benefits there are some disadvantages to using magnetorquers alone to manipulate and control satellite attitude. These include:
In spite of these issues, magnetorquers remain one of the most successful and popular attitude control system options and we regularly receive requests for information on available products.
In the article section below we have included a selection of the magnetorquer products currently available on the market.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list at the link below for updates.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying a magnetorquer product for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
]]>Over 3,400 delegates were in attendance (including satsearch CEO Kartik Kumar) representing 1,000 organisations based around the world.
There was a very lively program at the event and it was great to see the growth we’re witnessing across the industry first-hand.
The theme this year was Driving a revolution and among the topics high on the agenda were satellite constellations, smarter and more innovative CubeSat technologies, and solutions for delivering more value to space end-users and clients in other sectors.
We had an excellent time and would like to say thank you to all of the companies and delegates who met with us and discussed their own products, services and vision for the sector.
In this post we’ve put together a short roundup of some of the key news stories from the satsearch community.
The full proceedings of the event (and past events) are available on the Utah State University website (note that some material may not be available until September 2019).
In addition, here are some of the key statistics, provided by the event organisers:
Satsearch member Hyperion Technologies announced that it is bringing the world’s first 1U Attitude and Orbit Control System (AOCS) to the global market.
Named HiberDrive, the system is developed in partnership with Dawn Aerospace and combines Dawn’s high performance green bi-propellant propulsion module with Hyperion’s experience in attitude determination and control.
HiberDrive also includes Hiber’s automated constellation management software, making this powerful, efficient and intelligent AOCS a global first. Find out more here.
We were very pleased to announce that another new member has joined the Satsearch Membership Program.
South African space technology company CubeSpace manufactures a range of miniaturised satellite components, both as modular and integrated units.
The company also offers a variety of custom options and engineering support to help satellite manufacturers and operators optimise their equipment and services.
You can also find out more about CubeSpace’s range of reaction wheels on our product roundup post.
We are very pleased to be working with CubeSpace and look forward to sharing more information with you on their products, history and future plans very soon – stay tuned for more!
Satsearch Member Leaf Space, an Italy-based provider of ground segment services, made some important announcements at the time of the event.
Firstly, the business released that they have signed an MoU with Spanish satellite service provider Alén Space. The new partnership will explore how best to integrate Alén Space’s satellite platforms, satellite radios and Mission Control Software with the Leaf networks.
Secondly, Leaf Space shared news of the signing of a framework contract to integrate their LEOP service into D-Orbit’s InOrbit NOW service suite. This will enable customers to find a ground segment solution in the early stages of the mission for an easier and quicker commissioning phase.
Antonio Rodenas from satsearch member company SCISYS delivered a talk on new and emerging solutions to increase the effectiveness of smallsat constellations.
Entitled How to transform satellite constellations into intelligent swarms he discussed how new data exchange and communication technology, and the self-organising principles that have been developed in other areas, such as in drone technology, are giving satellite manufacturers and operators new opportunities.
Constellation development and management in general was (unsurprisingly) a hot topic at the event overall. The ideas, lessons and capabilities brought in from other fields, such as satellite-satellite smart communications or new production models inspired by the automotive industry, are making for an exciting time in the industry.
US-based engineering company Oakman Aerospace, Inc. announced that it will be working with Argentina-based ArsUltra S.A. to develop new approaches to modular spacecraft.
ArsUltra develops high-reliability computing systems for space applications and is undertaking a variety of research and development activities in this area.
The partnership will explore new opportunities in the development of modular spacecraft using Modular Open System Architectures (MOSA) along with other standardisation and interoperability constructs. You can read more about this announcement here.
Finally, here are a few other notes and observations from the event:
Constellations are now a major industry driver – as mentioned above, the large satellite constellations currently in development are driving a lot of new industry activity and innovation. The size of the potential commercial contracts on offer for suppliers could be game-changers for many companies, but more than that there is also the possibility of being a part of projects that could change the way we both use and perceive space.
The industry is both growing and diversifying – this was the 33rd Annual Conference on Small Satellites and it seems to get bigger every year. What is noticeable in both this and other industry events we’ve attended in the past few years is how the pool of delegates seems to come from a wider range of companies and organisations each time. There’s no doubt that the number of firms is increasing, particularly startups, but many representatives from academia and other sectors are also in attendance. This can only be a good thing!
The supply chain is opening up in many areas – many businesses at this type of event are only too happy to talk about the benefits and solutions that they provide. But it seems that there has been a bit of a change in the level of transparency they are willing to offer. As the industry democratises businesses are becoming more aware of just how much opportunity there is around the world and in different markets and verticals. But this brings with it the need to communicate more clearly and openly about the value that a company provides, which is something we’re also helping our community to achieve.
]]>Manufacturers are increasingly interested in the potential of incorporating automotive industry-inspired assembly lines to meet their satellite production demands at scale.
The fundamental premise of this development is that anything built on an assembly line can take advantage of the standardisation of all interfaces (electrical, mechanical, etc.) and a streamlined supply chain.
When applied to high volumes of systems in production, this enables manufacturers to reap the substantial benefits of reduced per unit costs and shorter delivery timelines.
The space industry is currently witnessing the emergence of several different approaches to mass manufacturing of satellites which are interesting to review for the long-term sustainability of the NewSpace revolution.
Satsearch has been tracking these developments in the space industry supply chain and we see three distinct models of satellite constellation manufacturing coming to the fore.
This approach is an integration of the upstream and the downstream capabilities within the core competency of a company in order to deliver a service on the basis of a fully vertically-integrated capability.
The typical example of this is a company such as Planet which is producing its own satellites, has its own ground and data cloud assets, to receive and deploy the service, and is now moving into standardising end-user services in established downstream markets (e.g. agriculture, infrastructure, etc.)
The full-stack vertical integration at Planet gives them the ability to enhance their agility so they can rapidly and iteratively develop new features and capabilities for satellites based on updated technologies as well as changing user requirements.
To date, the space industry has seen this model emerge mostly within the Earth Observation (EO) domain. This is arguably because the number of moving parts in such a fully vertically-integrated manufacturing plus services model is much smaller in the EO domain compared to the communications domain.
However, there are companies now seeking to challenge this approach. The main examples of the fully vertically-integrated solution in action that the industry could see in the coming years are likely to be in developments by SpaceX and Blue Origin, who not only are investing into building the satellites but also in launching them, with their own rockets, to orbit.
This model involves the integration of the competencies of an established incumbent trying to evolve their business with the offers of new entrants looking to disrupt the industry by providing services that use innovative new architectures.
The typical example of this model is Airbus which has co-invested and partnered with OneWeb to set up a dedicated manufacturing facility and an assembly line in order to develop the satellites for the OneWeb constellation.
One could argue that OneWeb is looking to leverage both the upstream and downstream innovation in the value chain and is trying to orchestrate service innovation reliant on competence-based co-investment and partnerships.
Simply put, this model is a strategy to line up external competences in order to vertically integrate the supply chain while taking advantage of the expertise and experience of the incumbents in the hope of achieving a high-reliability solution.
Another prominent example is LeoStella; a joint effort between Thales Alenia Space and Spaceflight Industries which is producing the satellites for the BlackSky Global constellation.
We should note that at present it is debatable whether this method can achieve the lowest cost per unit because of the nature of the size and scale of the operations of the incumbents who are involved.
The models described earlier involve a full-stack approach that includes coordinating design, development, manufacturing, operations and providing an end-service to the market.
However, not all business models may need to line up in a strategy where the full vertical integration is achieved by creating competence directly within the company or by having co-investors act as partners within the company.
It could instead be achieved by paying a reliable and low-cost manufacturing partner who can also provide the assets and resources needed in order to offer a relevant service.
The manufacturing partners in this model not only bring deep expertise and cost benefits, but also add a layer of agile capabilities needed by the service provider to undertake some phased scaling-up of establishing the constellation.
An example of this approach in the industry is a company such as GomSpace which is supporting several constellations for operators like Sky and Space Global, helping them test an initial on-orbit system based on which the operator can then scale according to product-market fit.
This kind of ‘white labelling’ of the manufacturing service allows companies to cater to multiple service providers at the same time.
However, such white labelling does not provide an opportunity for the companies pursuing such a strategy to take a piece of the services pie, which is mostly where the business value today is created.
A similar, and very interesting, strategy of combining off-shoring manufacturing in low-cost destinations with such white labelling is being pursued by Berlin Space Technologies.
The company has entered a joint venture with an Indian business Azista to establish a low-cost, mass-manufacturing facility in India that will allow them to leverage both the value of their Intellectual Property (IP) and the operational advantages of off-shoring in order to pass on value and cost-savings to customers.
It will be interesting to watch in the near future as these different production scenarios play out.
Each model offers alternate tactical business advantages to stakeholders in the industry as they try to compete against each other to provide the best value to end-users.
Manufacturing quality, speed and cost could become some of the key differentiating factors for space technology companies in the near future.
As we continue to build the global marketplace for space here at satsearch and work to open up the international supply chain, understanding and discussing the processes that suppliers at all levels need to play a role in will help more smaller firms be prepared.
Thank you for reading – if you think we’ve left out any other manufacturing production models in this overview please contact us (just email info@satsearch.co) and let us know. In addition, if you have expertise in this area (or in other aspects of the space industry) that you would like to share with the satsearch community, we’d love to hear from you!
]]>In this article we take a high-level look at reaction wheel design, how reaction wheels work, and what to take into consideration when searching for a reaction wheel for your satellite. We also give an overview of some of the products currently available on the global marketplace for space.
If you would like to skip the introductory material and go straight to view the available products, please select options from the navigation menu below – in which the reaction wheels on the market are arranged by supplier.
Reaction wheels are internal mechanical components of controllable satellites and spacecraft that enable them to reposition while in orbit. They are sometimes referred to as momentum wheels.
Reaction wheels store rotational energy, providing satellites or spacecraft with three-axis attitude control without requiring external sources of torque (such as rockets or propellants), saving on weight and the available space.
Note that attitude in this context refers to the orientation of the satellite with respect to another object or frame of reference (such as a celestial sphere centred on Earth) and three-axis control refers to the typical x-y-z cartesian system used to specify an object’s location in three dimensions.
Reaction wheels control a satellite’s attitude with very high precision, which is critical for applications that require excellent pointing accuracy, such as for Earth Observation purposes, or to keep a telescope fixed towards a particular region of interest.
Reaction wheel dynamics are relatively simple to understand. The satellite undergoes external torque from various sources (e.g. solar radiation pressure, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) aerodynamic forces and due to gravity gradient torque) that can disturb its position and path.
Reaction wheels are flywheels – devices that store rotational energy by conserving angular momentum and that enable the exchange of momentum within the satellite body in order to provide stability and counteract such disturbances.
They also provide a high pointing accuracy and so can precisely reorient a satellite to align an Earth Observation (EO) payload for example.
The benefit of using reaction wheels, rather than thrusters, to perform momentum exchange in these cases is that there is no need to use any fuel, saving costs and mass budget, and avoiding propellant safety issues.
Instead reaction wheels use a brushless DC electric motor connected to a spinning wheel, with the rotational speed controlled by the satellite’s on-board computer (OBC).
When they incorporate reaction wheels CubeSats also require a battery to power the motor, which is usually chargeable via solar panels, and momentum unloading using magnetorquers is required.
When operated, the reaction wheel causes the satellite body to counter-rotate – i.e. to rotate in the opposite direction to the wheel’s direction of rotation.
This rotation is carried out around the satellite’s center of mass. As the satellite is a closed system the total angular momentum must be conserved, therefore a reaction wheel cannot change a satellite’s location.
The direction of the satellite’s counter-rotation in response to a wheel’s rotation will only take place along one axis, depending on the axis of the wheel. Therefore for complete control of the entire system three reaction wheels must be used, in orthogonal orientation to each other.
Despite the fact they do not use propellant, deployable parts, or significant power, reaction wheels can be very effective for rotational manoeuvring of a satellite or small spacecraft.
The major benefits of using reaction wheels (which are sometimes described as flywheels) for this purpose are:
Greater agility and versatility – a collection of reaction wheels can provide full three-axis control with a high level of responsive manipulation and predictable power, timing, and operational requirements. This can enable a greater range of mission functionality per unit mass than alternative solutions.
Improved safety – the lack of propellants, complicated signalling, external deployable or moving parts, significant thermal variations, and variable power requirements (that can cause short-term loads in circuit chokepoints) make for an overall safer and more reliable system.
Reduced Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) requirements – a typical reaction wheel configuration can be lighter, smaller, and more power efficient than a three-axis attitude control system made up of alternative technologies. In particular, a significant saving on the payload fraction (in terms of both mass and volume) apportioned to propulsion fuel can be made. This makes reaction wheels a suitable option for missions looking to save on the SWaP budget.
Accuracy – high-quality reaction wheels, in the right configuration for a certain satellite setup, are capable of highly precise attitude changes and pointing manoeuvres.
Simplified engineering, testing, and qualification – with proven performance, integrated and modular configurations, and a lack of complex or dangerous materials and interfaces, the assembly and qualification of reaction wheels into a new satellite is a relatively straightforward task for an experienced space engineer. Any good supplier will also be available to provide integration and testing advice, data, and support throughout the process.
Now you have a better understanding of the range of benefits that reaction wheels can bring to your missions, read on to find out what the critical metrics and specifications are that should inform your choice from the array of systems on the market.
We suggest a basic four-step approach to selecting the right in-space propulsion system for your needs. This framework can also be used to select the optimum reaction wheel, and an overview is given below:
For a reaction wheel the key performance criteria will include characteristics such as:
In the article section below we have included a selection of the reaction wheel products currently available on the market.
Please note that this list will be updated when new products are added to the global marketplace for space – so please check back for more.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
If you would like any further advice or support in finding the best reaction wheel for your mission, please get in touch with satsearch today.
We offer 100% free and no-obligation procurement support for engineers at all levels, right across the global industry. Our experienced team would be happy to help.
Simply click here and share a few details about your requirements to get started.
Have you noticed that your product isn’t included in this article? Send us an email today. We’d be happy to work with you to showcase it to the satsearch community.
You can also find out more about how to leverage our extensive community of qualified space industry buyers to build your business, in the Satsearch Membership Program here.
Today we have some notes, pictures and insights from two other recent events:
Enjoy!
On the 25th and 26th of June knowledge exchange, systems modelling, engineering and ontology experts from across the industry came together in the Netherlands for this high-level workshop.
The design of modern space technology and missions involves the exchange of huge amounts of data on increasingly short timescales.
Many different stakeholders can be involved, each of which will have a different suite of tools, systems, processes and procedures in place.
In addition, as the space industry democratises and grows internationally, the partners collaborating on any given project are increasingly likely to be based in different countries – probably on different continents.
All of these factors need to be taken into account for each new complex project. In short, we need solutions that enable us to more easily work together on a common dataset.
And that’s where ontologies can help.
The event covered a wide range of technical topics. This slide from one of the presentations lays out some examples of the sort of questions that ontology experts are working to answer:
Below we’ve included some information on our major takeaways from the event as well as details of our own presentation. But first, here are a few selected pictures showing the range of topics discussed:
Our CEO Kartik Kumar delivered a talk at the workshop discussing our own ideas, insights and challenges developing a common set of data standards to describe the vast array of equipment available on the global space marketplace.
The talk was entitled Development of a universal ontology for the global space supply chain and you can see the text of the abstract provided below, followed by a few sample slides – to view the whole slideshow please use this link.
As the global space industry continues to grow, there is a pressing need to standardize the way stakeholders communicate about products, services, technologies, and missions across the value chain. The rapid growth of small satellites over the past decade, leveraging the popularity of the CubeSat form factor, has demonstrated the value of standardization towards reducing cost, time-to orbit, and risk.
An area of research that can help towards ensuring greater reliability & performance, whilst still optimizing for cost and schedule, is the development of a “common language” for space systems. Developing a universal ontology for the global supply chain, on the basis of such a common language, would enable the ecosystem to foster rapid design & prototyping, streamlined Assembly, Integration, & Testing (AIT), and deep insights during mission operations.
We present our on-going effort towards developing a universal ontology for the global space supply chain and highlight examples of how this can help support the next generation of complex space missions.
The workshop was a very technical event that enabled engineers and domain specialists to really get into the detail of what various ontologies and modelling systems are and how they can be best used.
Here at satsearch we’ve built a supplier and product search engine for the entire space supply chain from the ground up and have been deeply involved in this world for many years, so it was great to work with experts in over-lapping areas of interest.
But regardless of your level of knowledge in this area, the following key takeaways might be useful as an overview of what is being worked on and thought about:
The European Space Agency (ESA) funds, supports and collaborates on a wide range of activities designed to support the space sector across Europe.
The Space Engineering and Technology Final Presentation Days (SET-FPDs) event is part of the work of the ESA’s Directorate of Technology, Engineering & Quality which aims to improve the dissemination and exploitation of new space technologies developed in Europe or that can be used in the European industry.
The event was held in our hometown of Noordwijk in the Netherlands and we were able to attend the first two days on the 2nd and 3rd of July.
There was a really interesting collection of technologies shared on the day. Below you can see a few images from some of the presentations delivered and some notes on the event.
SITAEL, the largest privately-owned space company in Italy, shared details of its advanced propulsion systems that use iodine as a propellant. The company shared results of its compatibility testing showing that iodine can be used safely with 25 other materials commonly found in space technology.
The Longshot facility was presented; a specialist project to investigate reproducing entry and re-entry flow conditions. The facility is now being used for free-flight experiments and the aerothermodynamics characterization of space debris.
The challenge of developing effective space pumps for smallsat thrusters and launchers was discussed. System inabilities can cause cavitation which results in reduced hydraulic performance and an increase of mechanical stress.
A variety of satellite thruster technology was presented at the event, with the benefits and costs associated with electric and chemical propulsion being key areas of debate.
In addition, the plethora of challenges facing launch technology manufacturers were also discussed. Such challenges may be related to cost, weight, performance and reliability, and a number of next-generation launcher projects were presented including:
The latest details on framework programs and procurement strategies at ESA were shared, as well as de-risking approaches utilised by the UK Space Agency and other organizations.
Ubotica Technologies presented their development work with partners such as Intel and QinetiQ building AI technology for onboard Earth Observation (EO) data processing for CubeSats.
Many other advanced new technologies were shared at the event and it was great to get an overview of innovation in our rapidly growing sector.
Over the coming months we hope to share with you a lot more detailed information about space technology available on the global marketplace and help this industry continue to democratise and open up.
The next event we’ll be attending is the Small Satellite Conference held in Utah, USA on 3-8 August.
If you’re attending and would like to arrange a meeting with us, please email info@satsearch.co and we’ll get back to you asap.
]]>There is growing demand for in-space propulsion systems that enable small satellites to achieve attitude and orbit control, orbital transfers, and end-of-life deorbiting.
This is particularly important for the slew of LEO and MEO constellations currently being developed, as constellation control will be an important factor in the success of these ventures.
Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of activity in the smallsat propulsion world, driven by technology breakthroughs, industry commercialization, and private investment.
In this article, we provide a gentle primer to the topic of selecting a thruster for a smallsat mission, and give an overview of some of the propulsion products making waves within the global marketplace for space.
Do you know of any smallsat thrusters that we’ve missed? Please drop us a note at info@satsearch.com or on Twitter. Alternatively, if you’d like to list your products and services on satsearch, get started here.
Selecting the most appropriate thruster product for a CubeSat can be a tricky challenge, but is a critical step for any mission or service requiring inspace maneuverability and control.
The rapid growth of the NewSpace sector has led to greater use of modular components, such as CubeSat thrusters, while electronic miniaturization is also enabling new satellite setups and capabilities that need to be considered.
To help navigate these criteria, in this article we look at some of the factors that should be taken into account to make this decision. We also provide an overview of a number of propulsion products on the market, listed on the satsearch platform to help you select the best option.
We recommend a simple 4-step approach for a preliminary selection of a thruster for a CubeSat, as explained below:
The first step is to fully understand the full set of mission parameters, including both the critical applications and desirable, but not necessarily essential, objectives.
Knowing exactly what functions your thruster will need to perform, and on what schedule and duration, will make selecting a model easier.
Also consider the launch stresses, testing processes and regulatory compliance that the CubeSat will need to go through, in order to make it into orbit, as well as any obsolescence procedures once the mission is complete.
Next, keep to hand all currently known design information about the CubeSat unit.
This can include the volume, weight, primary structural material and more basic things such as the location, storage and transport arrangements of the major components.
You will need to make sure that the thruster you choose will be suitable for these parameters.
Once you are clear on exactly what tasks the thruster will need to perform and the design characteristics of the CubeSat, the next consideration is the technology that will sit alongside the thruster to make sure everything is compatible (and fits in the unit in the first place!)
You may not yet know the full range of accompanying tech (and you might need to first choose the thruster in order to make decisions on other components), but make sure you have access to the technical specifications of all the other sub-systems and structural components that are most likely to be used per the current plans.
Now you’re armed with the knowledge of what the thruster needs to do, work alongside and fit within, you can make an informed decision from the available products, based on your required performance characteristics.
Some of the potential key specifications and performance criteria to evaluate are:
These provide a snippet of the technical details that are necessary to evaluate as part of your selection process. In addition, there are the typical criteria for any major purchase such as; cost, delivery time, supplier reputation and location, contract details and maintenance conditions to take into account.
Finally, it’s important to know that selection of a thruster for your CubeSat is an iteratively process, as is the case for virtually every other component of your overall system.
In this section, you can find a range of CubeSat thruster products available on the global market. These listings will be updated when new in-space propulsion systems for CubeSats are added to the global marketplace for space at satsearch.co – so please check back for more or sign up for our mailing list for all the updates.
We have also put together an overview of Electrical Power Systems (EPS) and On-board computers (OBC), as well as many other categories of space services and sub-systems available on the market.
Click on any of the links or images below to find out more about the systems. You can also submit a request for a quote, documentation or further information on each of the products listed or send us a more general query to discuss your specific needs, and we will use our global networks of suppliers to find a system to meet your specifications.
In addition, if you would like further advice on how to select a CubeSat thruster or small satellite propulsion system, please click here to take a look at the footage and links from our in-depth webinar on the topic, featuring speakers from 5 of the companies listed below.
Thrusters utilizing chemical propellants operate by creating gas, through chemical reactions, which expands and is expelled to produce thrust.
A variety of different chemicals may be used as propellant, in either monopropellant (made from a single chemical) or bi-propellant (a mixture of two chemicals) form.
Common propellants in use (some of which may also be used in electric propulsion systems) include hydrazine, ammonium dinitramide (ADN), water, iodine, xenon, adamantane, teflon, AF-M315E, and krypton.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Electric propulsion systems typically work by using electric or magnetic force to expel a propellant, thus creating a propulsive force in the opposite direction.
Thrusters utilizing electric propulsion can often operate at a higher specific impulse than those using chemical propulsion, therefore they require less propellant and have a higher mass efficiency. Ion thrusters are one of the most common forms of electric propulsion system; thrusters in which ions are accelerated to generate force.
Other sub-categories of ion thruster and electric propulsion system include Hall Effect Thrusters (HETs), Field-emission electric propulsion (FEEP) thrusters, electrospray thrusters, vacuum arc thruster, and electrothermal propulsion units.
We can help you access quotes, lead times, or any other information from all of the suppliers listed below (and more) with our simple, free tender system. Just share your details with us and wait for the responses to arrive in your inbox.
Thanks for reading! If you would like any further help identifying a CubeSat thruster for your specific needs, please file a request on our platform and we’ll use our global network of suppliers to find an option.
Have you noticed that your company isn’t included in this article? Simply send us an email today, and we’d be happy to work with you to showcase your products to the satsearch community!
]]>From the 17th to the 23rd of June 2019 thousands of people from across the world attended at the Exhibition Center of Le Bourget Airport, North of Paris, for the Paris Air Show.
The event is the largest aerospace industry exhibition in the world and has been running for more than 100 years.
And while the aerospace industry professionals were focussed on the latest fighter jet innovations or discussing Boeing vs. Airbus – we were of course more interested in all of the buzz about space.
Over the few days we held a variety of meetings and were able to attend a number of talks and workshops.
On Thursday the 20th of June our CEO Kartik Kumar also held a presentation to introduce attendees to our work building the global marketplace for space and we maintained a booth at the Paris Air Lab section of the exhibition to discuss things further with interested delegates.
In this post we share a few photos and notes from the event to give you a flavour of what went on:
We were pleased to see a variety of contacts, partners and members of satsearch in Paris.
Here’s one company we have worked closely with on several occasions, Open Cosmos – and you can find out more about Open Cosmos on satsearch
The majority of the space-related action that we were involved in took place at the Paris Air Lab.
This section of the show featured presentations and businesses building the future of air travel, and this is where we were based for the event.
Our CEO Kartik Kumar gave a pitch to introduce satsearch to the delegates at the show. We think this went down well and were pleased at the attendance and response received.
One of our partners Exotrail delivered a great pitch at the event on their innovative thruster technology and other topics relating to the business.
Please stay tuned there will be more information shared about the company’s thrusters in a forthcoming article.
We were really pleased to have the opportunity to represent our community and members at the event, and hear about all the exciting innovation in both space and the wider aerospace industry.
Next stop is ESTEC for a workshop on space technology ontologies – so look out for a writeup on this soon too!
]]>October the 4th 1957 will forever be remembered by space enthusiasts. It was on this day that the Soviet Union launched the first ever artificial satellite, Sputnik-1. This single mission had kick-started the 20-year Space Race that eventually culminated in man landing on the surface of the Moon in 1969.
Interestingly, the launch of Sputnik-1 also led to an area of the space industry that is still relevant more than 60 years later – and is in fact leading to new applications, commercial opportunities and technological innovation on a regular basis, particularly due to the advent of machine learning and artificial intelligence.
This area is known as Earth Observation (EO).
So what exactly are EO satellites (also known as remote sensing satellites)? How did they come into existence and what role do they play in our lives today? Let’s talk about it.
Earth Observation (EO) is the process of gathering data about planet Earth’s physical, chemical and biological systems via remote sensing technologies, which is further augmented by analysis and presentation of the information collected. In particular, changes in both the Earth’s natural and built environments are rigorously monitored through various EO techniques.
Lower launch costs and smaller, more economical satellites have meant that data from EO has become increasingly available and more widely used in modern society. In addition, technological advancement in the electronics industry has led to the collection and analysis of EO data in increasing volumes and quality.
Today EO data are used in a wide variety of applications, bringing value to many different classes of user. Some of the specific areas of applications (PDF) include:
Note that EO can be performed through satellite remote sensing as well as airborne sensors (drones) and ground-based sensors. However, in this article we will only be concerned with satellite-based EO carried out using of remote sensing technology.
The origins of Earth Observation can be dated back to the 1840s.
The earliest forms of EO technology were simply cameras attached to balloons, providing the first-ever aerial photographs. This was followed by the use of kites and carrier pigeons deployed in the same manner for the next 50 years.
Like most technologies, aerial photography saw significant progress during the World Wars. During World War 1 reconnaissance aircraft flew over enemy forces to observe troop movements with the help of ordinary camera mounted on planes.
The first time our planet was imaged from a camera situated in space was in 1946. A V-2 rocket launched from White Sands, New Mexico, took this picture of the Earth from an altitude of 65 miles.
However, aerial photography is just one of many EO applications in use today.
To focus just on EO satellites, the launch of Sputnik-1 also heralded a new era of satellite remote sensing. Sputnik-1 successfully obtained data pertaining to the density of the upper layers of the atmosphere and the propagation of radio signals in the ionosphere.
This achievement was followed by Explorer-1, the first satellite sent by the United States into space. Explorer-1 was equipped with a cosmic ray detector designed to measure the radiation environment in Earth’s orbit which led to the discovery of the Van Allen belts.
The decades following this saw many other countries throughout the world launching EO satellites to serve different national interests. By the end of 2018 there were 684 active satellites orbiting the Earth for the purpose of EO and Earth science.
Remote sensing is the process of gathering information and monitoring the physical characteristics of an area by measuring the reflected and emitted radiation. It is performed at potentially great distances and is vital in a wide variety of applications such as:
Agriculture – where it is used as a mapping tool to examine the health of the crops and monitor farming practices. Remote sensing is also deployed in soil, water and drought monitoring.
Atmosphere monitoring – in which it enables weather analysis and provides a wealth of information about how human activities are causing climate change. Such data plays a vital role in raising awareness among the general public.
Mitigating natural disasters – one of the most effective uses of EO data is in numerical weather prediction models which can help in the development of better predictions of many types of natural disaster. Informed by such models, mitigation measures can be put in place faster, such as the evacuation of people from areas likely to be affected. The recent cyclone in India is a prime example of how important EO information can be; with the help of accurate data and prediction models, the number of casualties was reduced to a single figure.
Urban mapping – remote sensing not only helps us analyze natural environments, but also assists with planning and monitoring urban areas. The rapid advancement of technology and urbanization of large parts of the world has led to complex urban environments with changing patterns of traffic, business use, climatic conditions and sustainability requirements, and there are many ways that remote sensing can add value in such locations.
So how does remote sensing actually work?
Remote sensors gather data from the emitted and reflected radiation from the Earth’s surface, covering the entire electromagnetic spectrum. This gives us the capability to observe and analyze objects not visible to the naked eye.
Some spectral bands are extremely useful in classifying land cover for example. Each type of land cover has a unique spectral signature enabling accurate classification, so we can better understand vegetation distribution throughout the planet.
Remote sensing can basically be divided into two parts:
The diagram below shows the difference between the two:
The image resolution gathered through remote sensing can also be categorized as spatial, temporal and spectral.
Spatial resolution is the measure of the clarity and pixel size of an image; the higher the spatial resolution, and the smaller the pixel size, the clearer the image.
Temporal resolution is the frequency with which the satellite revolves around the Earth and the time taken by the photons to reach the sensors. Sometimes the target might change its characteristics by the time light reaches the sensors. Hence, longer the light has to travel, the lower the temporal resolution will be.
Spectral resolution is the amount of spectral detail in a spectral band. A higher spectral resolution means bands are narrower, such as in the hyperspectral region, whereas a lower spectral resolution features broader bands that cover more of a spectrum.
Remote sensing technology has come a long way in recent years and new applications, methods and approaches continue to emerge.
There are several commercial factors that are generating innovation and progress in the Earth Observation industry:
Cheaper access to data – the most significant factor is the increased availability of data due to an exponential growth in the number of satellites. Commercial launch services have reduced the cost of access to space through innovative solutions such as reusable rockets and rideshare options. Rockets are therefore launching more frequently and are deploying a higher volume of satellites into orbit.
In addition, the growth of the smallsat industry (including CubeSats, microsats, minisats, and nanosats) has been important. Small satellites have significantly less development time and are cheaper to manufacture. This has led to an increase in the number of satellites in space, and hence a reduction in revisit times, ensuring that Earth Observation is more accurate and effective and making EO data cheaper and more available than ever before.
Providing value-added services – recent advancements in big data collection and analysis solutions, and cloud processing capabilities have also led to a shift in the EO industry. Customers now expect not just raw data, but also useful insights and analysis.
Cloud processing helps EO data providers store huge volumes of data while also enabling faster and easier analysis. And this is leading to a key trend in the industry – satellite operators are transforming into companies that provide value-added services, not just firms that manufacture and operate equipment.
The rise of the NewSpace economy – Venture capitalists invested $3.25 billion into space technology companies in 2018, an increase of 29% percent according to Seraphim Capital. The scale of this investment is ushering in a new era for the EO industry as one of the biggest beneficiaries of this increased investment.
Small satellite constellations – there are currently a range of satellite constellations planned in sectors outside of Earth Observation, such as the large OneWeb and Starlink constellations designed to bring space-based internet to large parts of the world. It is possible that new manufacturing approaches and technologies used in the development of these constellations could cross over to be used in the development of EO satellites in the future.
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Last, but definitely not least, AI is making a mark in almost every sector, on Earth and off. With better machine learning algorithms analyzing satellite imagery is becoming quicker and easier than ever before. Only around 3-5% of relevant satellite observations are actually used in preparing numerical weather forecasts for example; the use of AI would help forecasters process and use more of these data and hence enable better accuracy for weather forecasting models.
With the ease of launching into space, due to the rise of commercial spacecraft, the industry has seen an increased number of companies getting into the EO sector. Here are some of the most significant firms:
Planet: Founded in the year 2010 by Will Marshall, Planet has single-handedly transformed the smallsat industry with its own breadbox size satellites known as Doves. Through the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronics in satellites it has also been able to lower the cost of production drastically.
In addition, the company’s in-house manufacturing facility gives it the flexibility to produce products at a faster rate, according to the needs of the customer. With over 200 EO satellites and the ability to monitor every ‘pixel’ of Earth 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, Planet has become a real game-changer in the EO industry.
Spire Global – Founded in the year 2012 by Peter Platzer, Spire Global launched its 100th satellite earlier this year; one of its trademark Lemur satellites aboard ISRO’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). Spire is actively involved in Earth Observation for both data and analytics purposes, and it mainly focusses on areas that are not easily tracked by other platforms.
Aside from providing data for weather forecasts, it also specializes in tracking planes, ships, and other vehicles in remote regions. The company has several worldwide offices and had an impressive 160% year-over-year revenue growth at the end of 2018.
Satellogic – Headquartered in Buenos Aires, Satellogic was founded in the year 2010 by Emiliano Kargieman with the aim of providing high-resolution hyperspectral data to the industry. Combining this with the capability to stream high-resolution data, the company aims to provide daily updates on infrastructure issues, crop health, pipeline integrity and similar information to a range of clients.
Earlier this year, the company announced a plan to launch 90 satellites into low Earth orbit to remap the planet at one-meter resolution every week. The first 13 are expected to launch in September or October this year.
With more than 150 satellite engineers, solution specialists and experts in AI, the company has raised closed to $80 million in funding to date.
The Earth Observation industry is growing at a very fast pace, evolving continuously and adopting innovative new technologies to cater to the needs of a growing population. As the demand for EO data explodes, the EO industry will become a major vertical in the space sector taking a bigger chunk of the market.
But the future of the EO industry does not depend only on companies providing data; as mentioned above it is also seeing significant growth through the provision of analytics services. The GeoBuiz-18 report discovered that the downstream segment of the space sector, which primarily includes the imagery/mapping analytics market, is expected to approach US $42.3 billion in 2020. It is therefore very important for businesses in this space to focus on effective data analytics as well as capture, so that better decisions can be taken here on Earth with the help of accurate satellite information.
Another trend that is expected to play a crucial role in the future of the EO industry is the rise of the 4th Industrial Revolution. With new emerging technologies such as AI and machine learning, big data, cloud tech, and Internet of Things (IoT), the way we collect, analyze and process EO data will be transformed significantly. With companies such as Planet already developing the capability to image each and every part of Earth 24/7, finding new ways to leverage this data for the benefit of humankind, in conjunction with 4th Industrial Revolution technologies, could bring a wide range of new capabilities to services here on Earth.
The direction of the NewSpace age will be influenced not only by reusable rockets and eye-catching missions to Mars, but also by applications that can exploit the enormous amounts of data collected by EO satellites. With the miniaturization of sensors and satellites, a growth in entrepreneurial approaches to space missions, and increasing levels of investment in the space sector; more private companies are expected to enter this market in order to solve problems on Earth using EO solutions in ways that have not been possible until now. The future sure looks exciting!
Wait, we are not quite done yet! Since you’ve read this far you have hopefully found this discussion of Earth Observation interesting. To help you continue to increase your knowledge in this area, here is some of the best further reading we have collected from around the web, Enjoy!
Ad Astra!
]]>We’ve just finished three excellent days at the 4th ESA CubeSat Industry Days event. Held in our hometown of Noordwijk in the Netherlands, at the Space Research and Technology Centre of the European Space Agency (ESA/ESTEC), the conference brought together 260 industry experts from across Europe to discuss the latest developments in the sector.
During this fourth installment of this event, it became abundantly clear that there is a growing appetite for next-generation CubeSats that push the boundaries of what small platforms enable for near-Earth and deep space applications.
We were there for the whole event, along with some of our partners, members, and friends. For those that couldn’t make it, we’ve put together a few thoughts in this article. There were lots of great presentations and discussions during the three days; this article serves to highlight the ones that stood out to us.
One of the early talks on the first day was given by Bert Monna, CEO of satsearch member Hyperion Technologies, now a part of AAC Clyde Space.
The talk was entitled “How laser communication will change the CubeSat market” and provided insights into how optical transmission can help address the growing need for greater bandwidth to and from orbit.
Bert discussed Hyperion’s work with the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) to develop CubeCat, a high-bandwidth laser communication system that can fit in a 1U CubeSat, requiring less than 15 W power.
At the event, it was clear that one area of the industry that has seen significant progress in recent years is 3D printing of components. As additive manufacturing technology improves and small satellites are increasingly designed to be modular, there is scope for gradually more complex structures, parts and sub-system components to be rapidly produced in this way.
As an example, satsearch member Anywaves presented their patented 3D-printed CubeSat antenna portfolio.
The company is developing a range of antenna systems that are compact, light, high-performance, and affordable, with S-band and X-band models available and GNSS all-band and deployable helix options in development.
Also, on the first day of the event satsearch CEO Kartik Kumar delivered a talk entitled “Developing a universal ontology for CubeSat systems”.
In his presentation, Kartik touched on the work that satsearch is undertaking to build a universal language for the global CubeSat supply chain. By defining a unified ontology and developing an ontology-based supply chain database, a whole host of new applications open up, including:
The full slide deck for the presentation is available here.
On Day 2, Kenza Benamar who manages ESA’s General Support Technology Programme (GSTP) Fly program, gave an overview of the agency’s various programs to support In-Orbit Demonstration (IOD) missions.
ESA has a number of different programs and funding mechanisms to support CubeSat system and mission development. Some of these programs require support letters from national delegations (like GSTP) and others don’t (like Technology Development Element (TDE)).
The GSTP programme consists of three main elements:
Ms. Benamar provided more details about the “Fly” element that can also be found on the ESA website. As stated on the ESA website:
“ESA has established Element 3 of its General Support Technology Programme (GSTP) in order to give companies access to the relevant flight environment in the shortest time possible, by embarking flight demonstrators as hosted payloads on a variety of carriers – including suborbital rockets, launchers, satellites and the ISS – with all the onboard resources they need to operate – such as mass, volume, power, data interfaces and so on.“
A number of other talks caught our attention. Here’s a quick round-up:
Ka-band ISL for small satellites by Antwerp Space touched on the topic of Inter-Satellite Links (ISL) and the opportunities to enable distributed and formation flying missions.
Reconfigurable Compact CubeSat Antenna by Università Pisa provided an overview of a truly innovative concept to exploit the CubeSat structure itself as a reconfigurable antenna.
InOrbit NOW: an innovative suite of CubeSat Services by D-Orbit provided an overview of the various services offered by the Italian SME for the CubeSat market, including a free-flying platform that can deploy a small constellation in a single launch.
MIURA 5 – The European reusable microlauncher for CubeSats and small satellites by PLD Space summarized the current status of the microlauncher family being developed by the Spanish company, targeting the dedicated, piggyback, and rideshare market for CubeSats.
Exploring new frontiers – CubeSats for deep space missions by GomSpace provided a summary of the ground-breaking CubeSats missions that they are working on, including Juventas, part of ESA’s Hera mission, and M-ARGO.
The last day of the conference was largely dedicated to Working Groups (WG); an opportunity to actively engage with the community on a number of different topics pertaining to CubeSats. A host of topics were explored but the main one that caught our attention was WG 4: “Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and autonomy for CubeSats”.
A few of the conclusions from this WG include:
This year’s event also included an opportunity for companies to exhibit their products and services in the Newton conference area. This provided ample opportunity for the community to discover the latest innovation hitting the market, discuss opportunities for collaboration and partnership, and even prospect and close business deals!
As a bonus, after the main conference, a dedicated workshop was held on Friday 7th June, 2019 at ESTEC to discuss exciting work on propulsion for CubeSats. The Propulsion4CubeSats workshop featured over twenty talks by ESA staff, industry representatives, and academics.
Alessia Gloder of satsearch member T4i presented the company’s REGULUS system at this event.
This versatile product uses iodine propellant without requiring any electrodes or grids, for a simple “plug & forget” operation. REGULUS is designed to give smallsats greater mobility in orbit, enabling precision orbits, better collision avoidance, more controlled de-orbiting operations and other new capabilities.
The 4th ESA CubeSat Industry Days event was a resounding success, bringing together ESA staff, industry experts, and academics from across Europe. The event included a myriad of talks about cutting-edge technologies, systems, missions, and services being developed by small and large enterprises. Additionally, the exhibition floor and Working Groups provided an excellent platform for community engagement, highlighting the growing interest in developing the next-generation of frontier CubeSat missions for near-Earth and deep space applications.
We were thrilled to have the opportunity to share our story, as we continue on our quest to build the global marketplace for space by digitalizing the global space supply chain. It was also great to meet both old friends, partners, and satsearch members, and develop new, exciting relationships.
Over the coming weeks, we will be shedding light on some of the key relationships that we developed during the event. If you’d like more information about the conference, check out the website, where the proceedings will be made available.
Next stop for us is the Paris Air Lab, hosted at the Paris Air Show at Le Brouget, where we’ll be exhibiting on 20th of June along with a number of other exciting startups. Stay tuned for our event report in a few weeks!
Ad astra!
]]>In today’s post we meet Space Structures GmbH, a manufacturer of structural components for the space industry, based in Berlin.
The core competencies of Space Structures lie in the development of high-performance structural components for space.
Developing hardware for space environments is a challenging task. Structural materials need to be able to cope with extreme temperatures, microgravity, and high radiation, not to mention surviving the rigours of the launch itself.
To meet these challenges, Space Structures provides a range of high performance structures, including large spacecraft primary structures, that support their clients’ missions.
Space Structures provides space-ready components made from metallic, composites and hybrid materials. Products can be built to order and are available in several categories including:
Space Structures also offers an advanced analysis software that can verify bolted connections in space hardware according to the relevant standards called SpaceBolt™. The software has been positively evaluated by the European Space Agency (ESA) and enjoys a large and constantly growing user family.
Alongside custom product development Space Structures also provides a variety of engineering and other services to help their clients develop better space missions.
Hardware experts are on-hand to assist with guidance across all aspects of modelling, design and development of space hardware.
Space Structures is also experienced in all aspects of hardware mission preparation including transport, testing and launch of hardware. This enables them to act as a valuable partner to clients, advising on technical issues at every stage of the process.
Composite materials are emerging as a critical aspect of space technology. The drive to increase to performance and reduce weight is needed in missions of all sizes, from nanosatellites to the International Space Station (ISS).
In addition, a number of larger scale missions and structures are planned in forthcoming years that will require high performing structural parts and materials in several areas.
With a solid track record and an impressive client portfolio that includes the European Space Agency, Airbus, OHB and many more, Space Structures is ideally placed to capitalise on this trend.
To find out a bit more about Space Structures’ recent achievements and future plans we spoke to the Managing Director Florian Ruess.
He explained that the company is in a very strong position at present while also looking forward to future potential growth:
We’ve signed several major strategic cooperation agreements with leading space companies for the supply of custom structures. We plan to significantly increase the volume of such contracts in the next 12-18 months, growing the company by an additional 25%.
Florian also shared with us his views on the growth of the space sector, explaining:
The space sector is booming in every direction and developments are accelerating significantly.
This growth is only possible with an adaptable supply chain. Space companies that outsource are reacting to changes by selecting more specialised partners and diversifying the supply chain.
We’re seeing the creation of second or third sources, where single sources have been for decades. More innovative, faster, more flexible and cheaper supplies can be provided (only) by SMEs – particularly really small businesses.
This is where Space Structures is positioned.
We are very pleased to include Space Structures in our Membership Program and have been delighted to support them in their work. As Florian explains:
“As emerging markets mature, SMEs like ourselves need to take advantage of the speed and efficiency of our operations to expand our global footprint. This is where satsearch is valuable to us.”
“We see satsearch as a means to get us global visibility in an easily searchable online directory.”
For more information on Space Structures, please view their profile here on the satsearch platform , or to find out more about our Membership Program, including how your business can join, please view this page.
]]>The exciting new concept is called the Space Technology Application Development Ecosystem (STADE) and it aims to act as a facilitation centre for NewSpace startups in the state; helping them to develop new products, expand their customerbase and access markets across the world.
The STADE was launched recently by Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, and is also being supported by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) and Airbus BizLab.
In the last few years satsearch has developed a global marketplace for space companies featuring over 1,000 companies and thousands of products and services on its global platform. The data of Satsearch Member companies is also integrated into a variety of engineering software and mission design environments, exposing products to new potential customers in a native design
In this mutually-beneficial new agreement satsearch will help support the development of STADE by offering its services to the satsearch community, and evangelising the high quality space businesses that are part of STADE to the global community.
Three innovative NewSpace companies have already signed up to STADE and are benefitting from the forward-thinking environment that has been created:
SatSure uses data to solve geospatial problems for clients across a range of sectors including energy, agriculture and telecommunications. SatSure combines space-based sensor data with information from other technologies (such as drone imagery, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors and existing socioeconomic datasets) using a bespoke platform that deploys proprietary machine learning algorithms to extract useful insights for clients in almost real-time.
Bellatrix Aerospace is an R&D company developing orbital launch vehicles and satellite propulsion technology. Bellatrix has created a two-stage nano-satellite launch vehicle and a patented electric propulsion technology for satellites.
Agnikul produces orbital class launch vehicles designed to lower the costs of getting to space.
Satsearch has deep ties to the Indian space industry and the new partnership with KSUM represents yet another step.
There are over 130 Indian space companies listed on the satsearch platform, and we have also signed agreements with ANTRIX, to support the country’s NewSpace supply chain, and Space BD, to promote closer India-Japan collaboration in the space industry.
We have also brokered several deals for companies and helped Indian businesses identify new opportunities across the world.
Our COO Narayan Prasad also recently co-authored a substantial new report on Europe-India space cooperation that has been gaining a lot of attention and traction in the sector.
Finally, discussions are underway between the STADE team and both the French space agency CNES and the European Space Agency (ESA); two organisations that satsearch also maintains close working relationships with.
It is an exciting time for the NewSpace sector in India and we’re very pleased to play a role in its further development!
Satsearch is an ESA-backed startup building the global marketplace for space. We have developed an innovative platform featuring over 1,000 space companies and thousands of products and services from around the world.
Kerala Startup Mission is a local government organisation building a vibrant, active and successful startup ecosystem throughout the Kerala, India’s 13th largest state by population. You can find out more about them here.
]]>If you have any questions about this new partnership or would like to know more about KSUM, the STADE concept and NewSpace park, or the wider space industry in India, please contact satsearch COO Narayan Prasad at narayan@satsearch.co or on LinkedIn.
In today’s post we meet T4i, a producer of innovative propulsion systems for small satellites and microlaunchers based in Padova, Italy.
T4i is a spin-off of the University of Padova, founded in 2014. Co-founder and CEO Daniele Pavarin built T4i coming from more than 10 years of cutting-edge research within the Research Propulsion Group of Padova, a company dedicated to finding new solutions to emerging space propulsion problems.
Early in the company’s development T4i identified trends in the space industry towards satellites that are smaller and lighter, as well as cheaper to both launch and operate, making these its main target. These systems need an onboard propulsion technology that is compact, lightweight and optimised for the unique applications to which micro- and small satellites are best suited.
Over the past 5 years T4i has developed a range of smart propulsion systems and plasma antennae, with a consistent focus on reliability, affordability and miniaturization. T4i is working to push forward the NewSpace sector to exploit its exciting potential, enabling cost-effective and dynamic satellite control.
Satellite mobility is increasingly being seen as a key enabling capability in space. An on-board propulsion system would open up new, and so far unconceivable, mission scenarios and applications for small satellites, such as:
T4i has focused on all these criteria in the development of its technology. The company now offers a line of three chemical propulsion products, based on highly stabilized hydrogen peroxide (monopropellant, bipropellant and hybrid motors) and an electric propulsion system for micro- and small satellites ranging from 6U to 150 kg, called REGULUS.
The REGULUS propulsion unit is based on a magnetically enhanced RF plasma thruster with low power requirements. It can be scaled to suit different satellite requirements and features a simple architecture to reduce weight and engineering complexity. You can find out more about the product right here on the satsearch platform:
It is critical that any product designed for the space sector undergoes rigorous testing in orbit, and this is the next phase of T4i’s development.
We spoke to Daniele Pavarin, CEO of T4i, to find out a bit more about the short-term plans for the company, who explained:
“We are currently in the process of finalizing our first electric propulsion product: REGULUS, an innovative propulsion unit for small satellites.”
“Our plan for the next year is to accomplish a successful in-orbit demonstration with REGULUS integrated into a satellite, in order to fully test it before entering the market.”
“We also intend to keep increasing the performance of our motors to enable low-cost access to space. We already have in mind an upgraded version of REGULUS, REGULUS+, which is conceived with an outstanding performance/cost ratio.”
Successful demonstration of the propulsion technology in orbit will open up some exciting new possibilities for T4i. Please follow along with their progress at t4innovation.com.
Staying up to date with all the changes and opportunities in the NewSpace industry isn’t easy. The sector moves fast as new companies come to market and the needs of larger upstream clients (such as the big defense companies and national space agencies) change mission by mission.
Daniele explained that it is this pace of change, and a need to stand out from the crowd, that initially attracted the company to use satsearch:
“There has been a clear need for a platform that is constantly updated and entirely dedicated to the space marketplace. On satsearch, in a few clicks you can find information that would require much more time if you had to search for it on your own.”
“It is also a great way to get in touch and build a network with other companies and it helps space companies gain more visibility for their products and services. It’s a very interesting tool!”
We are always interested in understanding from those in the industry where they think it is going to go next and Daniele kindly shared his thoughts on this question with us:
“We are specifically focusing on the NewSpace economy, the part of the space sector related to mini- and micro-satellites. This is a challenging area in which the space industry has started facing critical issues relating to mass production and cost reduction.”
“This market is mainly the arena of innovative startups. Innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship are making a great difference, and are the main drivers of business growth.”
“We believe that NewSpace will change the way space as a whole is perceived by people and will unveil astonishing opportunities for the whole humankind – and we’re excited to be a part of it!”
The satsearch team is delighted to have T4i as a Member on our platform and we are looking forward to seeing them help progress the NewSpace sector.
For more information on T4i, please view their profile here on the satsearch platform, or to find out more about our Membership Program, including how your business can join, please view this page.
]]>We are very pleased to announce that the satsearch platform recently hit a major milestone in featuring over 1,000 space suppliers from around the world!
Hailing from 47 different countries, we’ve curated a wide variety of space technology manufacturers and service providers, all active in the market, from small, innovative new startups to large, well-established space organizations.
Currently, the USA is the single country with the most suppliers in our platform, followed by India, but as a region Europe features more businesses than other locations. As we continue to grow our database, our aim is to accelerate our effort to map out the global supplier ecosystem.
You can see a breakdown of the full list of suppliers by country in the chart below, or click here to see the live map on our website, get your business listed, or search through our rapidly growing supplier ecosystem:
Our regular engagement with the market shows that cost efficiencies, standardization, and traction from commercial end-users are driving the development of new space companies all over the world.
Our wealth of supply chain data shows that the barriers to entry in this market are rapidly disappearing, opening up significant new opportunities for the spin-in and spin-out of core technologies.
The platform we have developed has enabled us to generate over €8,000,000 in lead value already in 2019 for our valued members.
Find out more about how our platform can help your business here.
The commercialization of space is well underway, and our rapidly growing dataset is helping to shed light on new potential areas of growth that await companies across the globe.
We are very pleased to help more than 1,000 companies expand their global footprint, generate new business, and grow the space industry – next stop, 10,000 suppliers!
We’ve also produced a short infographic below, summarizing some of the key lessons and insights we’ve gained from growing the marketplace to where it is today.
To try out the platform for yourself, go to satsearch.co
]]>You can download a copy of the report right here or read on to find out more.
Space activities in India are driven by the socio-economic needs of citizens.
Businesses and government organisations are early adopters of space technology in a wide range of areas and have always tried to ensure that innovation benefits the developing country.
And Europe is an important partner in this work.
For more than 50 years the two regions have worked closely on initiatives that have led to new research discoveries, commercial opportunities and greater socio-economic progress.
And now, we are pleased to announce that satsearch COO Narayan Prasad has co-authored a brand new report discussing the nature of this collaboration and exploring the most recent developments in India’s space programme.
Please click here to download the free report (no email required)
The detailed report is the result of a collaboration between the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI), where Narayan is an Associate Fellow, and the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and includes a wealth of information on India’s exciting space programme including:
Here at satsearch we are committed to opening up and democratising the space supply chain around the world (take a look at our supplier map for more) and this brand new report represents another step towards achieving this aim.
We are also pleased to be able to build on our own close ties to India and Europe and are looking forward to supporting businesses and organisations in both regions for the future.
]]>Although launch costs are coming down it takes a huge amount of energy, and indeed time, to transport objects into orbit.
There is also a wealth of materials, such as rare metals, present in bodies relatively close to Earth that can be extracted and used.
Manufacturing in space has some unique advantages; an abundance of solar energy, a lack of gravity, access to an infinite (and free) heat sink just outside the factory window, and the ability to use a manufacturing environment that is virtually 100% sterile.
In-space manufacturing technology obviously faces many challenges due to the environment, but there are many projects and businesses currently investigating exactly how to create different products off Earth. Here are a few notable examples:
Semiconductors are essential for most electrical circuits and components.
The semi-conducting material gallium arsenide (GaAs) was one of the first materials made in space; at the Wake Shield Facility back in the 1990s.
GaAs can be used in diodes, field-effect transistors (FETs) and integrated circuits (ICs), generating very little noise and operating effectively at ultra-high radio frequencies.
Here on Earth (assuming that’s where you’re reading from…) creating thin film semiconductors such as GaAs can be challenging as the material is easily contaminated by particles in the air.
Manufacture semiconductors in the ultrapure vacuum of space and you don’t have this problem![1]
In recent years a new class of drugs has been developed which compel the body’s immune system to target specific attacking cells and bacteria.
Called monoclonal antibodies (MABs) these drugs are engineered proteins that can be designed to target almost any attacking cell, such as cancer.
In order to be effective large quantities are needed – usually delivered intravenously over several hours.
However, if the proteins can be crystallised in space, the lack of gravity means that larger crystals can be developed a lot more efficiently.
And larger protein crystals enables MAB treatments with higher concentrations – so that long intravenous procedure can be replaced with a simple injection, delivering the same exact dose.[2]
While many pieces of space hardware, such as Cubesats for example, are launched readymade, other structures need to be assembled in space.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a great example.
Weighing more than 400 tonnes and covering an area the size of a football pitch, the ISS is far too big and complex to have been put into orbit fully formed.
Instead, more than 40 separate missions involving space agencies across the globe has resulted in arguably the largest cooperative international science and technology project the world has ever seen.[3]
But the ISS could one day be dwarfed by other facilities and systems made in space.
A lack of gravity makes it easier to move around massive amounts of material.
Manufacturing processes that need expensive equipment and reinforced facilities on Earth could be carried out more safely and with far fewer resources in orbit.
But the development of larger structures in space won’t be done by astronauts – it will need technology that can safely move and arrange parts and materials (through some form of propulsion for example), and then assemble them once in place.
And Made in Space), a company very much at the forefront of in-space manufacturing, has recently tested a system it is developing with NASA that could soon provide just that.
The company’s Archinaut concept uses additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing) and robotic assembly capabilities to demonstrate how large structures can be built in space.
It has successfully printed and joined together several parts in an environment simulating the conditions of space and the next step is to test the technology in orbit.[4]
In addition, the ESA has also just launched a new tender on the in-orbit integration of GEO satellites and 3D printing, in orbit, of large satellite structures.
If interested, you can find more information on this tender here.
Perhaps projects like Archinaut could one day pave the way for the development of even more ambitious structures that have been discussed in science fiction. Here are a few examples you might have heard of:
OK, we’re unlikely to be seeing any calls for proposals by NASA or the ESA to build these megastructures any time soon.
In-space manufacturing, like any other new industry sector, needs solid commercial opportunities on which innovation and investment will be based, such as the next few products.
The speed and capacity of communication and data exchange across the globe are important drivers in many industries.
Vast networks of metal wire and fibre optic cables criss-cross countries, connecting cities and powering markets, technology products, energy systems, media and more.
And the industry is always seeking greater efficiency and speed.
One promising material is an exotic optical fibre called ZBLAN (which stands for zirconium, barium, lanthanum, sodium and aluminium).
The manufacture of ZBLAN involves suspending the constituent parts from a height and using Earth’s gravity to begin elongating the material.
However, this process can result in tiny flaws along the length of the fibre resulting in the formation of crystals that can significantly reduce signal loss.
When developed in microgravity these flaws are minimised, and the performance of the resulting fibre can be orders of magnitude above that of fibre created on Earth.[5]
ZBLAN is both expensive and light enough to justify in-space manufacture from a commercial perspective.
Currently both Made In Space, in partnership with Thorlabs), and a San Diego based company called FOMS are pursuing fibre optic manufacturing in space.
Made In Space are also working with NASA and other partners on solutions for creating specialist tools and replacement parts in orbit.
Despite a decrease in launch costs astronauts still need to carry as little as possible and the ability to make certain items in space, as needed, is very useful.
At NASA’s Additive Manufacturing Facility (AMF) on the ISS they have worked with Made In Space and other partners to create an advanced 3D printing facility that works in microgravity.[6]
The AMF system can create items made from more than 20 different materials and, since it became operational in 2016, has created more than 100 tools and parts including:
But sustainable 3D printing requires a supply of raw material (the ‘feedstock’) to manufacture with. And one of the best sources could be to recycle parts and components no longer needed on-board space stations or from other artificial objects in orbit.
A US-based company Tethers Unlimited has been working with NASA to develop and test it’s Refabricator technology.
The system combines integrated plastic recycling and 3D printing capabilities, enabling astronauts to reuse material already on the ISS to make new tools and structures.[8]
Being able to recycle material already in space will give some manufacturing processes a distinct advantage and enable the development of closed-loop facilities with more efficient and cost-effective capabilities.
Modern biology has made great strides in the growth of human organs for patients with a wide range of ailments.
Traditional transplants can often only be temporary fixes, or might fail entirely endangering the patient further, but organs grown from cells extracted and cultured from an individual have a far higher chance of being accepted by the body.
However, on Earth gravity (again!) can make it harder for the organs to grow properly.
Tissues and cellular structures can collapse under their own weight and capillaries can fail to propagate blood and other liquids.
As you might have guessed, space might hold the answer.
A company called Techshot has developed a BioFabrication Facility (BFF) that uses 3D printing techniques to grow biological patches for heart repairs.
The system is due for launch to the ISS in May of 2019 and will test the concept of developing new organ material from a patient’s own cellular material.[9]
If the approach is successful, and can be effectively scaled up, one day it will be possible to send a patient’s cells to a space station, 3D print a new organ, and get it sent back to Earth to be implanted in the patient.
Rather than languishing on a donor waiting list for potentially years, a healthy organ almost guaranteed to be accepted by the body could be with a patient in a matter of months, or even weeks.
Enjoying food in space is notoriously challenging for many astronauts.
Everything transported on missions or to space stations is preserved in a form that can affect the taste, diversity and texture of the food.
Now, US startup BeeHex has developed technology that might make this a thing of the past.
BeeHex’s Chef 3D system is designed to 3D print food items in space, enabling astronauts to enjoy their favourite foods freshly prepared (sort of!) for them in orbit.[10]
As various companies and agencies gear up for manned missions to Mars, solutions for creating different kinds of food in space could be very important.
Space as a factory environment presents a range of challenges and opportunities.
As innovative technologies come online, and the demand for newer capabilities in space grows, we expect this sector to expand significantly.
What in-space manufactured products are you most looking forward to?
Links and resources:
[1] Space Research Results Purify Semiconductor Materials
[2] Protein Crystals in Microgravity
[3] Building the International Space Station
[4] Made In Space successfully demonstrates Archinaut additive manufacturing and assembly capabilities
[5] Optical Fiber Manufacturing: Gravity-free optical fiber manufacturing breaks Earthly limitations
[6] Additive Manufacturing Facility
[7] Additive Manufacturing Facility: 3D Printing The Future in Space
[8] NASA’s ‘Refabricator’ lets astronauts recycle 3D-printed tools to make new ones
[9] Why your new heart could be made in space one day
[10] NASA Astronauts Can Now 3D-Print Pizzas in Space
When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 tensions with the USA hit levels not seen since the Cold War.
Speeches were made and motions proposed at the UN and NATO, and sanctions were placed on a host of Russian government entities, businesses and individuals.
International cooperation between the two countries virtually stopped.
At least, on Earth.
On the International Space Station (ISS) astronauts and agencies (from several countries, but primarily the USA and Russia) continued to collaborate effectively; keeping the station operational and pushing forward with a variety of missions and research activities[1].
This sort of cooperation is a defining characteristic of the space industry. The challenges and opportunities we face are far too large for most organisations to work on alone.
Cooperation at this scale requires mutual trust and an ability to define, set and work towards common goals and expectations – how do you manage these vital criteria in today’s competitive industry?
To take a closer look, let’s consider one area that is going to require cooperation on a truly global (at least!) scale in the coming years.
SpaceX has always shared a grand vision of what it aims to achieve – but Elon Musk also knows it won’t realise its full potential alone.
For example, at the 2017 International Astronautical Congress he unveiled details of the company’s plans to facilitate the colonisation of Mars – a goal that has captured global attention and focussed the activity of SpaceX ever since.
As part of this presentation Musk also discussed a compelling idea to help develop the required technology and make it financially viable; super-fast long-distance travel between two points on Earth, via space[2].
A couple of years later this concept seems to be catching on.
Just last month the bank UBS released a report claiming that the point-to-point rocket travel market could be worth $20 billion in as little as 10 years[3].
It says this new travel option will cannabalise part of the long-haul flight industry by offering a faster, and more exciting, option for the 150 million travellers who flew such routes last year.
But point-to-point travel only works if you have somewhere to depart from and travel to.
It only works if stakeholders in different countries are willing to cooperate effectively to build the infrastructure and systems needed.
When an innovation requires new infrastructure in order to succeed, there is always pressure to raise expectations[4].
That’s not to say that Elon Musk is hyping up the revolutionary potential of SpaceX’s technology – but it certainly isn’t being talked down, as this video shows:
SpaceX sees itself as the transport provider – by painting an exciting picture of the future, with a clear financial incentive, it hopes to catalyse and enable the development of a global ecosystem that will use its rockets.
You can’t be shy about your tech if this is your goal.
You need to communicate energy and optimism, hint at the scale of the potential rewards on offer and demonstrate a commitment on your part to help the industry realise them.
But raising expectations, legitimately, in this way will only get you so far.
In fact, while generating zero excitement means you’ll just be ignored, creating too much hype results in a lack of trust in who you are and what you do[5].
Without trust, it will be harder to find partners to work with right now.
And this is critical – to really play an active role in building a new sector it is important to get into the detail and engage with what is going on today.
The importance of cooperation is evident in the spaceport sector.
Different stakeholders with overlapping areas of interest are developing mutually-beneficial partnerships to lay the foundations of a new global industry.
The Global Spaceport Alliance (GSA) is a great example.
In 2018 the organisation ran a summit that brought together technical and legal experts from 19 different spaceports around the world to foster collaboration. And they’ll do it all again later this year.
Both new and existing networks give spaceport professionals an opportunity to shape the sector. As Dave Ruppel, Director of Colorado Air and Space Port explains:
“One of the key things that I have found in working with and talking to other spaceports is that we all provide unique capabilities that can help to strengthen the global spaceport system.”
“Whether it is the ability to handle different types of launch technology, the ability to support specific types of Research and Development, or the opportunity to connect for point to point flights in the future, there is tremendous value in enhancing and encouraging the development of the global spaceport ecosystem.”
“We will certainly compete in some cases but we will also be able to share best practices and growth opportunities.”
He also points out that a key challenge that needs addressing to enable future growth is;
“The development of a shared framework for certifications so that spaceports and launch providers will have clear expectations and can more easily work with each other.”
Spaceports also have a great opportunity to bring people together, as explained by Brownsville Mayor Tony Martinez.
“The SpaceX launch site in Brownsville, Texas sits on the U.S.-Mexico border, as space is a boundless frontier, the exploration and development of the space ecosystem unites humanity to merge our collective talents and resources regardless of nationality, living on the border has shown us that we go farther together.”
An international spaceport network throws up all sorts of challenges – just to name a few:
Companies willing to participate in such early-stage discussions will help to lead and shape this industry.
But they will need to be able to tread a careful line between trust and hype.
Let’s quickly recap on the issue that companies in emerging sectors face:
So businesses have a tricky balancing act to perform – garnering enough interest and attention while also staying accurate and relevant.
Dr. David Alexander OBE is Director of the distinguished Rice Space Institute which works closely with Houston Spaceport, the Johnson Space Center and NASA on a range of projects in the field. He explains that trust will be vital in the development of a global spaceport network;
“The growing international spaceport network is currently outpacing the demand for launch services. While each spaceport has unique strengths, it is important that we work together to build this new industry and then compete when the demand merits.”
“This requires trust and cooperation as we share ideas and best practices to make each of us stronger and more competitive in the future. Such cooperation is particularly important between international partners as common policies and practices need to be promoted to help address the the larger legislative and export control issues.”
So how can this trust be achieved? What do companies and organisations need to do in order to boost cooperation?
Well, here are three ideas that can help.
Every year the Edelman Trust Barometer features insights based on extensive research into trust around the world.
The 2019 report shows the vital importance of information.
There is a huge gap in the trust placed in companies and institutions by the informed compared to the mass population.
Without accurate and understandable information or experience a person is more likely to distrust an organisation.
We have seen this in other sectors too.
People with prior experience of AI for example tend to trust the results it produces more than those who have never used it[6]. And research also shows that trust in the internet increases by a person the more they interact with it[7].
Of course, it isn’t practical (in the majority of cases) for other potential clients or partners to use space technology before they buy it – but you can tell them more about it.
Tell your company’s story through content marketing and you can shape the narrative of your brand.
Be as open and transparent about your products as commercial agreements and pressures will allow and you’ll reap the benefits of increased trust and attention for what you are trying to achieve.
Trust is a two-way street.
If you want an external partner to have faith in your company’s abilities you need to show that you also believe they will deliver.
In fact, to develop really effective collaborations (the sort necessary to build a global spaceport network) partners need to be willing and able to accept mistakes, delays, bad ideas and other failures.
It sounds obvious, but in high-pressure business situations it can be hard to forgive partners when things go wrong, let alone communicate openly about the reasons why.
This is a concept known as psychological safety and research shows that it is vital for businesses who want to develop high-performing teams[8].
Next time you have an opportunity to show that you trust your partners will deliver, particularly when something (within reason!) has gone wrong, consider taking it.
Peter Diamandis is a name you are most probably familiar with if you are in the NewSpace sector.
He founded the International Space University, the X Prize Foundation and a host of other companies and organisations that have helped move the industry forward.
Diamandis is also the author of bestselling books on entrepreneurship and big ideas, and one of the key variables he believes is crucial for the success of any new venture is credibility.
As an example, when he launched the initial X Prize challenge (a competition widely regarded as helping to kick-start the private space sector), Diamandis didn’t actually have the prize money.
But, by launching, as he puts it, “above the line of super-credibility” he was able to attract the finance needed.
How did he do it?
Prior to the launch Diamandis worked hard to accumulate a broad collection of well-known influencers and partners willing to endorse the competition.
He says that the spectacle of launching the X Prize alongside many of them helped boost its image straight away and made it possible to secure the financing soon after.
He described the launch in this podcast:
“I don’t have one astronaut, I have twenty astronauts standing on stage with me, I have the head of NASA, the head of the FAA and the Lindbergh family with me on stage, announcing this 10 million dollar prize. Did I have any money? No. But around the world it was front page news…and it was for me a huge risk.”
Being able to demonstrate this sort of credibility will help your company build trust in what you do.
But let’s not gloss over the last 8 words of Diamandis’ quote above, this can be a risk, but hopefully you will find it a risk worth taking.
Partnerships have been very important to us at satsearch.
We have consistently looked for ways to collaborate with established organisations in a manner that would help both them and our own community.
As we have built the global marketplace of space products, services, companies and missions the support we have received from agencies, businesses and other partners around the world has been invaluable.
By sharing the relevant aspects of our story (without succumbing to hype), cooperating with partners in good faith, and building credibility in what we do, we have been able to develop trust in our platform and activities.
And now we’re excited to see how organisations around the world are able to manage trust and expectations in order to develop new ecosystems and opportunities that can benefit us all.
[1] Is Space Cooperation Keeping the U.S. And Russia Together?
[2] Elon Musk proposes city-to-city travel by rocket, right here on Earth
[3] Super fast travel using outer space could be $20 billion market, disrupting airlines, UBS predicts
[4] On the relation between communication and innovation activities: A comparison of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles
[5] Hype and Public Trust in Science
[6] People don’t trust AI – here’s how we can change that
[7] Trust in the Internet as an experience technology
[8] High-Performing Teams Need Psychological Safety. Here’s How to Create It
Telling your story by publishing and promoting compelling online content can be an essential cornerstone of your business development approach.
Content enables you to build up a picture of who you are and what you can achieve in the minds of sales prospects before you ever meet them.
And this is very important. B2B customers can sometimes be more than two-thirds of the way through a decision-making process before they first engage with a supplier’s sales team1.
If you haven’t done the work needed to shape the perceptions your prospects have of your business and products, you are at the mercy of the marketplace.
There are many aspects to effective content marketing, and we’ll delve into them in future posts, but today we look at one of the foundational concepts – online channels.
Channels are essentially the locations on which your marketing content is published or shared.
To keep things simple, we can define three categories of channel that can be used in different ways:
A channel strategy will define which of those channels will be used to publish and promote a piece of content. The overall approach works as follows:
Let’s look at each of these channel categories in more detail.
Hosting channels are websites that can be used to publish content, but that content will be embedded into or linked to from a piece of content at a primary channel location before being promoted.
They are usually (but not exclusively) used for non-text content such as images and videos; content that isn’t necessarily straightforward to upload and publish.
Hosting channels are platforms and websites with in-built audiences and search functions, and this is the advantage of using them rather than just hosting it yourself. People can find your content in the channel’s native environment as well as at the URL on the primary channel, and this can multiply your reach.
Available hosting channels have also spent a great deal of time and effort optimising the user experience and system – so you may benefit from the increased load speeds and uptime as well as greater discoverability on external search engines.
Examples of hosting channel use are:
You can also use multiple hosting channels together in a single piece of content (a blog post could include images embedded from Flickr and videos embedded from Vimeo for example) if needed.
Once each content element is hosted, the next step is to create marketing content on a primary channel.
The primary channel is the website on which a piece of content is published and that you would ideally like to drive traffic to.
This will usually be your company’s website or blog, though it may be an article on another site depending on your strategy.
The primary channel gives you a URL that you are able to promote and share, on- and off-line. It is also usually also the channel that you have the most control over.
Deciding on the target audience, topic and call to action for content on a primary channel takes a lot of thought, and we’ll go into this in more detail in future blog posts.
But just as a basic overview, the decisions that need to be taken for each piece of content can be led by a simple content marketing funnel for each audience:
Awareness of problem > awareness of solution > awareness of your company and offer > decision to purchase
Each individual piece of content on a primary channel will be aimed at one target audience who are currently at a certain stage in this funnel.
Your goal with the content is to move them along to the next stage.
Note that that you can certainly try to move them on more than one stage in a single piece of content too.
Once you have a URL on your primary channel (which may or may not include content embedded from hosting channels) it is then time to promote it.
Secondary channels are websites on which you can share and promote your marketing content at the URL on the primary channel.
There are many more secondary channels than the other categories.
The key with secondary channels is to learn how to promote your content in the most effective manner on that channel.
We’ll go into such techniques in more detail in the future too, but here are a few illustrative examples:
It helps to try and systematise the approaches taken to each secondary channel in order to make things quicker and easier.
Content marketing is an exercise in decision-making. You have the opportunity to create and promote content for many different audiences, in multiple formats and on a variety of topics and channels.
A good channel plan collates some of these decisions so that content creators can use it as a reference and more easily focus on the task in hand.
A channel plan will include which of the three categories each content element will be published on along with the following information:
Here’s an example of how such a plan could look:
Deceptively simple isn’t it!? Try building yours next time you need to create marketing content and see if it makes the process easier and more effective.
Content marketing in the space industry throws up some unique challenges.
We deal with complex topics and technologies (this is rocket science at the end of the day) and need to build interest in missions and ideas that are often years away from completion.
Space is also a sector that can be tough to understand from a business perspective – the involvement of the big traditional agencies and defence companies means that the ins and outs of sales, deals and investments have always been kept very private.
But creating and promoting content that tells your company’s story can help you overcome these challenges and shape perceptions in the market that have a genuine and direct impact on sales.
And to guide this activity, use a clear and concise channel plan that simplifies decision-making and optimises your approach.
Good luck!
Let us know how you get on – and please feel free to send this post to the marketing and business development people in your business.
[1] Forbes – How To Turn B2B Buyers Into Sales Leads, According To Data
]]>To help emerging and established space businesses take advantage of the enormous opportunities that exist in the sector we have built the Satsearch Membership Program (SMP), right here on the global marketplace for space!
We know how tough it is to expand your customer base and break into new vertical and geographic markets. Perceptions of your company are very important; B2B customers will often have their minds mostly made up, before they ever speak to your sales staff2 . And in an industry like space, in which the incumbents have dominated for so long, how your company is positioned and perceived is even more vital.
The global space industry is also diverse and highly fragmented. Traditional companies, agencies and governments utilise embedded supply chains and procurement procedures that can be resistant to change, in the face of a dynamic commercial market.
As the space market rapidly trends towards greater commercialization, these organizations have to develop agile supply chain strategies to remain competitive. Supply chain agility is necessary to remain competitive by driving down costs, improving reliability, controlling lead times, and delivering state-of-the-art space missions.
And the competition is growing every day.
Our aim is to support space companies like yours, to attract and engage with new business opportunities globally.
At satsearch.co, we have built a global hub for space clients and suppliers to come together, and a multi-level search engine and product categorisation system that enables potential buyers to find what they are looking for within a few clicks.
We’re growing each month – here’s an overview of the traction we achieved in 2018:
To help exploit the opportunities that our platform is creating every day, we offer satsearch members support in four key areas:
1. RFI/RFP management
The satsearch platform is used by space industry professionals searching for new suppliers and technologies every day. The current purchasing cycle in the industry can be long and complex, requiring several emails, presentations and meetings to close a deal.
Satsearch members can supercharge this process by tasking us to handle Requests For Information and Proposals (RFIs/RFPs) that are submitted through the platform. Through our proprietary algorithms and extensive in-house expertise, we are able to qualify all leads, delivering new business opportunities directly to you.
2. Priority visibility
To ensure that potential buyers only find high-quality companies with the ability to meet their needs, we carry out verification of new SMP applicants during the application process.
Once completed we distinguish a member supplier’s company and product pages through a ‘verified’ icon, so anyone who views their pages (either directly or in search results) will know that this is one of our member companies, subject to verification by our team. Users can also filter results to quickly view suitable search results provided by members.
3. Promotional support
We will also actively shine our spotlight on members, to the global space community.
We share news and updates across our social media platforms, email newsletter and other marketing channels, directly to our growing audience of space industry professionals.
We also feature members in dedicated blog articles, such as this post on innovative satellite propulsion company Morpheus Space.
4. Business data integrated into the satsearch API
One of the most innovative ways in which we’re helping to democratise the global space supply chain is by plugging new product & services information directly into the design software used by clients to develop systems and mission plans.
By integrating data into the satsearch API, our members will expose their products & services to experts from some of the biggest space agencies and businesses in the world. Members are provided with a unique omnichannel strategy to reach clients all over the world through our website and API integration with third-party systems engineering and procurement software.
The SMP is providing results for a growing number of forward-thinking space businesses around the world:
Although we have come a long way, there’s still plenty left to do.
We’re adding new products, suppliers and features to the platform on a regular basis, and expanding our footprint of integrations, so our members can get their products & services plugged into more channels across the sector.
We also have a growing number of partnerships and collaborations that are enabling us to both provide and access new sources of data. We’re helping to shorten the sales cycle and simplify procurement through our lead qualification engine, that takes all the headache out of the process of both sides of the marketplace finding each other.
It is our mission to ensure that the entire global space supply chain is fully digitalized and democratized – so the best products and services for each new mission, facility and project can be identified seamlessly across the globe.
Satsearch members will always be at the forefront of our efforts to drive growth across the space industry through supply chain digitalization. Members receive priority access to all new features, initiatives and opportunities, and are given pride of place in our marketing and communications.
Is your space company ready to take advantage of exclusive business opportunities in the global marketplace for space?
Click here to apply for membership today!
References
1. Morgan Stanley – Space: Investing in the Final Frontier
2. Forbes – How To Turn B2B Buyers Into Sales Leads, According To Data
]]>Astronauts are servicing the Hubble Space Telescope, while their shuttle is docked at the facility. While two perform a space walk in an attempt to fix a faulty transmission card they receive a message from Mission Control at Houston.
“Mission abort. Initiate immediate disconnect from Hubble, begin re-entry procedure. Debris from a Russian missile strike has caused a chain reaction hitting other satellites and creating new debris traveling faster than a high-speed bullet towards your altitude.”
Before the astronauts can try and take any action to avoid the catastrophe the debris destroys their shuttle killing one crew member. With all communication lost with Earth, the two astronauts now face the daunting task of trying to make it home safely; alone and unsupported.
Does this narrative sound familiar? It is taken straight from the early scenes of the blockbuster space movie Gravity which was released in 2013. And while it was fun to put on our 3D glasses and watch two fictional astronauts trying desperately to save themselves from a catastrophic space debris incident, the dangerous realities of this growing problem are becoming increasingly important for the industry to consider.
ESA’s Space Debris Office defines space debris as;
all non-functional, human-made objects, including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or re-entering into Earth’s atmosphere.
Of the 22,300 artificial objects currently being tracked in Earth’s orbit only around 1,900 are actually functional satellites. The rest are space debris and the US Space Surveillance Network is the main source of tracking data on these objects, cataloguing various classes of debris using a variety of techniques.
However, the 22,300 figure doesn’t paint a true picture of the scale of this problem. This number only indicates trackable objects, which are anything over 2 inches. Debris below this size are very difficult to identify and track from Earth, but can still pose a significant threat to other objects in space.
Before we look into the problems space debris can cause, the following statistics provided by ESA’s Space Debris Office help to demonstrate the real scale of the issue:
Number of rocket launches since the start of the space age in 1957: about 5,450 (excluding failures)
Number of satellites these rocket launches have placed into Earth orbit: about 8,950
Number of these still in space: about 5,000
Number of these still functioning: about 1,950
Number of debris objects regularly tracked by Space Surveillance Networks and maintained in their catalogue: About 22,300
Estimated number of break-ups, explosions, collisions, or anomalous events resulting in fragmentation: more than 500
Total mass of all space objects in Earth orbit: More than 8,400 tonnes
Number of debris objects estimated by statistical models to be in orbit:
As harmless as those 128 million tiny objects ranging from 1 mm to 1 cm might seem, many of them are present in Low Earth Orbit traveling at speeds of approximately 17,500 mph (20x faster than a bullet).
When even the smallest objects travelling at this speed collide with satellites or other technology, the results can be very serious. In 2016 for example a tiny object (likely a paint flake or small metal fragment) no bigger than few thousandths of a millimeter across caused a 7 mm diameter circular chip in the cupola window of the International Space Station (ISS).
The ISS has debris shields deployed around the crewed modules composed of two metal sheets separated by about 10 cm. It also has the option to perform Collision Avoidance Maneuvers, which has been utilized in the past to avoid dangerous space debris. In addition, if there is no time to perform a maneuver the astronauts’ last resort is to abandon the station in a Soyuz escape craft that is standing ready.
The ISS is a manned facility, so these special precautions are very important. But for the average satellite there are far fewer options to guard against space debris.
And despite the extra capabilities of the ISS a small object still managed to collide with it, as shown above. Larger objects clearly pose an even more serious threat to space hardware and missions, and can even affect life on Earth. Severe damage to satellites could bring some aspects of our daily lives to a standstill as modern societies are so heavily dependent on them for communication and navigation.
In order to discuss how to address this problem, it helps to understand how it started.
The problem of space debris has been decades in the making. Most agree that the space race officially started on 4th October 1957 with the launch of the Russian satellite Sputnik-1. It was launched on a rocket with reflectors covering its body, and was easily seen from Earth.
This rocket body can be considered as the first ever piece of space debris, and hence was the start of a new era in space. The launch of Sputnik-1 was followed by the US satellite Explorer-1 which added to the number of pieces of space debris in orbit.
By early 1961 the total number of artificial objects in near-Earth orbit was just over 50, a moderately small amount. But in June 1961 the Ablestar launch vehicle exploded in space just an hour after deploying its payload, the Transit 4A satellite, and this single explosion created about 300 debris fragments, most of which remained in orbit for a long time.
Accidental explosions, dead satellites and the spent upper stages of rockets are not the only ways in which space debris is created. Anti-satellite testing is also one of the primary causes of the enormous amount of space debris in Earth’s orbit.
The two countries mainly responsible for this activity are the former Soviet Union and the United States. The former Soviet Union conducted 20 anti-satellite tests between the year 1968 and 1982 which created over 700 catalogued items of space debris, some of which are still in orbit. Similarly, the United States tested its own anti-satellite technology in 1985, producing more debris as a result.
Collisions between satellites have also resulted in further problems. Debris from such collisions are small and hard-to-track, and can be dangerous both to other satellites and space missions.
The first known collision between two satellites took place in 1991. A retired Russian navigation satellite, Cosmos 1934, and a small piece from the satellite Cosmos 926 collided in orbit creating over 900 smaller pieces of untrackable debris each smaller than 1 centimeter.
Satellites kept colliding and several rocket upper stages exploded during the next 15 years. However, two major events significantly increased the amount of debris in existence, and brought the attention of the international space community to the growing concern of orbital debris.
Interestingly, both events represent the two distinctly separate scenarios that are responsible for producing the majority of space debris: intentional destruction and accidental collision.
On January 11, 2007, China tested an anti-satellite system. The Anti-satellite (ASAT) missile KT-2 was fired at the defunct Fengyun 1-C weather satellite and the resulting explosion creating a debris cloud which extended from an altitude of 200 to 4,000 kilometers, and is considered to be the single worst source of the contamination of low-Earth orbit.
The test must have been deemed successful as the ASAT missile destroyed Fengyun 1-C, fragmenting it into small pieces. However, the test also created an estimated 300,000 objects 1 cm or larger that threatened all future missions in that orbit. This also amounted to an increase in the volume of known debris in the Earth’s orbit by 75%, and the majority of the debris cloud still remains in orbit today.
The test also directly violated Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines that prohibited any anti-satellite testing which would produce space debris. As a result, the United Nations was forced to lay out a more stringent set of measures.
The first major accidental collision between working satellites took place on February 10th 2009. An operational American communication satellite, Iridium 33, collided with the Russian satellite Cosmos 2251. The collision added more than 2,000 fragments of space debris into the catalogue of tracked objects.
The satellites slammed into each other at a relative velocity of 11 kilometers per second, colliding almost at right angles. As Cosmos 2251 had a larger mass than Iridium 33 it produced twice as much debris compared to its US counterpart.
The Cosmos 2251 – Iridium 33 collision remains one of the largest contributors of space junk into orbit. And every major collision like this can cause multiple additional effects, due to the Kessler Syndrome.
One of the major problems with space debris is the speed with which it is traveling and the possibility that it might collide with another object in space. In the event that two sizable objects impact each other it would result in a massive debris cloud traveling at thousands of miles per hour.
This could then collide with other objects or satellites creating an even bigger debris cloud in the Earth’s orbit. This self-sustaining cascading collision of space debris in LEO is known as “The Kessler Syndrome” (named after the NASA scientist Donald Kessler).
Donald Kessler published a paper entitled “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt” in 1978. He proposed that a chain reaction of exploding space debris could inevitably lead to a situation where it would be difficult for satellites to operate in their region and ultimately might put the whole space program in jeopardy.
Kessler’s paper was significant because at that time no one really was talking about the dangers of space debris in orbit. He emphasized the imminent dangers of space debris, and how this might lead to a future where, even if we stop launching new satellites and rockets to space, the debris might make it impossible for any space activity in orbit for a couple of centuries.
This is a bleak prospect and is increasingly a problem that space agencies are coming to terms with around the world.
According to the ESA, the only effective long-term means of stabilizing the volume of space debris at a safe level is through the removal of mass (five to ten large objects per year) from regions with high object densities and long orbital lifetimes (source).
And this needs to being immediately NASA says; “in 2005, a study by Liou and Johnson using the LEGEND model showed that even if no future launches occurred, collisions between existing satellites would increase the 10-cm and larger debris population faster than atmospheric drag would remove objects.”
This is an alarming scenario and the Kessler syndrome shows that there’s an urgent need for the international community to begin tackling the problem of space debris more intensely on a global level. Let’s look at some of the initiatives currently in development.
There is currently no single international law that aims to reduce the amount of space debris in orbit, or prevent nations and private organizations from disposing of dead satellites and rocket stages in space. However, efforts have been made by international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as by individual countries, to mitigate this issue.
Several international space laws have been created by the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), and although they do not directly address the issue of space debris and have not always been effective in reducing it, they do serve as a good starting point. Three relevant treaties that have been developed to-date are:
The above treaties formed a basis for the UN’s Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines which were endorsed by the General Assembly in 2007.
Various countries and their national space agencies have also made an effort to create laws and guidelines to curb the growing threat of debris and reduce the volume of material already in orbit. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) is one example of this activity.
This committee organizes meetings biannually which involve the ESA, the Russian Space Agency, NASA, and the space agencies of Japan and various other countries. The meetings are mainly focused on the technical aspects of space debris removal, and as far as the legal aspects are concerned, the Space Law Committee of the International Law Association has been studying orbital debris since 1986.
However, there’s no denying the fact that there is an urgent need for greater clarity in global international law to tackle space debris, and for countries to abide by more stringent rules and regulations. As such guidelines develop there are a number of private businesses taking the lead by developing innovative new technologies to deal with the problem.
The NewSpace revolution has led to the development of private companies working on all sorts of space applications in new and interesting ways. Here are some of the companies looking to address the issue of space debris:
Astroscale
Founded by Japanese technology entrepreneur Mitsunobu Okada in 2013, Astroscale’s primary mission is “To secure long-term spaceflight safety and orbital sustainability for the benefit of future generations.”
Astroscale is one of the leading orbital debris removal companies and has a clear plan to help mitigate the issue. It has raised $103 million in total to-date and expects to launch their first mission as early as 2020.
In a recent interview Alison Howlett, Public Affairs Specialist at Astroscale, explained the company’s motivation and future plans:
“Millions of pieces of debris, all human-made and ranging in size from spent rocket bodies and inoperable satellites as big as a city bus, to tiny paint chips a millimeter wide, are speeding around Earth at approximately 27,000 kilometers per hour, not only polluting space but endangering active satellite operations and future space missions. It is also anticipated that thousands more satellites will be launched in the next 10-15 years, up to three times the amount that have been launched in the past 60 years.”
“Our End-of-Life Services by Astroscale-demonstration (ELSA-d) is our first mission to demonstrate the core technologies necessary for debris docking and removal. ELSA-d, scheduled to launch in early 2020, consists of two spacecraft, a Servicer (~160 kg) and a Client (~20 kg), launched stacked together. The Servicer is equipped with proximity rendezvous technologies and a magnetic docking mechanism, while the Client has a docking plate which enables it to be docked. The Servicer will repeatedly release and dock the Client in a series of technical demonstrations proving the capability to find and dock with debris. Demonstrations include target search, target inspection, target rendezvous, and both non-tumbling and tumbling docking.”
With a launch scheduled for early next year, Astroscale currently has a workforce of 60 people, and plans to increase this to 100 as it expands to the U.S. and other global markets.
LeoLabs
LeoLabs, a Silicon Valley-based startup, is also one of the leading companies working to solve the issue of space debris. It plans to map the low-Earth orbit, the region stretching from 160 km to 2,000 km above the Earth, in order to track about 250,000 objects bigger than a golf ball.
Founded in the year 2015 by Daniel Ceperley, John Buonocore and Michael Nicolls, LeoLabs tracks spacecraft and debris in low-Earth orbit with phased array radars in Midland, Texas and Fairbanks, Alaska. It also plans to install its next phase radar in New Zealand to help map the sky in the Southern Hemisphere as well.
On March 14th 2019, at the 62nd Annual Laureate Awards, Aviation Week & Space Technology named LeoLabs, Inc. a winner in the Space Operations category, honoring extraordinary achievements for innovation in operations and services for low-Earth orbit.
Morpheus Space
While some companies are directly producing systems to tackle space debris problems, there are others who are being mindful of the ways in which objects are put into space in the first place, so that the potential for further debris is reduced. Technology that enables prevention, as well as the cure, will be an important part of reducing space debris risks in all future missions.
Morpheus Space is an innovative new company seeking to revolutionize the nanosatellite industry by facilitating new capabilities and more sustainable missions. Morpheus’ core technology is a modular electric propulsion system suitable for small satellites called the NanoFEEP (Nano Field Effect Electric Propulsion).
“Our most important goal, which is also our mission statement, is to show the NewSpace industry that a sustainable approach to nanosatellite missions and constellations doesn’t just mean keeping the Low Earth Orbit clean by assuring a re-entry into the atmosphere.” Explained István Lorincz, co-founder of Morpheus Space.
Morpheus Space has also developed what it calls the Agile Constellation system – an AI-driven platform used for collision detection and avoidance. Morpheus’ propulsion technology enables small satellites to make adjustments so they can move out of the path of obstacles, saving the system and reducing space debris.
The companies described above are just a few examples of the many businesses actively working on the problem of space debris. The technology created by these companies broadly falls into two categories: contact methods (such as robotic arms, tethers and nets that physically interact with debris) and contactless methods (such as lasers and ion beams). Some other examples of technology in development are:
Giant lasers: Laser Orbital Debris Removal (LODR) uses high-powered pulsed lasers based on Earth to create plasma jets that are fired at space debris in order to slow it down enough that it re-enters the atmosphere and burns up.
Space harpoons: one of the most direct ways of securing space debris is by using a capture mechanism such as a harpoon, net or robotic arm. In February 2019, a harpoon designed to capture orbital junk created by Oxford Space Systems was successfully tested in space for the first time as a part of a mission called RemoveDebris.
Solar Sails: solar sails push dead satellites to lower orbits so that they burn up on re-entry.
There are numerous other ideas that are being proposed to solve the problem of space debris. The number of different solutions shows that we are yet to find a single cost-effective method to reduce debris, but hopefully as more companies develop and test new ideas the leading prospects will emerge, and will be extended to address the issue at a global level.
Hopefully it is clear by now that space debris is one of the most pressing issues affecting the sector, not only in the short-term, but perhaps also for the next couple of centuries. According to a NASA study in 2008; even if all launches ceased tomorrow the risks of space debris would persist for a couple of centuries, and could even get worse if not dealt with properly.
Well, launches aren’t stopping tomorrow, and so they shouldn’t. Instead, the industry needs to continue to explore ways to tackle the problems effectively for the future, rather than taking a step back and contemplating reducing or even stopping launches.
With companies such as SpaceX and OneWeb aiming to launch mega constellations of satellites, the number of objects in orbit is soon expected to quadruple in number. However, both the companies have also been responsible enough to come up with plans to de-orbit them once the satellites becomes non-operational. SpaceX told the FCC it would de-orbit its satellites within five to seven years while OneWeb also explained that its deorbiting plans are [highly reliable and will take satellites out of orbit in five years](https://spacenews.com/oneweb-vouches-for-high-reliability-of-its-deorbit-system/ “”){:target=”_blank”}.
The above plans seem reasonable and effective ways of reducing the risks of creating space debris. In addition, getting companies to think responsibly and develop clear plans to de-orbit objects would prevent future legal disputes over who should remove debris produced by other countries or private organizations.
Once there is a system in place to limit any increases in new debris, space agencies and private companies can actively work on ways to bring down that already present. Developing this system will require a consistent and stringent international regulation.
The rules should be loud and clear: if you cannot take care of your own trash in space, you probably shouldn’t be launching!
As we have done in the past with this series, we want to end this topic with a few cool facts and videos that will hopefully inspire the space junk nerd (space jerd?!) in you, and maybe even motivate you to bring out your own creative solutions to tackle this huge problem – that is surely going to affect everyone here on Earth if not dealt with. Happy reading!
Ad Astra!
]]>In today’s post we meet Morpheus Space, a manufacturer of innovative electric propulsion systems based in Dresden, Germany.
Morpheus Space is an innovative new company seeking to revolutionize the nanosatellite industry by enhancing its capabilities and sustainability. To launch the company, the six founders built on their research experience from Technische Universität Dresden (TU Dresden) on electric propulsion for nanosatellite technology.
Spinning out Morpheus Space GmbH from TU Dresden was the team’s final milestone in a 7-year R&D roadmap. They have successfully secured over €1 million in resources so far to set up production and launch products on the market, and are now looking to firmly establish the company in the space industry.
Morpheus’ core technology is a modular electric propulsion system suitable for small satellites called the NanoFEEP (Nano Field Effect Electric Propulsion). This is a miniaturized ion thruster combined with a neutralizer (to avoid electrostatic charging of the satellite) and control components.
The NanoFEEP system is a very innovative propulsion technology that offers one of the best specifications available in the industry in three distinct categories: high efficiency (in terms of specific impulse delivered), low weight and long equipment lifetime.
Morpheus also develops bespoke thruster systems by combining multiple propulsion units in the MultiFEEP system. The combined system can be custom-designed to achieve complex and challenging 3D thrust profiles, across a wide thrust range, for difficult applications and complicated orbits.
This provides satellite manufacturers and mission designers with a range of new capabilities and opportunities in space. Find out more about the technology below and in Morpheus’ new product flyer:
In December of 2018 a CubeSat developed by Morpheus and a team at the University of Würzburg was launched into orbit.
The launch was part of the University Würzburg Experimental satellite-4 (UWE-4) mission designed to test and demonstrate the use of the NanoFEEP propulsion system, in a setup specifically designed to meet the exact size and power requirements of the CubeSat.
A few weeks ago the UWE-4 satellite sent a beacon message explaining that the system was successfully used saying:
“Today, Feb 26th, at 09:59:00 UTC, one of my NanoFEEP thrusters, developed by TU Dresden and Morpheus Space, was successfully ignited! This is the first time that a 1U CubeSat has activated an electric propulsion system in space!! Primary mission: accomplished! Time to celebrate… :-)”
The successful UWE-4 mission was a major stepping stone for the company, and the next stage in Morpheus’ ambitious plans. We spoke with Co-founder István Lorincz to find out a little more, who said:
“Our plans for the rest of the year are to scale up production and equip as many satellites as possible with our systems.”
Alongside these objectives Morpheus is also trying to change the space industry’s approach to small satellite missions through its technology:
“Our most important goal, which is also our mission statement, is to show the NewSpace industry that a sustainable approach to nanosatellite missions and constellations doesn’t just mean keeping the Low Earth Orbit clean by assuring a re-entry into the atmosphere.” Said István.
“If the solutions for re-entry are taken into account early on in the design process of a space mission, new possibilities open up to optimize operations of small- to large-scale constellations, which leads in the end to better, smarter business models.”
“That is why we want to change the industry standard, in which the classical roles of customer and supplier are fundamentally disconnected. We strive for a relationship with our customers and partners, in which we take an active part in the design process of each mission. This way we can modify and optimize our systems to the mission and not the other way around, where the customer obtains an inflexible product and has to adapt the whole system to it. Our biggest achievement with respect to this aspect is the way we have developed our systems, which are modular and easily modifiable without having a negative impact upon our production throughput or lead time.”
Here at satsearch we believe that a dynamic and successful space industry will be built on the sort of forward-looking and collaborative initiatives that Morpheus is bringing to the market.
Space missions are complex and challenging, and the closer that all partners can work together, the more likely they are to succeed.
Morpheus’ innovative propulsion systems are also being combined with new data processing capabilities to bring some revolutionary new services to market. As István explains:
“In order to motivate the NewSpace industry to adapt our philosophy of the customer-supplier relationship we are collaborating with AI research facilities to offer a service that allows a completely new approach to the operation and design of nanosatellite constellations.”
“We call it Agile Constellations, and this service is available to all of our customers who operate our propulsion systems on their satellites.”
Morpheus’ Agile Constellations system is an AI-driven platform that can efficiently identify the best possible way to organize a complete satellite constellation based on each satellite’s capabilities, in order to achieve the necessary points-of-interest objectives.
These objectives can range from fixed revisit frequencies (temporal resolution of observation) to orienting with respect to frequently changing or moving points-of-interest.
The service is designed to open up new business opportunities for established NewSpace companies and allow new, smaller constellations to maximize their potential without unnecessarily increasing in size.
But most of all it will increase NewSpace businesses’ flexibility, which is so crucial in this industry that is evolving at such a rapid pace.
Morpheus can also use its systems to provide collision detection and avoidance – making adjustments to orbiting CubeSats so that they can move out of the path of obstacles.
Avoiding collisions not only saves the individual satellite but also protects other systems, as debris resulting from a collision can lead to the entire orbit being unusable for an extended period.
Morpheus’ system enables much earlier object detection and the propulsion systems allow satellites to be moved out of the way with ease.
If operators are running multiple satellites in the same orbit then this capability could potentially save the entire constellation.
With such ambitious plans and innovative technology the satsearch team is delighted to have Morpheus as a Member on our platform.
István told us that they have been following our progress from the beginning and recognized that in many ways we are striving towards the same goals;
“to make the whole satellite mission design process easier, faster and more efficient, which is the whole point of the NewSpace movement.”
And this is about more than just wishing for more collaboration, it is about building the tools, data standards and access to information that actually enable it. As István explains;
“Being able to instantly access the necessary data about satellite components and subsystems is one of the most important aspects in the early stages of mission and system design. Obtaining this data is one of the most time-consuming processes at the beginning of each mission.”
“It takes countless emails, telecons and meetings just to properly complete a high level trade-off. Now thanks to satsearch and its initiatives, like the Membership Program and the Concurrent Design Platform integration, every party involved will save a lot of time and effort.”
We are always interested in understanding from those in the industry where they think it is going to go next. István kindly shared his thoughts on this question with us:
“Obviously, the most interesting trend for us is the emergence of viable electric propulsion systems for nanosatellites. These systems are very new to the industry and most nanosatellite operators are just starting to play around with the idea of being able to control each satellite in orbit. It will take a little time and effort from all of us in the propulsion scene until we will build up enough trust (pun intended!) to reach a point where these subsystems will be considered as essential as a sun sensor, magnetorquer or reaction wheel.”
“I believe we will also see a new trend where the micro launchers will become the go-to orbital transports for all kinds of nanosat missions, since the satellites won’t be dependent anymore on the big rockets to deliver them in their desired orbit altitude. For example, being able to raise the orbit from 250 km to 600 km within a couple of weeks would not only significantly lower the launch costs, but it would also enable agile constellation design, meaning that you could continuously adapt your orbits as you add new satellites to the constellation.”
“In every industry, one of the most exciting periods is where a new technology gets introduced, because nobody can foresee its full potential and total impact.”
And in this exciting period we are very pleased to have Morpheus Space on board and are looking forward to supporting their future plans and initiatives!
For more information on Morpheus Space, please view their profile here on the satsearch platform, or to find out more about the Satsearch Membership Program, including how your business can join, please view this page.
]]>The private space industry provides an almost uniquely fertile field in which innovation can grow.
The scale of the technical challenges involved, extreme nature of the ‘test lab’ conditions available, and magnitude of the possible prizes on offer are making space irresistible to problem-solvers across the world.
And every day there seem to be exciting new applications launched across a wide range of areas, for example:
But success in the space industry doesn’t just rely on technological excellence – personal relationships and human connections are still vitally important.
Although innovations such as new launch capabilities and CubeSats are scaling the sector and multiplying the number of stakeholders involved, the vast majority of new space business initiatives are low volume and high value deals.
And such agreements are made between individual company representatives, building on personal connections and relationships.
In this article we look at a few examples of how such personal relationships are driving the sector and give our thoughts on what companies can do to succeed in the future.
Space is an increasingly global (at the very least!) business sector and suppliers are looking further afield for new markets for their products and services.
Private space industry growth is taking place all round the globe, and the best opportunities for a business may lie in parts of the world where they have no presence and have never previously made a deal.
But breaking into a new geographic market can be tough. There is the obvious logistical challenge of transporting or manufacturing products on the ground, as well as overcoming language and cultural barriers that could hinder growth.
In addition, space is a highly regulated industry due to the safety and security issues involved, so compliance is important. And any successful mission requires effective coordination with potentially dozens of organisations that each operate in a different way.
It certainly helps to have a partner on the ground!
A great example of the approach some companies are taking to this challenge is that of satsearch member, Lens R&D. Lens R&D is a systems engineering consultancy and manufacturers sunsensors for space and terrestrial applications.
The company has recently signed an agreement with China-based Microdrive Aerospace to help better serve customers in the region, deal with translation and time-zone issues, and generally help both firms grow.
China is a very fertile market for space technology and the government has recently announced some big new plans such as to build a space-based solar power station in the near future.
Every year there are more and more private space companies in India, China, Japan and across the rest of Asia popping up. With innovative ideas, highly trained workforces and increasing access to capital, the NewSpace sector is looking healthy around the globe.
Companies able to utilise local knowledge and expertise will have an edge on those with a limited reach. And local partnerships are built on personal relationships.
If personal connections and corporate partnerships can help firms bridge gaps across continents, then they can also certainly help bring the public and private sectors closer together.
Space has always been an area in which public bodies have traditionally been deeply involved, for obvious reasons. And while NewSpace is often described in terms of the array of independent and private sector actors set to play a role, the big public sector organisations are still critically important.
Personal relationships are helping smaller companies to unlock opportunities that working with these public sector bodies can bring.
This isn’t about private space companies vs NASA – this is about understanding how stakeholders from both areas can collaborate on multi-disciplinary missions or develop new technologies that meet shared objectives.
A great example of this can be seen in how satsearch member company SATLANTIS has worked closely with commercialisation consultants Space BD to bring their binocular microtelescope to the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
JAXA is the Japanese national aerospace and space agency, and as a result of this partnership SATLANTIS is now the first non-Japanese technology provider to supply a system for JAXA’s ISS module.
We also have a relationship with Space BD, and in November last year we signed an agreement to explore promotion of cooperation between India and Japan in the space sector.
While from the outside the big agencies can seem difficult to break into for new private space companies, a bit of personal expertise and support can lead to amazing results.
In recent years many startups have entered the space market, with varying success and penetration.
The opportunities are clear, but the scale of engineering, regulatory and cultural challenges are significant. And some great ideas never make it.
To help navigate the complicated maze of technologies, data sources, permits, space agencies and private company suppliers, many startups are looking to work with seasoned professionals with a solid track record and established network in the industry.
The personal experience of such experts can help agile new businesses flatten the learning curve and get to market faster and at a lower cost.
SCISYS Group is an international IT services and software provider working across several sectors, including space, and has offices in a number of European countries.
Recently, German-based space experts at SCISYS Deutschland agreed a new partnership with an Australian-based startup Southern Launch to provide insights and expertise to help the company develop.
The relationship began during a visit to Australia organised by the South Australian Space Industry Centre (SASIC), and future projects will also involve a new initiative called the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) – a network of industry and research professionals who will collaborate to develop the space industry in Australia.
By connecting experts to innovative young businesses in this manner the organisations tasked with developing national and regional space industry capacity can help achieve their goals and democratise the sector.
Partnerships in the private space industry aren’t just for smaller businesses of course. There are many large and public space companies that are working in consortia to solve big challenges.
One example is Global Fishing Watch, a collaboration between conservation group Oceana, environmental non-profit SkyTruth and a little tech firm you might have heard of called Google.
The partnership is aiming to combat the multi-billion-dollar problem of illegal fishing by using new technologies to track and monitor illicit vessels.
The project is now using data from some of the 64 small satellites that were put into orbit during SpaceX’s record-breaking December 3rd launch of the Falcon 9.
With this new capability the organisation will be able to collate data collected from other sources (such as photographs, radar and radio beacons) and build a richer, more real-time picture of ocean fishing around the world.
There are many large space companies out there (for reference, the Space Settlement Institute have put together this excellent list of Publicly Traded Space Companies) looking for partnerships with businesses and organisations that can help expand their reach and impact.
As the industry grows and democratises, those in smaller companies who are able to develop relationships with bigger players can leverage them into all sorts of exciting new initiatives.
So what can a small business do to try and grow through partnerships and personal relationships?
Well, primarily it all comes down to your people.
The employees, advisors and other close connections that your business accrues are one of your most powerful assets.
If you can encourage and empower them to develop strong personal networks and actively seek out ways to develop partnerships, you could open up a whole new set of opportunities outside of business development activity.
But this has to work two ways; they need to get something out of it too.
Your staff want to grow their own careers and become recognised in the field. They have personal and professional objectives (just like you do too) and will appreciate opportunities to work towards achieving them.
If you can align the goals of your staff with those of your business, then any network and relationship-building can be done in that context. Here are a few tips to help you do this;
These are just a few ideas, and apply to any industry, but it is important to note that in the space sector things are still in relatively early stages – so there are lots of opportunities for new partnerships up for grabs.
This is something we have always recognised as a business.
Although we’re building a platform that facilitates the democratisation and scaling of the space industry (simplifying sales and procurement processes and opening up new opportunities for suppliers and upstream clients alike) we are, in part, developing our capabilities through personal relationships.
To date we’ve signed several partnership agreements which have come about due to our network and connections in the field such as to build technical integrations with third-party software or a partnership with the French Space Agency Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) that we signed last year to advance the digitalisation space engineering.
Humanity’s access to the stars will only be built on a firm foundation of personal relationships built here on Earth – good luck developing yours!
]]>“NewSpace” is a term that has entered into daily vernacular in the space industry but remains relatively obscure to those outside the sector. So what exactly is NewSpace?
The likes of SpaceX, Blue Origin, Planet, and others have done a stellar job of seizing the limelight, leading to rapidly growing interest in this space (pun intended!).
Growth brings many great things with it but can also lead to significant misnomers about the industry. The height of this seems to surround SpaceX, and the infuriating, yet comical debate about Elon Musk: superhero or supervillain?
This article is by no means exhaustive and is likely to evoke a wide range of emotions, reflecting the varied and diverse nature of opinions about NewSpace.
The goal instead is to provide some insights into the growing space industry and the phenomenon known as “NewSpace”. Future articles will delve deeper into specific technical, business, and financial aspects of this burgeoning sector.
To an extent, NewSpace is a buzzword, and you’ll struggle to find one unified definition. In fact, a simple Google search for the word “NewSpace” returns over 13 million results. With so much information and so many different interpretations online, how do we start to get a handle on what “NewSpace” actually is?
To help break down the barriers, we’re going to be dedicating our effort towards exploring the nature of the NewSpace sector over a series of blog articles, with this one serving as a gentle primer.
We’ve been curious about what the space community defines as “NewSpace” for quite a while. So we ran a raffle at the recent International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2018) in Bremen, Germany, where we got the opportunity to engage with the global space community through the ESA Start-Up Zone. To enter into the raffle, attendees were asked to answer one simple question:
“What does NewSpace mean to you?”
We got plenty of interesting and varied responses: some as short as one word and others that turned into mini essays! This was a really valuable exercise for us and helped us get a sense of the space community’s views about NewSpace. After returning from the conference, we realized that these are insights that we should share with everyone. After some brainstorming, we came up with a word cloud that provides a snapshot of what NewSpace means.
The common consensus seems to be that NewSpace is an approach that focuses on lowering the barriers to entry to space industry, by providing cheaper access to space (think SpaceX and Blue Origin’s reusable rockets) and more high-quality and affordable data from space that can be put to use here on Earth, for the benefit of scientists and the general public (think Planet’s “Dove” satellites).
To achieve this, NewSpace has forced people to think out of the box, fuelling innovation (such as 3D-printed rockets, software-defined satellites, and Commercial Off-The-Shelf or COTS products). This progress has enabled new players in the industry to function more efficiently, with a move towards fixed-cost contracts, as opposed to a cost-plus contracts that were prevalent in the Apollo era.
In fact, this seems to be one of the major characteristics of the NewSpace era – the fundamental shift from an industry which was heavily dependent on government agencies (and taxpayers’ money) to a more agile and an independent private sector that relies on innovation, working with much smaller budgets than the early space industry.
To make the definition clearer, ‘HobbySpace’ which was awarded the 2007 ‘Best Presentation of Space’ by the Space Frontier Foundation, came up with a list of characteristics which would help determine whether a particular endeavor is considered as a NewSpace approach. They mainly include the following:
1. Focus on cost reductions
2. An assurance that the low costs will pay off
3. Ensuring incremental development
4. Foray into commercial markets with high-consumer rates
5. Primary emphasis on optimizing operations
6. At the heart of it all, innovation
Obviously, the list is not meant to be exhaustive but it does give us a pretty clear idea of what NewSpace is characterized by.
The next obvious question that arises is – If this new approach of doing things is denoted as ‘NewSpace’, there must be something equivalent to “OldSpace”.
The Space Age was kickstarted on October 4th, 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 – the world’s first artificial satellite – into space. This triggered a space race between two superpowers of the world; the Soviet Union and the United States of America. What followed was a huge leap in technological advancement where both the nations reached various milestones and took space exploration to a whole new level.
As defined by Deganit Paikowsky in a paper where he explores the basic difference between ‘OldSpace’ and NewSpace; the ‘OldSpace’ ecosystem refers to space activity that is being controlled by national agencies and is mainly a state-only playground.
The major players in this ecosystem include global superpowers and nations with well-established space agencies, which are backed by their respective governments. OldSpace also includes the large aerospace companies who were awarded ‘cost-plus’ contracts from governments.
Major Players: NASA, ESA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ULA, Northrop Grumman, Arianespace.
However, it is important to remember that the emergence of NewSpace did not phase out OldSpace. In fact, there would be no NewSpace without the technological advancement and knowledge gained by OldSpace over the last 50 years.
For space exploration to move in the right direction, both should co-exist, as they serve this industry in their own separate ways. The relationship shared between OldSpace and NewSpace is actually rather a symbiotic one, as we will see in the paragraphs to follow.
As NewSpace has gained momentum, the line between OldSpace and NewSpace has started to blur. OldSpace players, especially the traditional private aerospace companies, realize that in order to stay competitive in the market they need to harness some of the NewSpace approaches, as well as partner with the NewSpace companies. The agreement between the aerospace giant Airbus and satellite constellation company OneWeb is a prime example of this – where it was stated that Airbus would be producing OneWeb’s 648-satellite constellation of Internet-delivery satellites.
Accelerator programmes such as Airbus Bizlab, where the startups work closely with Airbus to transform their ideas to valuable businesses, or the fact that Lockheed Martin is working on ways to compete with startups, bear further testimony to the new relationship developed between NewSpace and OldSpace.
Government agencies have also come out in support and partnered with NewSpace startups. NASA has been leading this initiative, which was instrumental during the early days of NewSpace, when it started providing contracts to develop launch vehicles to companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin.
This is also evident in recent developments, like when NASA recently chose nine companies to compete for $2.6 billion in contracts developing technologies to reach and explore our Moon.
Luxembourg, a small European country, has also taken major strides in last few years, including launching its own legal framework for the exploitation of resources beyond our planet; only the 2nd country to do so after US. TLuxembourg also launched its own space agency, establishing a fund of $116 million to provide equity funding for NewSpace companies.
The European Space Agency through its technology transfer programme and its Business Incubation Centres (BICs) have focused on improving life here on Earth, by reusing space technology developments and satellite data in terrestrial applications and sectors. Initiated in 2003, the incubation network has grown to 18 centres across Europe and fostered more than 500 new startups. Additionally, to keep pace with upstream innovation across the global, the ESA BIC programme now also directly supports NewSpace companies.
Moving on to Asia, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has been actively trying to encourage private space startups to start contributing in this sector. It opened its first space technology incubation centre earlier this year at the National Institute of Technology, Agartala and is in the process of setting up five other incubation centres throughout the country. ISRO also aims to set up a space park to nurture the private space industry in the country.
One of the biggest revelations however has been the progress of the Chinese space industry in this decade, especially over the last couple of years. The year 2014 marked a shift in perspective for Chinese space industry when Premier Li Keqiang encouraged private capital to invest in the sector. In 2018, within the span of four years, it has become the fourth largest market for private space investment, with the fastest market growth among all international markets. In fact, according to a report published in Wall Street Journal in November 2018, there are as many as 80 space startups now operating in China.
This shift in the perspective in a country where things have traditionally been controlled by the government further cements the fact that NewSpace is growing at a faster rate than ever, and helping this growth is the technological expertise and the knowledge gained by the OldSpace players in the industry.
The involvement of private sector in space activities is not new, although much of the initiative was taken by the US in the early days. The first commercial use of outer space occurred in 1962 when the Telstar 1 satellite was launched by NASA.
This was followed by the Communication Satellite Act of 1962 in the US, with the objective of joining together private communication companies in order to make satellites more obtainable. These satellites were still launched on state-owned launch vehicles.
A couple of decades later, things started to get better for private industry, as the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 was signed. This allowed the private companies to manufacture their own expendable launch vehicles.
The Launch Services Purchase Act in 1990 ordered NASA to purchase launch services for its primary payloads from commercial companies. However, throughout this time private spaceflight was still illegal. It was only in the year 2004 that the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act was signed and made private spaceflight legal.
It is difficult to clearly point to a specific year in history when the NewSpace era began. The term ‘NewSpace’ is not very new. In fact, as early as 1980s the term ‘alt space’ (alternative space) was first used to describe serious commercial activities in the space sector. But the real development only started during the 2000s when companies like SpaceX came onto the scene.
Although, commercial activities were prevalent before the 2000s, all of the contracts offered by NASA and other space organizations around the world were ‘cost-plus’ in nature. This meant that the early private companies were given sufficient amount of funds to make sure that they are able to work on their projects without any hindrance.
The ‘cost-plus’ contract would include the total cost of making the system (satellite, launch vehicle or any smaller subsystem) plus a fixed-fee or a percentage that would count as “profit” for the company. It turned out to be a good deal for these companies and also made sure that the agencies had a direct say in the design of the spacecraft.
Although, ‘cost-plus’ pricing was justifiable in the beginning, as space companies faced stiff requirements and significant risk to build compliant, reliable, and performant system, the inability to innovate fast enough and lack of competition in the market prompted the growth of NewSpace industry.
Enter SpaceX and fixed-price contracts.
With fixed-price contracts, it was now the responsibility of the company to find new ways to create technology and innovate as much as possible, to reduce their cost base and maximize their margin. This shift towards “commercialization” stimulated companies like SpaceX to invest in innovation across engineering, procurement, and business development. To stay competitive in the market, they needed to offer the best possible price, which maintaining performance and reliability. In order maximize profits, they needed to devise new ways to do things at lower costs.
This ensured that innovation was given precedence above everything else. This shift from a ‘cost-plus’ to ‘fixed-price’ contracts was a strong factor to stimulate growth of private industry and underpins the commercialization trend.
Perhaps the most exciting and talked about of the NewSpace verticals is the launch industry. This is partly because some of the companies involved are led by well-known, multi-billionaire CEOs, helping them get plenty of media attention, and partly because of the purpose the NewSpace launch industry intends to serve.
It’s pretty obvious why – if you can’t get things to space quickly and more importantly, cheaply, you won’t be able to do business in space sustainably.
Undoubtedly, the poster child in this field has been SpaceX. Their ability to land their boosters back on Earth (both on land and on droneships in the ocean) and use them for subsequent missions have made them a leader in the private launch industry.
Also, their ability to produce materials in-house meant that they were able to cut down the production costs, which have previously turned out to be expensive due to the nature of sub-contracting the design and manufacture of parts.
Hence, the base price for a Falcon-9 launch is currently projected to be about $62 million, almost half the price of its competitors in the market. Launching on a used rocket takes the cost further down by as much as by 30%. On February 6th 2018, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, the most powerful operating rocket currently, took off from the historic launchpad 39A at Cape Canaveral. The launch generated quite a buzz throughout the world with a record 2.3 million concurrent views on YouTube.
Blue Origin – Another company which has been at the forefront of the NewSpace Launch industry is Blue Origin. The company aims to use reusable rockets to send space tourists on suborbital flights affordably. Earlier last year, it was also successful in securing contracts from the US Air Force to develop new rockets for military launches.
Rocket Lab – Rocket Lab has been the most successful small-lift launch vehicle company in the NewSpace era. The company aims to provide commercial, high-frequency launch services for the small satellite industry with the help of 3D-printed, carbon-fibre rockets. In November 2018, it was able to deliver the first payload of small commercial satellites to space. The company had its second commercial payload mission on 16th December, 2018, when it launched 13 cubesats to low earth orbit for NASA, making it the first commercial launch company to do so.
Other major players: Virgin Galactic, Zero 2 Infinity, Vector Space, Firefly, Link Space, Gilmour Space, Relativity Space, LandSpace, PLD Space and many more.
One of the main drivers in the NewSpace economy has been the emergence of the small satellite industry. Until about ten years ago, the satellite market was largely led by big corporations and government agencies.
Satellites built and launched in preceding decades were typically large objects orbiting the Earth, requiring signficant development and testing, with budgets in the many millions of dollars.
Huge budgets also meant that corporations were forced to asumme a more risk-averse approach to new launches, to avoid billion-dollar servicing missions if satellites didn’t work as expected. This progressively slowed down the rate of innovation in the satellite industry.
Recently, there has been a shift in the satellite manufacturing market. The same technological advancement in electronics and communications technologies, which ensured the rapid development of the smartphone industry, has also played a significant role in reducing the mass and size of the satellites launched to space.
Smallsats (typically weighing between 1-500kg) ensure a lower developmental cost and are able to take advantage of rideshare opportunities, which in turn leads to lower launch costs and less complexity. Their small size also has enabled satellite developers to rapidly design, build, test, and launch new space missions.
According to a recent report, the small satellite market was valued at USD 2.69 billion in 2017. This figure is expected to reach USD 6.91 billion by 2023, at a CAGR of 17.05%, over the forecast period (2018-2023).
Small Satellite Market Major Players: Airbus Defense and Space, Thales Group, ST Engineering Limited, Surrey Satellite Technology, Space Exploration Technologies, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Thales Alenia Space, Planet Labs, Millennium Space Systems, Geooptics, Harris Corporation, Spire Global, and Northrop Grumman Corporation, among others.
The launch industry and the smallsat industry are not the only areas thriving in the NewSpace economy. This era has also helped churn out several interesting, ambitious and unorthodox ideas, which were barely considered in previous decades. Let’s take a look at a few of them:
1) Space mining – Considering the dwindling natural resources and the ever-increasing population on Earth, space mining could be set to become a major industry in coming years.
The resources available in space (on the Moon, asteroids, and other bodies) will not only help here on Earth but also be highly valuable for future colonies on the Moon and Mars.
A few companies have already started working on the core technology, and it’s just a matter of time before space mining becomes routine. A Japanese company, ispace, is looking to prospect for the resources on parts of the Moon, by building small robotic rovers. Other NewSpace companies like Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries helped pioneer this industry, despite recent setbacks, and paved the way towards developing a new economy based on space mining. And then, there are companies like Kleos Space and Offworld who are working on maturing and perfecting technologies for robotic space mining.
These forthcoming innovations have even seen universities developing new courses in the field, such as this Masters degree in space mining!
2) Space tourism – While SpaceX is busy with their goal of colonizing Mars, other space companies are working on the business of sending people to space for tourism, hoping to turn it into profitable business. The most well-known company in this area is probably Virgin Galactic.
Founded in 2004, Virgin Galactic plans to take its tourists on suborbital flights aboard its SpaceShipTwo spacecraft. The company performed its fourth test flight with SpaceShipTwo VSS unity on 13th December, 2018, as it reached space (altitude > 80 km) for the first time ever. Other companies also are also venturing along this path, including Blue Origin, Orion Span, Space Adventures and, of course, SpaceX.
3) Private Space Stations – The International Space Station (ISS) has been an amazing success story, with several countries having worked together towards a common, ambitious human spaceflight goal. But, the ISS is set to be retired in 2025 and the US Government has been looking at alternative options.
This has led to the White House’s proposal to allocate $900 million from fiscal years 2019 through 2023 to developing a private space station. Two companies, Bigelow Aerospace, and Axiom Space are already in the race to developing their own fully autonomous stations. Bigelow’s expandable module, BEAM, has been attached to the ISS since 2016 and has successfully provided performance data on expandable habitat technologies.
Alongside these future applications you can see a variety of other interesting companies here, and in the table below are a few standout projects:
Projects | Companies |
---|---|
Commercial nuclear energy for space | Atomos, Apollo Fusion |
Space debris | Astroscale, LeoLabs |
Fresh food in space | Bake in Space |
Blockchain and space | Blockstream, Spacechain, Nexus Earth |
Additive manufacturing in space | Made in Space |
Will declining launch cost, miniaturization of satellites and the reinvigorated enthusiasm among the general public help position the space industry as the next trillion dollar industry?
As much as I am tempted to give my own set of opinions on this topic, I think it’s fairer (and probably safer!) to list some of the findings published in various reports published recently.
A report by Goldman Sachs predicted that the space economy will reach $1 trillion by the 2040s. A separate study done by Morgan Stanley was slightly more specific, suggesting that the space industry will reach $1.1 trillion by the 2040s. A third study conducted by Bank of America Merrill Lynch projected this number to go as high as $2.7 trillion by the year 2040.
The space industry is currently valued at $350 billion, so going by the projections above, reaching a trillion dollar industry by the 2040s would require an annual growth rate of approximately 7%. That’s the kind of growth rate the space industry has seen for some time, although it has been growing relatively slowly in very recent years. A report prepared by Bryce Space and Technology found that the global space economy in 2017 was $348 billion, only 1% growth from the year 2016.
While it’s easier to reach general conclusions, the number of variables and unknowns moving forward makes it difficult for these organizations to make accurate predictions. Morgan Stanley estimates that satellite broadband will be responsible for 50% of the projected growth of the global space economy by the 2040s. Launching satellites that will provide internet services throughout the world will be crucial for various other industry verticals such as autonomous driving and Internet of Things (IoT). Hence, the success of the satellite broadband industry will not only depend on the launch cost but also on the performance of these industry verticals.
Other variables, such as availability of funding will also play a major role. Except for the US (and maybe China!), funding is still an issue in the space industry, in the rest of the world, as investors are skeptical about this capital intensive sector. How the space industry grows over the next couple of decades will depend on how well investors are educated about risks ands rewards in the industry.
Consolidation in the launch vehicle industry is also one of the common predictions for the future. Some experts believe that there are ‘way too many’ companies in the launch market and eighty to ninety percent won’t make it in the end. There is a belief that the demand for the small satellites is insufficient for all the vehicles in development.
It will be interesting to see whether the above predictions hold true for the industry. Some of the things that will happen are – launch cost to space will go down further with the increasing use of reusability and 3D printed rocket parts, earth observation data will be more easily and cheaply accessible, as the number of satellites deployed in space increases, and as the NewSpace industry grows we will see more unorthodox and futuristic ideas that will get funded and capture the public imagination.
What future do you envision for the NewSpace industry?
The space industry has been growing at a crazy rate, and the enormous amount of daily news headlines related to this industry bears testimony to this fact. In fact, we faced a similar challenge while working on this article to keep ourselves updated with everything going on around the world. Here are some interesting things that have happened during just the last few weeks:
Japan’s Hayabusa 2 spacecraft lands on Asteroid
Amazon’s plan to profit from space data
Israel’s first lunar spacecraft, Beresheet blasts off from Cape Canaveral
Virgin Galactic reaches space again, flies test passenger for first time
A Harpoon to clean up space junk!
China’s Chang’e 4 becomes the first spacecraft to land on the far side of the moon
And since 2019 is here, here’s something else to get us all excited.
Morgan Stanley says 2019 could be the ‘year for space’
Ultimately, only time will tell!
Ad Astra!
Gourav Namta is a mechanical engineer by profession and a space enthusiast. In his free time, he enjoys penning down his thoughts on space engineering & exploration through articles and blogs. For any questions/comments/feedback, feel free to get in touch.
]]>Every year a wide range of industry experts and news outlets make predictions on what they believe is going to happen in the space sector over the coming 12 months.
Now that we’re well into 2019 we thought it was a good time to take a look at some of these predictions, to help space companies get an overview of what is likely to happen in the industry this year.
We start with an article at Nanalyze, which has focussed on predictions in four areas; people in space, global internet access, space debris and militarisation:
Crewed missions: a number of US companies are set to carry both astronauts and, pending successful further testing, paying space tourists into orbit in 2019.
Some of these missions will represent a big step forward and are the cumulation of many years’ progress, with Boeing, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin and SpaceX currently leading the way for private businesses.
Global internet access: providing global internet access enabled by satellite has long been a goal of many in the industry.
The Nanalyze article explains that the Federal Communications Commission in the US has granted permission for a number of businesses to launch global internet satellite constellations, some of which are planned for 2019.
Companies including SpaceX, Telesat, Kepler Communications, and LeoSat Enterprises all have global internet systems in development, and 2019 could make the start of major progress in this area.
Space debris: but of course, all this space action can leave behind potentially dangerous “junk” in orbit and, in their article, Nanalyze mentions some companies that are aiming to help deal with the issue.
Nanalyze discusses two that have recently raised significant funding in order to approach different aspects of the issue; Astroscale who are developing a solution for retrieving space equipment at the end of its operational life, and Leolabs who are creating a radar tracking system in New Zealand for space debris and satellites in low-earth orbit (to an altitude of about 2,000 km) that can pick out objects as small as 2 centimetres.
Militarisation: in a rather more alarming section of predictions the article then discusses military applications in orbit. While space militarisation plans currently remain in their early stages (or at least are, understandably, secret) there has been some movement in this direction.
For example, the article highlights the Pentagon’s plans to finance some aspects of small private sector launch programs, with companies mentioned including SpaceX, Virgin Orbit, and Stratolaunch.
Due to the nature of this area it isn’t possible to make firm predictions for 2019 – just watch this . . . uh . . . space!
Nanalyze is a news website that publishes insightful articles on emerging disruptive technologies (such as 3D printing, AI, robotics, spacetech etc.) to help investors better understand the field. You can find out more about Nanalyze here.
Access to funding and expertise drives a lot of the major progress in the space sector, so it is very interesting to hear insights on the industry from financiers themselves.
Josephine Millward, Head of Research at Seraphim Capital, has put together a detailed set of predictions for the sector from a VC standpoint on the company blog.
Her article explains that 2019 could well be a record year for space VC funding due to an increase in “mega rounds” of financing ($75m+) led by the category leaders and greater consolidation with the larger aerospace and defence firms acquiring relevant SMEs.
No big exits or IPOs are predicted, but Josephine expects a number of leading players to diversify their offerings as the industry grows, while large tech companies will be increasingly active, possibly leading to further consolidation and increased mergers and acquisition (M&A) activity.
In addition, a record number of small satellite launches are expected (many of which you can see in the satsearch mission archive) with constellations for Earth Observation (EO), Internet of Things (IoT) applications, and global internet access being major contributors, as also explained by Nanalyze.
Some of the companies leading in this area are Virgin Orbit, Vector, Firefly Aerospace and Astra.
The article also discusses the importance of data use and cybersecurity issues. In 2019 Josephine expects increasingly sophisticated use cases of AI in space-related applications, due to the greater access and availability of data.
This will also lead to a sharp rise in corresponding cybersecurity needs. Securing data storage and transfer to and from space assets is very important to build trust in an expanding network of providers and technology. Josephine predicts this area will see more growth this year.
Other predictions in the Seraphim article include growth of the burgeoning Chinese space startup ecosystem, commercial human spaceflight and movements in the drone market driven by new technological capabilities.
Seraphim Capital is a venture fund focussed on the space ecosystem, you can find out more about the company and its investing philosophy on the Seraphim Capital website.
Christian Davenport on the Washington Post website has explained the excitement surrounding new human spaceflight opportunities that was also discussed by Nanalyze and Josephine Millward.
Christian is a Washington Post reporter covering the defence and space industries – you can see more of his work by following him on Twitter.
In his article he explains that with at least two companies preparing to transport astronauts into orbit, and others getting close to taking tourists for a trip into space, the near-term prospects for new possibilities brought about due to human space travel are very exciting.
There are plenty of developments to keep track of as mentioned above; SpaceX and Boeing aiming to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) by the end of the year, Blue Origin’s manned test mission, and Virgin Galactic’s potential to launch space tourism in 2019 from Spaceport America in New Mexico.
The article also mentions some of the small satellite companies discussed in other predictions, highlighting Vector, Virgin Orbit and Rocket Lab.
On forbes.com Jonathan O’Callaghan has also put together a comprehensive timeline of the major missions and launches planned in 2019. Check out the timeline here.
Jonathan is a science journalist with a keen interest in space, and he believes that this year could be one of the best yet for the space industry.
2019 certainly is shaping up to be an incredible year for the space sector, and we are looking forward to seeing how these developments will translate into supply chain and marketplace improvements.
The space sector is opening up and democratizing at a steady pace, with new entrants and innovative products coming to market all the time.
We think the space sector in 2019 will be characterized by these exciting new companies, as much as it will be by the big players taking great leaps forward – and we’re looking forward to playing our part in supporting business across the globe to reach a rapidly-growing audience!
]]>Knowledge provided by suppliers is integral to the space mission design process. The information shared by suppliers on systems, subsystems, components and their space heritage is utilized by engineers for concept generation & design, through to ground operations & on-orbit mission management. Today, this kind of input data to the design process is communicated through documents like datasheets, Interface Control Documents (ICDs), and technical manuals, typically in PDF form. Datasheets are generally made available on suppliers’ websites. A small portion of suppliers also provide Computer-Aided Design (CAD) models and ICDs online, however this is still the exception rather than the rule. Tracking down this information is a time-consuming and frustrating task in general. The lack of consolidation of supply chain information across the space industry has a bullwhip effect on the amount of time engineers spend searching. This has a direct knock-on effect on the design lifecycle of space missions.
As the velocity, veracity, volume and variety of space missions continue to grow rapidly, engineers are faced with a surge of supply chain information, stemming from an explosion of suppliers, products, services, and technologies on the market. This rapid growth of supply chain knowledge is not a unique feature of the space industry. Many other mature industries including consumer electronics, automobile, and aviation have had to deal with these growing pains. Such rapid industry expansion often generates information aggregation and consolidation efforts, leading to digital platforms like Octopart and Airframer.
Most platforms consolidate engineering and supply chain knowledge that is ultimately still locked within unstructured documents, like PDFs. This means that engineers still have to grapple with finding ways to populate their tools and workflow with this information; often an arduous, laborious, manual effort. In other words, the frustration does not end with finding the PDFs. The information embedded in these PDF documents has to be extracted, to be available for a variety of functions including design, analysis, simulation, planning, procurement, and knowledge management.
This type of information takes on different forms and functions across the lifecycle of a mission. For example, the exploitation of supply chain information by a systems engineering team, working on preliminary design of a mission concept through a concurrent engineering approach, is very different from the manner in which a space operations team would seek to utilize the same knowledge. The former is typically concerned with quickly iterating through various system-level designs and evaluating feasibility based on the overarching goals that need to be achieved by a mission, while the latter is focussed on analyzing health data from a satellite and benchmarking against the design specifications, to detect failure and flag anomalies.
In both of these scenarios, users need to tap into the same supply chain knowledge captured within datasheets, ICDs, technical manuals, etc., but from the vantage point of data exploitation both cases are markedly different. Similarly, in other areas of the lifecycle of a space mission, like modeling & simulation, flight heritage management, etc., the same supply chain information needs to be exploited in wide-ranging ways. Hence, one of the fundamental challenges in exploiting supply chain information boils down to building tools on top of an agnostic knowledge platform that helps users with differing requirements across the mission lifecycle effectively tap into the global supply chain.
The space industry has a chance now to leapfrog other industries to achieve this goal by adopting standardized Electronic Data Sheets (EDS). As discussed in a previous blog article, EDS technology is key to building tools that leverage automation and intelligence for different phases of the lifecycle of a mission, because it promises to bring information “alive” by allowing seamless transfer and use across the various functions mentioned above. For space mission design, EDS is supports and enables further adoption of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), which is geared towards shifting from a document-centric to model-centric design paradigm. By unlocking information that is currently stored in unstructured documents, like PDFs, EDS applied to the global supply chain can truly change the way in which users engage with stakeholders across the ecosystem. EDS is in many ways a living and functioning organism that breathes life into the design process. The fundamental challenge ahead is to figure out how to transition the industry to this future.
There are two sides to the coin of bringing life to the supply chain through EDS. On the one hand, the completeness, correctness, and reliability of product information captured is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, the documents provided by suppliers don’t easily support automatic and independent verification and validation. EDS will help consolidate specifications, CAD models, ICDs, etc., and generate greater transparency, reliability, and insight. This in turn will make life significantly easier for engineers and mission managers that need to make critical technical and managerial decisions on selection of the right products and suppliers.
The other side of the coin pertains to how EDS can be utilized to embed supply chain knowledge across the mission lifecycle, enabling deep design automation. By leveraging the cloud, one inventive way of achieving this is by making EDS available through standardized Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Once the consolidated specifications are made available through APIs, the value they serve to engineers multiplies, since they can now skip the entire manual process of soliciting and translating information from suppliers. Satsearch is already serving such information through our API to RHEA Group’s Concurrent Design Platform 4 (CDP4TM) and Valispace, with a host of other integrations in the pipeline, including with Saber Astronautics’ P.I.G.I., CNES’ IDM-CIC, MATLAB, Microsoft Excel, and many more.
This approach towards structuring and embedding supply chain information creates a lot of extrinsic value in the ecosystem that comes as a byproduct of opening up the global supply chain to end users. For example, there are over five hundred suppliers in the Indian space supply chain and the majority of engineers outside the Indian subcontinent have no way of accessing the products, services, and technologies available within this ecosystem. The same goes for markets like China, Russia, and Japan, where opening up the supply chain through a consolidated platform can help generate value for end users by enabling better decision-making. By democratizing and streamlining access to the global supply chain through digitalization, the ecosystem will evolve towards a more competitive landscape, driving innovation for next-generation space missions, particularly within the commercial sector.
By investing in a platform that brings the global supply chain to life, the ability to spin in and spin out the underlying Intellectual Property (IP) also drastically improves. Through the implementation of EDS technology, there is an opportunity to open up access to the space supply chain and enable transfer of IP to and from allied, high-technology sectors such as drones, aviation, etc.
The vision at satsearch is the propel the growth of the space industry by building the missing data layer that is key to opening up the global space supply chain. Digitalization tools and technologies are ideally suited to this mission and present a real opportunity to power growth over the coming decade by building bridges that breathe new life into the space mission design.
Interesting in partnering with us to build cutting-edge software integrations to bring the global space supply chain to life? Send me an email and I’d love to have a chat!
Ad astra!
]]>Over the last month, we’ve been working feverishly to expand and update the satsearch website. I’m excited to announce that we’re releasing a host of new features this week, including a completely new data set for our users to search through: the satsearch mission archive. This mission archive expands on our vision to build a single resource that offers users the ability to explore the global space supply chain and assess the state of the space sector worldwide.
Building a mission archive has been on our roadmap for a while. Ever since Erik Laan, founder of Eye On Orbit, and I sat down to discuss the vision for satsearch and the possibility of collaborating, we’ve had an eye on (no pun intended!) adding missions to our growing supply chain database. Eye On Orbit is devoted to bringing developments in space exploration and commerce to society and business by providing technical consultancy on policy, programmes, projects and proposals for space activities, intelligence on space missions, systems and data, and services for space education and outreach. This is directly in line with our goals at satsearch: hence it seemed obvious that we should partner in our efforts to democratize access to the growing, global space industry.
One of the unique assets that Erik has developed and actively maintains is the Space Missions Manifest (SMM). The SMM enables users to search through past, present, and future space missions. We’ve partnered with Eye On Orbit to leverage the SMM, enabling satsearch’s users to access information about space missions directly through our website. Over the past month, we’ve been working behind the scenes to integrate the SMM into our database.
This announcement marks the official launch of the satsearch mission archive, powered by Eye On Orbit. Users can now search for space missions in the same way they’ve been able to search for space suppliers, products, and services. We’re very happy to add Eye On Orbit to our growing partner ecosystem, as we work towards opening up access to the space industry by building the missing data layer.
Developing and launching the mission archive also forced us to think about how we can simplify the way users can get to the data that they need, in as few clicks as possible. To this end, we’ve refactored our website structure and set up the following “hubs” that allow users to directly access each of the data sets that we’ve released to date. All four hubs are also easily accessible at the top of every satsearch page.
Not only do these new hubs allow satsearch users to easily access the underlying satsearch database, it also helps us strengthen our reach through popular search engines, enabling us to support a wider user community around the world.
As we continue to grow our platform, we will develop, expand, and improve the ways that users can navigate the global space supply chain. We have a host of new features in our roadmap for 2019, so stay tuned!
If you have feature ideas/requests to improve our platform, or if you’d like to partner with us to democratize access to the global space supply chain, we’d love to hear from you! Just shoot us an email at info@satsearch.com.
Ad astra!
]]>NASA defines a “satellite” as “a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star.” Hence, Earth can be considered a satellite, since it travels in an orbit around the Sun. Our Moon is also a satellite, since it orbits around the Earth. Let’s shift our focus however to artificial satellites, i.e., human-made machines that are sent into space to move around the Earth or another body. The ones that help you navigate in a new, unknown place. The ones that help you make phone calls. The ones that help in disaster management and warn us before a natural calamity.
This article is intended to serve as a primer for readers who are new to the space industry. You might have heard of the term “CubeSat” before and not entirely understood what people are talking about. In the rest of this article, I’ll try to elucidate the main characteristics of CubeSats and provide some additional resources to get you going.
To start off with, let’s take a look at how satellites are generally classified. Roughly, satellites can be classified into- “Large”, “Medium” and “Small” based on their (dry) mass (see Table 1 below). Small satellites can further be classified into various other sub-categories. CubeSats belong to the class of nanosatellites and have become synonymous with the “NewSpace” movement (a future article will touch on the topic of “NewSpace”).
Class | Mass | |
---|---|---|
Large | >1000 kg | |
Medium | 500 to 1000 kg | |
Small | < 500 kg | |
Micro | 100 to 500 kg | |
Micro | 10 to 100 kg | |
Nano | 1 to 10 kg | |
Pico | 100 g to 1 kg | |
Femto | 10 to 100 g | |
Atto | 1 to 10 g | |
Zepto | 0.1 to 1 g |
Table 1: Satellite classification based on mass (Credit: nanosats.eu)
Interested in learning more about what CubeSats actually are? Keep reading …
A CubeSat is a cube-shaped, small satellite with standardized characteristics (see Figure 1). The standard dimensions for a single unit are 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm = 1000 cm3 (also denoted as “1U”). A 1U CubeSat is standardized to weigh between 1 kg to 1.33 kg. A CubeSat can be a single unit or may consist of multiple units (typically 2U, 3U, 6U, up to 16U, with other configurations constantly under development).
What makes CubeSats so interesting is that by virtue of standardizing dimensions, mass, and interfaces, they have enabled satellite developers to rapidly design, build, test, and launch new space missions. The standardized CubeSat design specifications are openly available, which has helped to democratize access to the space industry over the past decade.
The idea of the CubeSat was first proposed in the late 1990s by two professors, Jordi Puig-Suari of California Polytechnic State University and Bob Twiggs of Stanford University, with the aim of enabling graduate students to gain hands-on experience of designing, building, testing and operating satellites in space. This further meant that universities could chip in with moderate funding to help build these satellites for educational and research purposes. The first six CubeSats were launched in June 2003 on a Russian Eurockot.
Although CubeSats were initially used only for educational and research purposes, things started changing late 2012. Between 2012 and 2017, over 725 CubeSats were launched, representing 50% of all satellite launches. One of the major reasons for this unprecedented growth over last six years is the dramatic drop in launch cost. As CubeSats weigh significantly less than traditional satellites, less mass ultimately means that less rocket fuel is required to place them into Earth orbit. CubeSats benefited from the ability to hitch rides on rockets designated for larger satellites. Specifically, the emergence of standardized dispensers meant that integration into the launch vehicle was made easy.
CubeSats offer opportunities to conduct scientific experiments and technology demonstration in space, in a cost-effective, timely and reliable manner. Their small size also ensures that it is convenient to quickly build and test new ideas, making CubeSats an ideal option for academia and the emerging commercial space industry.
The core of a CubeSat typically consists of the following key subsystems:
These core subsystems are complemented with others to enable CubeSats to operate in space. In general, CubeSats are built up from six major subsystems, namely:
CubeSats have become an integral part of the space industry over the last decade. CubeSats were originally intended for use in academic projects, however commercial space companies like Planet & Spire, and space agencies like NASA, ESA, JAXA, and ISRO have rapidly adopted them for current and upcoming missions.
Planet has launched dozens of CubeSat-sized “Dove satellites”, which are being used for a range of applications, including disaster response and climate monitoring. NASA’s CubeSat Launch Initiative provides launch slots for CubeSats aboard traditional rocket launches. ESA launched its most advanced nanosatellite to date earlier this year, the GomX-4B, which was launched along with GomX-4A. The two CubeSats successfully demonstrated intersatellite link technology.
Cubesats do however pose interesting challenges. Firstly, the use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components to help reduce cost also means that CubeSats are generally more sensitive to radiation in space. As they are small, CubeSats cannot carry large payloads. Critics also believe that widespread proliferation of CubeSats will lead to severe growth of space junk in Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). Finding ways to mitigate these issues and others is key towards ensuring the sustainability of CubeSats.
CubeSats have generally been deployed in LEO in the past. However, in 2018, CubeSats began to venture beyond Earth orbit. The Mars Cube One (MarCO) spacecraft were the first CubeSats to leave Earth’s orbit on May 5th, 2018, along with NASA’s Insight Lander. On October 2nd, 2018 MarCO captured the first images of Red Planet and sent them back to Earth. NASA’s first Space Launch System Test Launch in 2019 will include up to 13 microsatellites. NASA is also considering developing a mission to Jupiter’s icy moon Europa with the help of CubeSats. ESA is working on a number of CubeSat projects, including their Hera mission, where the plan is to deliver CubeSats to the Didymos asteroid system.
With the rapid emergence of small-lift launch vehicle companies such as Rocket Lab and Vector, which offer dedicated launches for small and medium satellites, there will likely be a further drop in the launch cost and an opportunity to deploy CubeSats to fulfill the ever-growing needs back here on Earth.
In short, despite the challenges, CubeSats are here to stay, and the future looks brighter than ever!
Incase you’re looking to dive further into the world of CubeSats, we’ve got you covered:
Once you’re ready to build your CubeSat, check out the extensive catalog of suppliers, products, services, and missions on satsearch.
Ad astra!
Gourav Namta is a mechanical engineer by profession and a space enthusiast. In his free time, he enjoys penning down his thoughts on space engineering & exploration through articles and blogs. For any questions/comments/feedback, feel free to get in touch.
]]>Space is truly a global industry, with many new space-faring nations joining the ranks of the established players over the last decade. Japan and India are both thriving space economonies with significant heritage and ambitious plans for the future. To support the cooperation between both countries for space, I’m pleased to announce that we have signed an agreement with Space BD. This agreement will enable us to join forces to exploit both countries’ space value chains and generate synergies that help to open up access to space.
Space BD has been making waves over the last year, achieving a series of ground-breaking milestones to help democratize access to space. In August, Space BD announced that they were awarded a contract for small satellite deployment services from the “Kibo” Japanese Experiment Module on the International Space Station (ISS), after being selected as a commercial service provider by JAXA, the Japanese space agency. Space BD also recently signed agreements with Innovative Solutions In Space and NanoRacks.
We’re really happy to have established a common vision to bring together our core competences, platforms, and services, towards the goal of opening up the global space value chain. Ultimately, this will enable us to accelerate towards faster, better, cheaper, and more reliable space missions for all.
For the official announcement, please refer to the following press release.
Free free to email me if you have any questions about this partnership, or if you’d like to partner with us to digitalize the global space supply chain and open up access to space.
Ad astra!
]]>We are thrilled to announce our Verified Supplier Program, a new initiative designed to help spacetech suppliers demonstrate their capacity, products and commitment in the global marketplace.
On Monday 1st October 2018, we officially launch the Program at the 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Bremen, Germany.
As we work to build the global marketplace for space & democratize access to the global space supply chain, we believe this new program can help accelerate the success of our valued partners in the satsearch community.
Our European Space Agency (ESA)-backed platform features a global network of more than 700 companies of all sizes and has powered over 10,000 curated searches in 2018.
Through our work, we have seen first-hand the difficulties that businesses face in competing with and breaking into entrenched, legacy supply chains.
In order to help space companies stand out in the global marketplace, we have developed the Verified Supplier Program, as a means of identifying businesses that have made a commitment to:
The theme of this year’s Congress is “IAC 2018 – involving everyone” and we believe that the satsearch Verified Supplier Program is a great example of this idea. Our mission is to democratize access to the space industry, and the Verified Supplier Program will help us to achieve this aim.
Companies will be able to engage with the satsearch team in-person at IAC 2018 so they can be validated to join the Program, and we will reflect this recognition on the website.
We are developing two methods to help suppliers stand out; identification on the company’s supplier page and on individual product listings in search results.
We’ll also support our Verified Suppliers by promoting them in satsearch marketing channels and including their product information in our API, which is utilized by a growing array of systems engineering tools.
The Verified Supplier Program is free to join and does not require suppliers to provide any exclusivity in terms of product, pricing, delivery or any other aspect of their business operations.
If you are a supplier in the space sector and would like to discuss how we might be able to help you grow your business, please come and speak to us at IAC 2018 at our stand in ESA’s Start-Up Zone (5C 50).
You can also see more about the program on satsearch.co.
It will be a very welcome return to Bremen for the satsearch team. In 2015, we won second place at Startup Weekend Space: Bremen, so it is great to be going back!
We have been chosen by ESA as one of 24 startups to attend the Congress and exhibit within their Start-Up Zone. We will be at the Congress venue the whole week and look forward to meeting you to share our plans to build the global marketplace for space.
To all attendees of the Congress, we would love to talk to you about our our work and find out more about yours too. So please come and see us at ESA’s Start-Up Zone (5C 50) at IAC 2018.
Ad Astra!
The satsearch team would like to thank Hywel Curtis for preparing this announcement and for his efforts in supporting the launch of satsearch’s Verified Supplier Program.
]]>Following on from my introduction to our tech stack last week, I wanted to share some insights into the work going on behind-the-scenes to improve the core part of our platform: the search engine. Search algorithms have come a long way since the days of the original Yahoo!, Lycos, and AltaVista. The history of search engines is quite fascinating, and charts the way the internet itself has changed. With Google dominating the search engine landscape, you might be wondering why search is even worth working on.
Well, although Google has come to dominate general search, niche search engines can cater to very specific queries that Google can’t. Effectively, we’re building a niche search engine that caters to specific needs of users in the space industry.
With that in mind, we’ve spent a lot of time talking to users, trying to understand what they’re looking for and how to map their expectations to fantastic user experience. This led us to abandoning our original “Google-like” interface (a largely empty page with just a simple search bar in the middle), to a richer environment that allows users to navigate the global space supply chain through a search bar, supplier map, and product categories & tags.
One bit of feedback that we consistently heard from users was that we were serving too many results for simple queries. Our immediate thought was to wonder how too much information is a bad thing? The fact of the matter is that the typical satsearch user has a pretty clear idea of what they’re looking for and they come to our platform to find the shortest path to the answer. Presenting users with hundreds of results only serves to create frustration.
Hence, we’ve started to rethink the way our search engine works. The fundamental question that we’re trying to answer is: how do we serve the right answer to the user in the fewest number of steps? This turns out to be more complicated than it seems. Primarily, the information we serve through satsearch.co today consists of metadata, i.e., high-level data that characterize other data. The “other data” in our case is our corpus of product datasheets. Currently, we serve over 5000 PDF datasheets that contain details about space products offered by suppliers all over the world. Ultimately, our goal is to do away with these PDF documents, and replace them with something much richer, but that’s a topic for another day.
Our user research led us to realizing that a lot of space engineers think of space systems in terms of a traditional product tree, which is often hierarchical and based on functions of different subsystems. An example of this is the ESA generic product tree, which classifies space systems through a hierarchy that runs from system level down to equipment level.
The product metadata we store in our database includes categorization based on a 2-tier hierarchy. Since users typically know which product category they’re interested in, we decided to change our search algorithm to leverage the knowledge of the user. I’m happy to announce that at the start of this week, we shipped our new 2-step product search. The goal of this 2-step product search is to utilize the user’s a priori knowledge to reduce the number of steps that it takes to present him/her with relevant results.
To highlight how this works, let’s consider an example. Previously, if a user searched for “cubesat”, they’d be presented with a long list of products that are in some way associated with cubesats. Now, if a user searches for “cubesat”, they’re taken to an interim results page that presents a list of product categories that contain products associated with cubesats. This allows the user to narrow down their search by selecting the product category that they’re interested in, yielding a shorter, more relevant list of results.
As our database grows, we have a lot more work to do to improve the way our search algorithm works. Here are some of the areas that we’re working on behind the scenes:
I’ll be sharing more insights into how our search evolves in future. If you have thoughts about our new 2-step product search, or if you’re generally interested in how our technology stack works, feel free to join our Slack community, or email me.
Ad astra!
]]>Before we get started taking a look at the tech stack that we’ve built for satsearch, let me introduce myself. My name is Alberto Vaccarella, and I’m the tech lead at satsearch. I’ve got a PhD in Bioengineering from Politecnico di Milano and I’ve worked at various companies as a software developer.
When Kartik approached me in 2015 about building a “Google for space”, I was stunned to learn that a literal frontier industry has not yet solved this problem. Kartik shared his frustration as an Aerospace engineer, spending hours Googling for information about suppliers and products on the market.
And so satsearch was born!
This article is the first in a series that will touch on the technologies we’re employing at satsearch to build the first global marketplace for space. Luckily, tech companies have solved many of the challenges we face over the last couple of decades, so we’re leveraging a vast ecosystem of tools and processes to build and grow satsearch.
The origin story for satsearch starts in April 2015. Kartik and I built and launched v1 of the website in under 48 hours. The beauty of building websites today is that there is a rich ecosystem of tools that you can use to get started right away.
v1 was built using the MEAN stack, minus Angular as a frontend framework. This allowed us to get started quickly. The choice for Node.js in particular was based on our thought that having the same language for both the server and client sides of our website would be a huge benefit. We did briefly consider other options like Ruby on Rails and Python via Django or Flask, but the immediate benefit of working in a single language won out in the end. Using Express meant that we could get started quickly, with a lightweight web framework.
We decided not to adopt Angular or any other frontend framework, to reduce the learning curve. Instead, we made use of the Jade template engine (since renamed Pug) for Node and Bootstrap. This allowed us to build a lightweight frontend that included some dynamic content, without having to adopt a full framework. Bootstrap, an open source toolkit for developing with HTML, CSS, and JS, is especially useful when prototyping ideas, and has come a long way since it was initially released by Twitter in 2010.
We deployed the site to Heroku the first weekend it was built. Heroku is a great service to prototype new ideas, especially since their free tier is pretty generous. The Git deploy workflow on Heroku is also great if you’re frequent/heavy Git users like us.
For v1, we thought that the best way to be the “Google for space” was to look like the “Google for space”. Over the course of 2015 and 2016 however, we discovered that this limited the user experience. This led us to the reboot, at the start of 2017.
After a lot of user feedback, we decided that the website needed a reboot. Instead of trying to mimic Google (which turns out to be very difficult), we decided to build something that was more akin to Digi-Key, since this seemed to address what our users wanted. So we set about rethinking the way our website functioned and mapping out the user journey.
At the start of 2017, we launched our reboot: v2 of satsearch.
This, in broad strokes, is the user interface (UI) that we are working with today. After the reboot, we focussed the rest of 2017 on behind-the-scenes work. In particular, we had to build a robust data pipeline to support a growing number of users and searches on the website.
We discovered that search was becoming more and more of an issue as the website grew, especially with our database growing from a few hundred products to thousands by the end of 2017. So the question that we had to address was how to build search that would enable users to find what they were looking for, as quickly as possible.
One of the fundamental challenges that we face is finding a way to build a system that consistently and reliably provides users with relevant search results. The problem of building good search is effectively a solved problem (you can even follow online courses that take you through the whole journey). Nevertheless, the devil is in the details. In our case, we had to think about how to model the underlying data to provide users with a powerful and intuitive way to explore the global space supply chain.
We decided early on to capture information about suppliers, products, and services as JSON documents. JSON was originally developed in the late 90s as a lightweight data-exchange format for the web that’s easy for both humans and machines to read. Since the early days, JSON has been adopted across the web and is the standard language of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that power pretty much every website you interact with on a daily basis.
Given that we decided to think of our underlying data in terms of documents, it seemed like a natural fit to start prototyping with MongoDB (the “M” in the MEAN stack). MongoDB is one of a large number of NoSQL database technologies that represents data as JSON-like documents. The power of using a document-based database is that it allows fields to vary from document to document, meaning you don’t have to fix a rigid schema a priori. This seemed like the right choice, as we had to discover structure in the data that we were collecting about supplier and products, meaning that we didn’t know the schema ahead of time.
As we continued to grow our website though, we discovered that the fundamental issue that we were facing was that our data was highly relational in nature, meaning that we were actually reinventing the wheel in our application, by imposing rules that come for free in a relational database. This caused inconsistencies and resulted in huge bloat in our codebase, which became unmanageable. Hence, we took the big decision to migrate our backend to PostgreSQL, a popular, open-source relational database. This migration is on-going and will be finalized by the end of the summer, enabling us to scale our backend much more easily.
Lesson learned: don’t get sucked into thinking that fancy, shiny new technologies are the best answer; sometimes the stable, robust oldies are still the right choice.
There are many challenges that lie ahead, as we continue to grow. Some of the challenges we’re addressing include:
In the coming months, I’ll be shedding more light on these challenges and share an in-depth perspective on key choices for our tech stack and product.
If you’re interested in learning more about the technologies we’re using at satsearch, or if you have suggestions/feedback, I’d love to hear from you. If you’re also thinking of prototyping your own idea and we can help with some do’s and don’ts, don’t hesitate to reach out.
Feel free to join our Slack community, or email me at alberto@satsearch.com.
]]>The exciting idea of a Design Engineering Assistant (DEA) that can support decision-making for complex engineering has been contemplated by researchers since pretty much the start of the computer age. With the advent of powerful cloud computing and advanced computational intelligence methods, Expert Systems like a DEA are rapidly emerging as a reality. The literature is replete with examples of how a DEA would benefit the engineering process, helping to reduce cost, mitigate risk, and identify bottlenecks at the preliminary design stage. Not really sure what this means? Think more IBM Watson for engineering, and less Clippy.
With this in mind, I am excited to announce that satsearch has partnered with University of Strathclyde (Strathclyde), RHEA Group, Airbus Defence & Space (Airbus DS), and the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Concurrent Design Facility (CDF) to design, implement, and evaluate a DEA for the early design of space missions. This project is being led by Strathclyde within the Intelligent Computational Engineering (ICE) lab, under ESA’s Networking/Partnering Initiative, and aims to deliver the design and implementation of a DEA that can demonstrate the ability to support systems engineers during feasibility studies. The DEA will provide support for initial input estimation, provide assistance to experts by answering queries related to previous design decisions, and offer new design options to explore. The ultimate goal of the DEA is not to replace the human in the loop, but rather enhance human perception of the problem and the design space. To achieve these goals, the project is employing the latest in Natural Language Processing (NLP), machine learning, knowledge management, and Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) methodologies.
Our role within this project is to support the development of the knowledge management system, by providing a structured supply chain dataset that feeds into the knowledge graph generated by researchers at Strathclyde. Our bottom-up approach towards the development of an ontology for space systems is highly complementary to the work being conducted during the ESA NPI. By working on digitalization of the global space supply chain, we can plug our data directly into this project, opening the door to exciting developments for advanced space systems engineering through Data-Driven Design (D3). This approach, which we have dubbed Integrated Mission Design, will be detailed in future blog posts.
The initial results of this project will be presented at SECESA 2018 in Glasgow from 26th to 28th of September.
If you’re interested in learning more, feel free to contact me directly.
Ad astra!
]]>Sick of waiting for days to get a response from a supplier? Struggling to figure out how to compare suppliers and their products? Unsure how to navigate the complex supplier landscape to guarentee high quality, short lead times, and optimal cost? The buying process in the space industry is broken and it is stifling growth. For the space industry to move forward, a new approach is necessary to capture the dialogue between buyers and suppliers at a global scale.
Digitals tools and processes are transforming the way procurement, sourcing & acquisition are managed in a plethora of industries, including automotive, chemical, and shipping. A similar approach can help to transform the way stakeholders interact across the global space supply chain, bringing the power of software, analytics, and intelligence to a burgeoning sector desperately in need of digital transformation.
For the space industry to move forward, a new approach is necessary to capture the dialogue between buyers and suppliers at a global scale.
Our mission at satsearch is to democratize access to the global space supply chain by bringing the power of software, intelligence, and the cloud to an industry that has traditionally managed relationships offline.
So what exactly does the buying process encapsulate? According to Wikipedia, there is a difference between procurement, which is “the process of finding, agreeing terms and acquiring goods, services or works from an external source, often via a tendering or competitive bidding process” and is generally tactical in nature, and sourcing, which is more strategic and can be defined as “the process of identifying sources that could provide needed products or services for the acquiring organization.” In this article, the buying process encapsulates all of the transactions between buyers and suppliers, whether tactical, strategic, or operational in nature.
The buying process in the space industry is tremendously complex, with many different systems and stakeholders needing to interact to arrive at a decision. Traditionally, the buying process has been locked into legacy relationships that enable the Airbus’, Lockheed Martin’s, and Boeing’s of the world to maintain significant advantage of new entrants. In this sense, traditional procurement in the space industry has relied on government cost-plus contracts, where private players assume little to no risk.
This stifles growth and results in a propensity to steer away from proven solutions to democratize access to the supply chain, rendering the whole sector impotent. To effect change in the buying process, the end-to-end workflow has to be rebuilt from the ground up, stripping away the legacy, localized, siloed supplier relationships that hold back the industry as a whole. This is particular important, given the trend towards a global, private, commercial future for the space industry, in which fixed-price contracts become the norm, and global competitiveness drives innovation, risk reduction, and profitability across the board, forcing suppliers to rethink their entire approach towards business.
So where does digitalization or digital transformation fit into this? There is a lot of hype around the idea of industry digitalization, so you’re not wrong in thinking that this is yet another fancy trend being pushed by expensive consultants. If you dig a bit deeper though, it turns out that digitalization really touches on some of the core aspects of business, both internal and external to an organization. Standardizing processes and data formats, and leveraging digital tools to manage end-to-end data flow across the supply chain is core to digitalization. Digitalization of the buying process promises to drastically improve the way we:
Standardizing processes and data formats, and leveraging digital tools to manage end-to-end data flow across the supply chain is core to digitalization.
The buying process in the aerospace & defense sector is undergoing similar transformation to other sectors. In particular, in the aviation industry, digital transformation is leading the way forward and helping to reduce risk, optimize cost, and develop strong supplier relationships built on data-driven trust. Platforms like AirSupply aim to increase collaboration and communication between suppliers and customers through digitalization.
Similar advancements are occurring in the space industry; for instance, space agencies are rethinking the way tender and bid systems operate. ESA-STAR, ESA’s renewed online System for Tendering And Registration launched in 2016, is positioned as “a move by ESA toward more digital tools for business.” This is a good sign for the industry as a whole, and is a significant hint towards the future of government contracting. Such digital systems in the space industry are still typically regional and/or proprietary walled gardens; for digitalization to make a significant mark on the industry, an open, transparent, global approach is necessary.
With rapid growth of NewSpace, there is growing interest in the adoption of digital processes and tools for supply chain management in the space industry. The emergence of digital transformation for supply chain management is pivotal to our long-term aspirations, including permanent settlement on Mars, deep-space exploration, and commercial mega constellations.
As a stepping-stone towards digitalization for NewSpace, today we announce the launch of our Request for Information (RFI) engine, also internally dubbed slash-request. Our RFI engine enables users from all over the world to contact suppliers within our global network in a few simple steps; a preliminary step towards digitalizing the buying process. Through software and human intelligence, we have already helped users reach out to a variety of suppliers, streamlining and standardizing transactions across the supply chain.
We have a lot more to achieve before the Industry X.O vision can be fulfilled within the space industry. We believe that these first steps towards building a digital engine to support the buying process is core to turning this dream into our reality.
Visit slash-request or any supplier or product page on satsearch to get started with the satsearch RFI engine today!
Interested in learning more? Free free to email me your suggestions and feedback.
Ad astra!
]]>We are thrilled to announce that at the Toulouse Space Show 2018 the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES), also known as the French Space Agency, signed an agreement with satsearch to digitalize space engineering. The CNES President, Jean-Yves Le Gall, and our COO, Narayan Prasad, signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in Toulouse in front of a captive audience. This MOU marks another key stepping-stone towards the goal of building a rich ecosystem of partners to support us in our efforts to spearhead digitalization of the global space supply chain.
CNES has a long, rich history of supporting innovation in the space industry and welcoming collaboration with new initiatives across the world. Recent news of a new space startup fund in the range of $80M to $100M is ample evidence of this agile, entrepreneurial approach at CNES. As Mr. Le Gall recently stated, “We completely changed our approach and we consider CNES has a very important role to play in NewSpace.”
Currently incubated in the European Space Agency’s Business Incubation Centre in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, satsearch is focussed on becoming the go-to supply chain platform for space professionals. We have built global partnerships with the likes of the ANTRIX Corporation Limited, Valispace, RHEA Group, Saber Astronautics, and Stelae Technologies to create a digital ecosystem that supports the entire lifecycle of a space mission. We currently serve the world’s largest open database of space products and services, with 750+ suppliers and 5000+ space products listed on our platform. Engineers from all over the globe navigate the space supply chain through satsearch.co on a daily basis.
The collaboration with satsearch will be initiated by an effort to embed our supply chain database into the Integrated Design Model software suite developed at CNES and utilized in the concurrent engineering facility in Toulouse. IDM consists of two main elements: IDM-CIC and IDM View. CNES and satsearch will work together to integrate satsearch with these tools, to support advanced, Data-Driven Design™ (D3) methodologies for pre-Phase A and Phase A studies. The IDM user community is growing rapidly, and major partnerships, like announced last year between CNES and University of New South Wales (UNSW) Canberra, open the door for adoption of D3 using the IDM-satsearch software integration.
“This agreement with CNES builds on our effort to secure key partnerships with organizations that support our mission of democratizing access to the global space supply chain,” according to Narayan Prasad. “We’re looking forward to building next-generation tools with CNES to push for Data-Driven Design and full-scale digitalization within the space industry.” CNES President Jean-Yves Le Gall commented: “By partnering with satsearch, CNES is further increasing the power of its unique IDM space mission design tool and paving the way for its wider use by space players around the world, notably in India where satsearch is well established. This partnership with a NewSpace start-up fully aligns with CNES’s mission to seek out the most remarkable innovations wherever they are.”
For the official announcement, please refer to the following press release.
Free free to email me if you have any questions or if you’d like to partner with us to transform the space industry through digitalization.
Ad astra!
]]>There is wide consensus across the space community that development and consolidation of advanced algorithms, regarded as an “enabling factor” for space engineering applications, is imperative (Girimonte & Izzo, 2007). In a paper published by the “Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence”, the rise in the levels of autonomy and automation of space systems, borrowing algorithms from world of Artificial Intelligence (AI), was deemed as the necessary step for further advancements in space missions (Chien & Morris, 2014). Beyond the aerospace industry, AI is finding its way into most high-tech sectors, including automotive, logistics, and cybersecurity.
Machine learning algorithms that enable AI are a perfect fit for repetitive tasks like optimization, pattern recognition and data mining (KrishnaKumar, 2002): if a large set of data is provided, the overarching behaviour of a system can be discerned and exploited. For the space industry in particular, researchers believe that machine learning will enhance “greater autonomy to improve the duration, reliability, cost-effectiveness, and science return of space missions” (Mcgovern & Wagstaff, 2011). Autonomous systems that employ enhanced data mining and analysis are therefore a key research topic in the space industry. The time is ripe for such research to be conducted, given the rapid growth in compute available.
The need for intelligent systems that are able to make optimal decisions, often in remote and hostile environments, is well understood by space agencies around the world (Chien & Morris, 2014). The major obstacle to the full implementation of machine learning algorithms in space systems is the lack of maturity and robustness in extreme operational conditions. For instance, as efforts are undertaken to bridge the gaps between the algorithms currently available and the high-reliability requirements necessary for space technologies, mission engineers are unwilling to risk million-dollar spacecraft by utilizing AI-based, adaptive control algorithms (ICML, 2003).
And rightfully so.
Only after concrete, testable predictions are verified and validated in lower-risk environments, can the migration towards AI-enabled autonomy of space systems be seriously considered.
It’s important to stress that the application of AI to space systems isn’t restricted to the classic cases of mission operations or scientific data analysis. As space systems become more complex, there is a similar trend to look towards machine learning algorithms to support the space mission design process, which is what we’re interested in at satsearch.
For instance, at the preliminary design stage, autonomous generation and assessment of design concepts can empower engineers to explore the search space further, possibly yielding solutions that exhibit greater robustness, incur lower costs, and offer greater transparency for design trade-offs. Unlike in an operational environment, during the design process there is greater room for experimentation with cutting-edge machine learning algorithms to support engineers.
A decision support system for engineering design is an attractive prospect (Girimonte & Izzo, 2007), given that machine learning algorithms are becoming more sophisticated. However, the effectiveness of such a system is dependent on the availability of good sources of information pertaining to the design process to train and execute the algorithms.
The benefits of the satsearch platform are not limited to advanced querying. A key area of research currently being pursued by our team is the use of our knowledge graph to power advanced, intelligent system design methods. By structuring supply chain information, our vision is to empower space engineers by automatically generating ranked design concepts, based on the preliminary requirements, constraints, and objectives for a given space mission.
The traditional design workflow typically requires the engineer to manually evaluate and select feasible design concepts that meet mission requirements. Time and effort can be saved by automating this process through the use of decision support systems that prune the design tree intelligently. The development of innovative machine learning algorithms that are able to identify and parse complex patterns within the design process is thus crucial. Advanced learning models that strive to capture human reasoning will enable engineers to focus on the most difficult parts of the design process, whilst relying on robust and transparent tools that help to identify optimal and robust design choices.
During the preliminary design phase, the engineer is usually faced with the iterative task of sizing system parameters (e.g., the dimensions of a reaction wheel) under requirements and restrictions (e.g., the required torque and maximum mass), to rapidly generate estimates to assess feasibility. Machine learning algorithms could be developed to mimic the complex design process undertaken by engineers, taking the form of an advanced optimization problem under complex constraints and requirements.
At satsearch, we are focussed on demonstrating the value of Data-Driven Design (D3) by enabling advanced learning algorithms to scan the satsearch supply chain knowledge graph, to rapidly assess the feasibility of commercially-available hardware choices. We are currently conducting research into Integrated Mission Design (IMD) – a methodology we coined to describe the approach of embedding supply chain information directly into engineering design tools – through a concrete design study that will be published later this year.
Currently, our internally study is focussed on the use of the satsearch knowledge graph for the design of the attitude control subsystem of a small satellite. The results will be published on this blog sometime after the summer.
Starting from the extensive archive of available supply chain information, constraint and requirement functions limit the feasible design choices.
The utilization of the satsearch knowledge graph by complex machine learning algorithms will save the subsystem engineer valuable time and effort during the preliminary design phase of a space system.
The core value added by the satsearch platform is thus as follows: the machine-readable format that we are developing to build a supply chain knowledge graph will enable AI-enabled systems to drastically improve the productivity of engineers, resulting in lower lifecycle costs, greater robustness, and ultimately fewer critical design errors.
]]>Having successfully completed the Rocket Program last year, it was natural for us to apply for the main incubation program. ESA BIC has a rich history of supporting startups; last year the network achieved a fantastic milestone, having incubated more than 500! We have negotiated a two-year incubation period at ESA BIC Noordwijk, during which we hope to accelerate our growth, tap into the vast ESA BIC network, and work closely with ESA and other stakeholders in the space value chain to democratize access to the global space supply chain.
On 8th May, 2018, the official signing ceremony was held at ESA BIC Noordwijk. This was an occasion for the new incubatees to meet each other and complete the formalities necessary to officially join the ESA BIC network. The signing ceremony was held during the monthly entrepreneur’s coffee meeting, giving us our first glimpse of how the community at ESA BIC Noordwijk comes together.
Many thanks to the various mentors and advisors who have supported our journey thus far. Special thanks to Martijn Leinweber who has guided us through every step of the process of understanding the ESA BIC philosophy. Furthermore, we’d like to take this chance to thank users, suppliers, and partners who have engaged with us: you keep us pushing forward! A special thank you to the TU Delft Startup Voucher & Coaching Programme that helped us in immeasurable ways.
Supply chain digitalization is vital to our collective aspirations to reach for the stars. Joining the ESA BIC network will enable us to make a huge leap forward to support the space industry towards a digital-first future. ESA BIC will also give us a unique opportunity to explore allied sectors, like drone/UAV and aviation, where our supply chain digitalization technologies can be transformative at a global scale.
We are excited to join Drones for Work, Centrip, and Smart Farm Sensing as the newest members of the ESA BIC Noordwijk community and we’re looking forward to a fantastic two years ahead!
Interested in learning more about our efforts to digitalize the global space supply chain? Get in touch!
Ad astra!
]]>– (Marsland, 2015)
Careful data analysis is becoming increasingly important to an organization’s growth in today’s technologically-advanced world. The aim of data analysis is to gain useful insights by converting data into information, in other words attaching meaning to raw data. Computer algorithms are great at pattern-matching and detecting relationships within data, but humans are still an integral part of the pipeline to turn data into useful information. With rapid strides being made in the development of AI algorithms, the human input required might be drastically reduced in the future, however, currently both human and machine are key to the process of making sense out of data.
By modelling and attaching meaning to data, new, unexpected patterns often emerge. The extraction of useful information from extensive databases & archives of data enables the user to make critical decisions for all sorts of applications and fields (Foslien, Guralnik, Haigh; 2004).
The space sector generates massive archives of data for a variety of applications. The tremendous growth of space-related data over the last decade, projected to continue accelerating, has led the community to seek ways to tackle “Space Big Data” (SBD). There are several definitions of SBD leading to a lot of discussion within the community (International Space University; 2016). Nevertheless, in a general sense, SBD is defined to be at the junction of the space industry and the big data world, and it “encompasses all data gathered through activities that utilize space assets” (Marchetti, Soille, Bruzzone; 2016).
The development of innovative technologies for space applications requires advanced use of spacecraft data for a range of applications, including automated system health surveillance, end-of-life management and autonomous operations (Iverson; 2008). In the case of automated system health surveillance, data processing can highlight the presence of outliers in system information; often a signal of malfunctioning subsystem components. The rapid increase in the volume of telemetry data can be traced back to the ever-rising number of sensors being employed on board of satellites, the frequency at which data are being sampled and, last but not least, the number of satellites being launched. The rise of mega constellations for satellite communications (Guidotti; 2017) in particular, has direct consequences on the volume, velocity, and variety of data being generated.
Hence, satellite operators are increasingly faced with making sense of SBD stored in large telemetry databases. Most commercial satellites in Earth orbit provide a regular stream of telemetry data to ground stations, placing the emphasis on developing robust tools for storage, processing, and analysis. As a result, there is increased focus on advanced data mining methods to make sense of all the telemetry data coming from the satellite. Critical mission phases, for instance during launch, require high-levels of automated data analysis to allow the engineers and human controllers to make crucial and well-informed decisions within seconds.
The second pivotal area in which big data are shaping space applications is their use for scientific purposes. As payloads are becoming more advanced, scientists find themselves overwhelmed with massive data sets, requiring advanced tools for collection, data processing, analysis, visualization and archiving (Hey; 2015), giving rise to what has been called a “data-intensive science”. The current level of analysis employed to process these SBD for science is cumbersome and time-consuming, often taking years before completion.
The increase in volume, variety and velocity of data during the general engineering design process calls for more advanced tools and methodologies, to increase efficiency, robustness and optimality, reduce lifecycle costs, and minimize errors (Wang & Alexander; 2015). Hence, in addition to telemetry tracking, mission operations and scientific purposes, SBD is becoming increasingly important during the design of space systems. As the space supply chain continues to grow and the industry moves more towards true commercialization, this need will become essential for enterprises to maintain their competitiveness and secure market share.
The growing challenges faced by the space engineering community in handling complex design data underpins our work to curate, harmonize, and structure supply chain knowledge. This is the first step in ensuring that the industry moves towards more advanced design methodologies like Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) to support the development of increasingly complex space missions.
Supply chain knowledge sits at the core of the design process and is currently highly scattered, incomplete and unstructured. At satsearch, we are focussing our efforts on developing a richer, structured, standardized format of representation for supply chain knowledge. Building a knowledgebase using this format will enable deep, complex querying to support optimization, sensitivity analysis, and risk mitigation during the design process.
By developing a supply chain knowledgebase that utilizes our structured data format, we are enabling engineers to sort, filter, and compare thousands of space products at the parameter level. Such a powerful comparison platform can be easily integrated into cutting-edge high-tech tools for early-stage design phases, like RHEA Group’s CDP4™ and Valispace.
As touched upon in a previous blog article, frustration in manually searching through PDF datasheets and general lack of supply chain transparency makes it extremely difficult for engineers to evaluate the true performance of space products. In a slow and cumbersome document-centric approach, the engineer is left with the only choice of copy-pasting the numbers provided in the datasheet.
By fully capturing all the attributes of a datasheet in a model-based manner, the structured format underpinning the satsearch database allows engineers to evaluate space products in a much more effective manner. We use this structured format to generate Electronic Data Sheets (EDS) for products; effectively a better version of the traditional PDF datasheet for engineering. Our vision is to capture all supply chain knowledge embedded in interface documents, technical manuals, and more to take the pain out of the engineering, and put the smile back on engineers’ faces.
The true beauty of migrating supply chain knowledge to a rich, structured format is that it renders every attribute of a space product uniquely addressable. Designation of unique IDs for each attribute belonging to a product allows for advanced analysis to pinpoint products that satisfy complex and uncertain design requirements and constraints.
By adding reasoning and constraints to attributes, the analysis process is thus less error-prone, resulting in a more robust and stable comparison of products, down to individual parameters. Data analysis powered by satsearch enables enhanced data querying, leading to useful insights from heterogeneous data for engineering. This scales to SBD for design because the EDS structure enables algorithmic searching, filtering, sorting, and comparing.
The bottom line is that the structured format, i.e., EDS, used to store supply chain knowledge in our knowledge-base, allows us to capture all the parameters of a space product in a much richer manner. With a view towards enabling advanced mission design methodologies like AI-based decision support systems, the satsearch platform will see major developments in the coming years. Satsearch is committed to the goal of supporting pioneers to keep pushing the boundaries of space exploration by radically improving the way complex missions are designed.
]]>Khemeia™ transforms documents (PDF, Word, RTF, etc.) into structured, searchable, analyzable and reusable outputs like XML and JSON. Given our mission to structure the global space supply chain, this partnership with Stelae enables us to accelerate our development, delivering cutting-edge solutions for Data-Driven Design to the market.
The technology stack that we are building at satsearch is highly scalable and largely agnostic to the data being housed, giving us the opportunity to tap into the growing trend towards full-scale enterprise digitalization in allied sectors in the aerospace market, including UAV/drones, helicopters, and aviation. Our partnership with Stelae will enable us to tap into these opportunities, helping to reduce lifecycle costs, increase design robustness, and bring greater transparency to booming markets.
For the official announcement, please refer to the following press release.
Free free to email me if you have any questions or if you’d like to build an integration with us.
Ad astra!
]]>Another day, another integration! Today we’re launching a software integration with our friends at Valispace. Valispace is a browser-based platform for teams to manage their hardware projects. Valispace users can now import products listed on satsearch with a single click.
Users who are now logged in on satsearch can add products to their Valispace projects by simply clicking on the “Add” button on the product page (see video for a walkthrough). This will create components in your Valispace project that are populated with all of the specifications listed in our database: like magic!
To get started, sign up on our website and head to the integration home, where you’ll find the Valispace integration and others.
Stay tuned for more exciting announcements!
For the official announcement, please refer to the following press release.
Free free to email me if you have any questions or if you’d like to build an integration with us.
Ad astra!
]]>We believe that making supply chain data available to engineers at their fingertips will drastically change the way complex space systems are designed. No more spending hours “Googling” for parts, scrolling through long PDF datasheets, and copy-pasting numbers into your design tools. It should be as easy as “drag-and-drop” and we’re very happy that RHEA Group shares this vision with us.
Get started today with the CDP4-satsearch integration tool by signing up on our website. We’re looking forward to expanding this integration in partnership with RHEA Group, delivering on our commitment to build next-gen tools to support space engineering.
For the official announcement, please refer to the following press release.
Free free to email me if you have any questions or if you’d like to build an integration with us.
Ad astra!
]]>Stakeholders across the value chain, including systems engineers, procurement engineers, business developers, and market analysts face a myriad of questions on a daily basis. To answer these questions they often have to resort to manual searches that are time-consuming, incomplete, and unreliable. Even addressing rudimentary questions can necessitate an inordinate level of manual effort that includes scouring the internet, wading through long PDF datasheets, emailing and calling suppliers, and relying on a network of “space friends”.
In previous blog articles, we’ve shared our vision to structure global supply chain data for the space industry. Why are we so focused on this goal? We firmly believe that the ability to efficiently and effectively answer questions about the state of the industry is essential to achieving sustained growth. Over the last decade, NewSpace companies offering cutting-edge products & services have popped up all around the world. The global supply chain is becoming increasingly fragmented; hence the search problem is only worsening. As new countries join the ranks of other spacefaring nations, the supply chain only fragments further. Fixing industry-wide search is a vital part of ensuring continued and sustainable growth over the coming decade.
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
The space industry is beginning to emerge from a period that was dominated by governments and large corporates, now entering into a phase where commercialization has become the talk of the day. Incumbents are not necessarily going to adopt or promote a solution that increases transparency and democratizes the supply chain, as they grapple with the prevailing fear that this will erode their core business and dominant market position. The irony however is that by not participating, they put themselves at a distinct disadvantage compared to new ventures that are data savvy and are hungry for market share.
Much like how launch systems and ground systems are vital infrastructure layers that are necessary to propel the sector forward, we have identified that a unified, industry “data layer” is essential to future growth and is at present largely missing. At satsearch, we’re building a rich data layer for space by consolidating, harmonizing, and structuring the global space supply chain, making it easier to find the right space products & services. We’re leveraging the data layer to build tools that make systems engineering, procurement, and business development a whole lot easier. This is no mean feat, given the complex nature of the space ecosystem. Nevertheless, by building a single platform that serves as the “Google for space”, we are helping to increase engineering efficiency, reduce lifecycle costs and minimize schedule slip across the industry.
Our overarching mission is to break open the barriers to entry to the sector, by empowering organizations and individuals to drive decision-making with comprehensive, reliable, and up-to-date data. Our efforts fit squarely within the framework of industry digitalization, by aiming to bring traditional business processes within the sector into the 21st century. Over the coming months, we will be revealing more about the steps we are taking to build our global supply chain platform. We will canvas the technology, business and human challenges and opportunities associated with this endeavour.
For more in-depth insights, feel free (contact me) personally and I’d be happy to chat with you about our vision and opportunities for collaboration. If you’re not already listed on satsearch, start the process for free at right here.
]]>The importance of addressing the core challenge of unifying the global space supply chain, touched upon in a recent article on the satsearch blog, cannot be stressed enough. The manual extraction, interpretation and use of supply chain data make the spacecraft design process lengthy and exhaustive.
At present, the engineer must manually define every design concept, a tedious and time-consuming activity. The vision for the future is to automate this process by aid of digital tools that, given a set of requirements, will yield a set of feasible design options. This will enable the engineer to focus on the most difficult aspects of the engineering workflow, including trade-off analysis, risk assessment, and sensitivity studies.
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
At satsearch, we are moving from a document-centric approach to a model-centric approach for the design of space systems, by developing a design method to automate manual data and parameter extraction. Application of this method to different system solutions will yield an accurate and comprehensive set of ranked design options that can meet all the imposed requirements.
The preliminary conceptual design of a complex space system will thus be achieved in less time, with less manual effort from the engineer by leaning on greater design automation, and result in more insight into feasible options within the design search space.
There is a great amount of work that needs to be done behind the scenes to make all this work. The satsearch team has a clear vision for the future and is laying the foundations to progress towards this improved vision for space mission design. Ultimately, the aim is to evolve the mission design process towards the use of advanced methods, like artificial intelligence, to support the engineer during all phases of the design workflow, through a decision support system (Girimonte & Izzo, 2007). For us, the starting point towards this goal is to develop Electronic Datasheet (EDS) technology, which will help to standardize the language, or ontology, that we use to describe space systems.
A “datasheet” is a means of communication between suppliers and potential buyers. The objective of a datasheet is to provide clear and unambiguous information about a product, to foster trade and communication. The importance of a datasheet lies in the accurate specifications and the detailed information it contains. The datasheet should include the information needed by the user to implement and evaluate the level of performance of the product in his or her system.
Datasheets were originally developed for electronic components and circuits, and soon massive use of datasheets spread in other fields as well, ranging from nanotechnology to the aerospace industry. Nowadays, every engineering discipline or technology-related field makes extensive use of datasheets to capture the performance characteristics of a component.
Developed in a paper, document format for decades, datasheets are characterized by different layouts from different organizations and potentially dissimilar levels of information are issued. In spacecraft design, to make sense of the large amount of data, a paper, document-centric approach requires manual translation to simulators and mission control system databases (Fowell, 2013).
As far as the content and format of datasheets is concerned, many industries have not yet completed a standardization process. Had this been done, it would allow for a much easier and more effective comparison of similar products from different or even the same supplier. Hence, as modern system design gets more complex, the display of accurate product information in standardized, electronic form has emerged as an essential requirement to support advanced design methods.
We strongly believe the process of finding the right parts for a design must be made both easier and faster for the space industry to achieve the ambitious goals of the coming decade, like asteroid mining, Mars settlement, deep-space exploration, and large constellation systems for Earth Observation, navigation, and communication.
As an means to automate several aspects of spacecraft development, operations and maintenance (Wilmot, 2017), the EDS technology we are developing can offer a viable solution. EDS are machine-readable, structured documents that enable electronic capture of all product information, with autonomous checking for consistency and completeness, and automatic implementation into space systems databases.
As reported by Dewey, electronic datasheets «[..] will eliminate much of the publishing time lag and help to ensure that the latest information is used by the systems designer in contrast to the printed data sheet, which is often obsolete the minute it is printed». Even before a space mission reaches the development phase, EDS could be employed during the proposal and mission definition phases, to accurately specify the system requirements and generate cost estimates.
As we keep developing our unique EDS technology, we believe standardization and improvements in the way datasheets are generated by suppliers are the first pivotal steps towards our mission of consolidating the global space supply chain.
Future articles will dig deeper into the EDS technology being developed at satsearch and case studies of applications to different aspects of the space mission design lifecycle.
]]>Aren’t you sick of Googling for parts, scrolling through long PDF datasheets, manually copy-pasting specs, struggling with keeping supply chain data up-to-date, etc.? Datasheets summarize the performance and other technical characteristics of a product (Wikipedia, 2018), and function to transfer knowledge between suppliers and potential buyers/users. Yet, datasheets in the space industry today are not built to do this efficiently.
Over the last year, we’ve learnt a few things about the state of the space supply chain: we have curated 5000+ space products, 700+ space suppliers, available through satsearch.co today. In this article, we summarize some of the key insights we’ve gained into how we can start closing the knowledge transfer gap between space engineers and suppliers, specifically addressing the the way we create, maintain, and disseminate datasheets.
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
A recent article by Edoardo Barbieri, illustrates how engineers working on the design of highly complex space systems are left facing endless hours hunting for the right specifications. The core problem is the lack of conformity in how data are reported by different suppliers of space systems, subsystems, and components. The engineer is lost in a sea of data, due to the absence of a set of standards and coherence, resulting in the loss of significant man-hours. These man-hours are precious and should be spent on solving core design and engineering challenges, instead of manually wading through long PDF documents to hunt for product information.
Adopting a standardized approach to describe products offered by suppliers can help engineers drastically reduce the time spent searching for the right specifications. Changing the way datasheets are generated by suppliers, by employing well-defined standards, is definitely a task worth undertaking.
With the emergence of NewSpace, the industry has started to adopt more “agile” practices, enabling suppliers to adapt to market needs and cater to a wide array of exciting space missions. These rapid iterative changes have a “bull-whip effect” on engineers, who struggle to stay on top of upstream changing in the supply chain. For instance, this manifests as engineers having to work with older version of product datasheets, without any clear way to ascertain whether newer versions have been disseminated by the suppliers. In the worst case, this can lead to significant errors in the design process, due to incorrect specifications being employed.
Engineers are left to grapple with rudimentary methods to maintain archives of product datasheets (typically by storing PDF documents in folders). The engineer is reliant on a “passive information gathering system”, translating to inherent latency in knowledge transfer within the supply chain.
Delivering a solution that systematically tracks changings in product datasheets through version control will solve a massive headache faced by engineers and suppliers alike.
How many datasheets have you seen out there that have any information on the mission heritage and on-orbit performance of a component or a sub-system? The space industry still struggles to achieve ‘complete and accurate information sharing’. We have discovered that the many suppliers do not provide heritage-related data for missions that have flown their hardware or their on-orbit experience.
Suppliers are possibly holding back this information as leverage, to motivate potential buyers to directly approach them for additional information and quotations. In an ideal world, standardize the manner in which heritage data is communicated to engineers will promote trust, reliability and efficiency within the supply chain. We believe that as the industry progresses towards a more open and competitive ecosystem, data pertaining to heritage, on-orbit performance, and reliability will be provided by suppliers as a means of driving decision-making by buyers earlier on in the design workflow.
Most engineers today have no automated way of importing specifications from datasheets into their engineering and procurement tools. As a result, most trade studies are incomplete, leading to suboptimal design choices. Some suppliers do share models today, like CAD models, for engineers to directly use in modeling efforts. However, we have catalogued over a hundred software engineering tools used in the space industry today that require engineers use to manually enter data from datasheets: a massive inefficiency in the design process. Creating a toolchain that can help suppliers broadcast datasheets in “importable” formats can help engineers work more efficiently and drive decision-making more robustly.
Our mission remains to consolidate the global space supply chain, fostering increased collaboration, state-of-the-art development, and transparency within the market. In future articles, we will share our approach towards achieving this mission, so stay tuned!
]]>Satsearch is building a comprehensive, independent and up-to-date search engine that indexes all the products and services within the space industry. The satsearch platform provides users with parametric search capabilities, enabling complex data querying and visualization. Our tools enable rapid iteration through mission design concepts.
In the recent years, India has been an extremely successful player in the small satellite launch market, with notable recent successes including 104 satellites launched on a single rocket. Satsearch hopes to be a catalyst in the process of search and discovery of space products from Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), which can be procured through ANTRIX. Users can already browse ANTRIX products on satsearch.
Satsearch has already listed over a hundred Indian suppliers is expanding the scope of engagement with each of them. Recently, the satsearch database crossed 5000 products and 700 suppliers. The number of suppliers joining the platform continues to grow.
We’re excited to work with ANTRIX to showcase the strength of the Indian space supply chain. For the official announcement, please refer to the following press release.
Ad astra!
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
But space can be hard too, and challenging at times. If the goal is worthwhile and the vision compelling enough, one can work diligently and bear with obstacles and difficulties. And this is the way it has been done for decades, identifying the professionals in the field as “rocket scientists”. However, the moment tediousness and frustration originate from inner flaws in the system and the way engineering is conducted, the meaningful thing to do is to remove the cause, for avoidable struggling is masochistic rather than admirable.
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
Let me introduce myself: my name is Edoardo and I am a 2nd year student in Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology, in the Netherlands. And I experience daily the struggles of attempting to design complex systems.
Let me clarify a bit. A satellite is a system of systems, which can be broken down into simpler models of subsystems, where each interacts and influences each other. Typically, subsystems, even though there are deep interactions and relations among them, are analysed separately, and an interdisciplinary system solution is laborious.
Say your team of engineers has been assigned the task of performing a preliminary design of the propulsion system of a spacecraft. After stating requirements and objectives, you need data about commercially available thrusters to check the feasibility of your design concepts. That is when the party starts.
You go to Google, beginning an endless search, looking for websites of different thrusters’ companies and providers. Ok, you find a few, say half a dozen, to keep your design options open. It is now time to look for a summary of the characteristics of the thrusters offered by such companies; something like a datasheet, providing a clear overview of the performance parameters of the components you are after. And this is harder than you expect. Navigating through the websites of these companies, hopelessly looking for that one PDF file, after which you are expected to start the actual design process, takes you a few hours if you are lucky.
Now you’ve found six datasheets, stating the dimensions and main features of different thrusters. You are ready to compare them, to check the compliance of the commercially available options with your requirements, perform a feasibility assessment, and advance the design process, which already took you too much time with minimal resources available for core design and engineering.
The disappointment is almost overwhelming. Two companies do not state the weight of the thrusters, one says ‘lightweight’, and the other three do report the values: in kilograms, pounds, and grams, respectively. After converting to the same units and performing some kind of educated guess/estimate of the missing values, you get your first biased comparison of the mass of the thrusters.
Time to check the dimensions. What the six datasheets offer is: a drawing of the model, a table, a graph, and units in meters, yards, and feet, respectively. After extrapolating the useful data, discerning the dimensions from the renderings of the models and converting the units, you are left with your probably flawed second comparison.
Engineers working on the design of highly complex space systems are left facing endless hours hunting for the right specifications. The core problem is the lack of conformity in how the data are reported by different suppliers of space systems, subsystems, and components. The engineer is lost in a sea of data, due to the absence of a set of standards and coherence, resulting in the loss of significant man-hours: time he or she ought to spend on solving core design and engineering challenges.
My role at satsearch is to explore the possibility of developing a better way to approach the design of complex systems, by unifying the underlying supply chain data. During the course of the coming year, I will be sharing insights into the tools we are developing to help tackle this fundamental challenge in the space industry. Only by addressing the core challenge of unifying the global supply chain, will we be able to achieve our ambitions in space over the coming decade.
It’s time to fix this and let engineers focus on the excitement of pushing the boundaries of the cosmos.
]]>We started the year off by welcoming Narayan to our team as co-founder, bringing with him significant expertise in the global space market and experience building newspace businesses. Along with Alberto and myself, I sincerely believe we have the key ingredients in place in the leadership team to forge a successful path forward for the company in 2018.
In addition, we got the chance to welcome two new core team members:
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
We’re happy to announce that our efforts to consolidate the global space supply chain took a big step forward this past year. At the start of 2017, we set ourselves the target to get to 5,000 products by the end of the December, and I’m thrilled to announce that we managed to hit 5051 products and 621 suppliers! We’ve really only scratched the surface though and 2018 we’re setting ourselves bigger and bolder goals, as we set our sights on becoming the global marketplace for space.
We had the opportunity to participate in a few startup programs and present satsearch at a number of space events around the globe. Some of our highlights from the last 12 months include:
We have exciting developments and key partnerships to unveil over the course of 2018 that we hope will help to truly transform the way we design, build, launch and operate space missions. With your continued support, we aim to ship product features that help you reach for the stars. Some of the features in store for the coming year include:
Many thanks to our numerous supporters over the course of 2017. Special thanks to Gijs Hoonhout, Bert Kwanten, Andrea Gini, Jonatan van Wijngaarden, Levi van Wijngaarden, Karl Wittwer, Martijn Seijger, Martijn Leinweber, Filiep Dewitte, Sam Waes, Alexander Frimout, Rachana Reddy, Mathieu Weiss, Sam Wurzel, Gleb Arshinov, Johannes Norheim, Danilo De Lorenzo, Giuseppe Arici, Marco Garatti and countless others for their invaluable feedback and advice.
Our mission remains to consolidate the global space supply chain, fostering increased collaboration, state-of-the-art development, and transparency within the market. Satsearch is building the “data layer” for the space industry, ensuring that we can collectively achieve our daring goals in outer space over the coming decade.
Stayed tuned for plenty more news over the coming year! 2018 promises to be bigger and better: ad astra!
Wishing you all a spacetastic 2018!
On behalf of team satsearch,
Kartik
Co-founder & CEO
satsearch
Together with Saber, we will work towards integrating the satsearch API into PIGI, the Predictive Groundstation Interface software developed by Saber for next-generation mission control. By embedding our parts database into PIGI, we will jointly enable mission designers to test design concepts and better understand the impact of their choices on future mission operations.
We’re looking forward to a fruitful partnership, as we help develop cutting-edge technologies for NewSpace. For the official announcement, please refer to the following press release.
Free free to email me if you have any questions.
Ad astra!
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
For us, this is the very question NewSpace has been trying to answer over the last decade. This thought process is what has led to a myriad of ground-breaking activities in the space industry, including a single rocket launching 88 satellites from one company, Planet. The same line of thought is what is leading to vertical integration in the space industry, with companies trying to take control of the upstream value chain, while exposing their customers to their downstream products.
Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
The question we are trying to answer at satsearch is: ‘how do we catalyze the process of agile aerospace, not just at VC-backed NewSpace startup level, but across the value chain, starting from academic institutions to Small and Medium Businesses (SMBs) and large space industry giants?’‘
We believe the answer lies in globalizing and integrating the space supply chain to generate a competitive environment in terms of cost, schedule, and quality. Now, the question is: how do we get there?
The first step we are taking in this effort is to map the landscape of the global space industry by capturing suppliers and their products and services. At satsearch.com, we are building a platform that will capture every space business and their portfolio of products and services, be it specific components, subsystems or services. We believe this will enable companies to extend beyond traditional boundaries and develop partnerships that help support the agile aerospace paradigm. In particular, by mapping the landscape of the global space industry, we will unlock new opportunities for organizations to tap into the expertise and experience within local ecosystems. In a nutshell, satsearch will reduce market inefficiencies by an order of magnitude and in doing so, propel the next wave of agile aerospace solutions.
At present, we’ve listed over 300 suppliers of space products/services across the global. By integrating them on our platform, we are helping catalyze the process of search and discovery. We are helping to raise the profile of specific local ecosystems through satsearch. For instance, we have listed over 100 suppliers in India. We are utilizing our platform in India to convert the upbeat mood of frugal engineering and “jugaad” (low cost innovation) into real business for these SMEs. We aim to leverage local knowledge in similar ecosystems across the globe to generate new business opportunities for governmental organizations and commercial entities.
Today, we announce the relaunch of our website (satsearch.com), including new features, a new look and a brand spanking new logo! With this relaunch, we are extending an invitation to all space companies to get in touch, to take advantage of our search and discovery tools. To get involved, the first step is to get listed on our platform. Fill out this form to join the satsearch movement.
We’re looking forward to working with partners all around the world to transform the space business to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Ad astra!
]]>Do you need help finding the right products and services for your space mission or service?
We offer fast, friendly, and free procurement assistance for the entire global market.
Simply let us know your requirements, whatever stage your project is at, and we will contact suppliers from across the global industry on your behalf.
In a similar visit to one of the local suppliers who also supplies ISRO, the entrepreneur who set up the facility was talking about how ISRO is their only major customer and they really are looking for help in diversification of their customer base. However, the entrepreneur had never done business abroad and did not really have an idea of how to integrate himself into the global space industry ecosystem. This comes at a time when VCs invested more in space startups in 2016 than in the previous 15 years combined. There are 5000+ satellites projected to be launched in the next 10 years and this is probably one of the best periods to be supplying great products/services to build satellites and rockets.
The question that stems out of this is a very simple one. How can we globalize the space industry so that competitive local industries (wherever they are) can connect and capture a market anywhere in the world and help grow the space economy? We started off with a very simple exercise of mapping the local industry cluster of Bangalore, India. We were able to map over 50+ SMEs who are providing products/services to ISRO in Bangalore alone.
Now through satsearch, a German vendor of COTS-based sensors for small satellite attitude determination is able to connect to a university in Southern India trying to build their first nanosatellite. Similarly, a Built-to-Print vendor who is based out of Bangalore, India is able to be discovered by a satellite constellation startup in Silicon Valley. A predicted 10,000 NewSpace startups will emerge over the next decade and satsearch will enable space SMEs to showcase their product/services, which helps them integrate their offering into the global supply chain.
We are now taking this to the next level by turning satsearch into the world’s first dedicated search engine for space products/services. Our platform will provide users with parametric search capabilities, enabling complex data querying and visualization at their fingertips. The parametric engine will enable numerous applications that will streamline the process of taking an idea and launching it into space. For instance, programmatic iteration of design concepts using the satsearch API will by matching requirements to feasible products and services.
With over 10,000+ searches in 2016 for spacecraft components, we’re now listing across the industry verticals and horizontals. We’d love to have more space SMEs list their products/services. Please CLICK HERE if you want to list your offerings as a space products/services supplier or PM me. Help us globalize the space supply chain of the world.
]]>