Author: Annie Savage

As companies continue to drive the satellite industry forward, new opportunities are developing in areas like SmallSat manufacturing. We dove deeper into this phenomenon on Episode 52 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast, when we spoke with Aleksander Fiuk, the Co-Founder and COO of Revolv Space. Revolv is a NewSpace company on a mission to fully monetise space assets by building the next generation of critical components for payload systems onboard small satellites. Here’s how they’re doing it. 

What are the current limitations of SmallSat manufacturing?

The limitations come from the fact that over the course of the past 20-25 years, payloads have been miniaturised and developed to the extent that they can be extremely effective and high-performing. However, there are continuously increasing demands for data transmission, thermal and power system capabilities. We’re focusing on offering a full ecosystem of products and hopefully solving that problem in the near future for our manufacturers. 

But the problem doesn’t stop there. The technology is available, but we also need a supply chain to satisfy the needs of the NewSpace market. We often hear from our customers and other stakeholders that the need is there. They’ve identified the need for improving the power budget or the data transmission rates, or whatever their technical problems are, but what they are lacking is a reliable partner in the industry. They need a supplier for those components and solutions.

One of the key aspects that is not being satisfied by suppliers in the industry is the customer’s need for much higher flexibility than what was the standard in the industry until quite recently. As a customer, we expect a supplier to adapt to the fact that we don’t know what we need. We don’t expect a supplier to line up a plan of five years of development with every single day broken down to detail for us, but we expect suppliers to be there for us and be able to adapt to a changing schedule or changing requirements. We expect suppliers to be very agile and adaptive themselves, otherwise, they wouldn’t cope with the changing dynamics of the market. Somehow, though, that hasn’t always translated. 

How does your approach differ from traditional ways of working with manufacturers, and what impact do you see it having on NewSpace customers?

There are two things that I think are really making a difference. One is our transparency. What we saw already before founding Revolv is that the space industry is extremely secretive. To a certain extent, it’s justified, because you cannot fully share certain information with your customers as a supplier, like the full information about your developments. It just doesn’t make sense though, because your customer is your closest partner for the development of your product or project. Therefore, being transparent was what got us those first contracts. Whenever there’s a problem, we signal it right away. Whenever there is an obstacle with the supply chain, logistics, or contracts, we are always very vocal about what is happening and how we want to deal with it. 

The other difference is approachability. Prior to founding Revolv, we saw that the space industry is extremely slow, and that’s something we’ve heard from customers too. That’s quite often what is pushing them away from other suppliers or partners because it takes an extremely long time to get a response on basically anything, from talking about contractual matters to technical details. We adapt to the customer, meaning that whenever required or desired by the customer, we will set up a separate communication channel, like Slack, for example, to discuss an issue. 

To hear more about Aleksander, tune into Episode 52 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters here. 

We sit down regularly with some of the biggest names in our industry, we dedicate our podcast to the stories of leaders in the technologies industries that bring us closer together. Follow the link here to see some of our latest episodes and don’t forget to subscribe.     

What are the challenges in setting up a permanent manned base on the moon? On Episode 50 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast, we spoke to Darren Charrier, the Business Development Manager at KSAT Inc, who explained the benefits and challenges of doing just that. Our conversation touched on everything from the resources that are available on the moon to the infrastructure we’d need to establish there to sustain life. Read on for Darren’s insights. 

As a self-professed lunar salesman, why the Moon?

There are a couple of strategic reasons why the Moon is interesting. Generally, when thinking about the exploration of the solar system, the moon is a good place for a quick pitstop for the rest of the solar system. It is approximately 20 times easier to get off of the moon than it is to get off of Earth. There’s about a sixth of the gravity, and there’s no atmosphere. The basic idea is that if you can get into space and head over to the moon, you can refuel there, and then the rest of the solar system is your oyster. The moon is an enabler for the rest of the solar system. 

There are some other exciting things about the moon, like water harvesting and helium three, which I still think is one of the silver bullet cases for the moon and creating a true lunar economy. Saying a lunar economy implies that there is value being extracted from the moon that is self-sustaining, and there’s an economic drive to go there. I see helium three, water and low-gravity manufacturing as those drivers. 

The other driver is geopolitical. There seems to be an increased geopolitical race to return to the moon. China plans to go to the moon and have a human presence there by 2030. NASA is planning to get there in 2028. In both cases, those nations are pulling in a cohort of other nations to support, grow, and create international cooperation for our return to the moon. It’s hard not to draw a parallel between this and the age of exploration of the 1600-1700s of the Americas and the Pacific by various European powers. 

Why do you think it’s important now to explore a greater economy or for this to develop even further?

The cost has come down significantly compared to the Apollo era when we went to the moon in the ‘70s, but it did take 10% of the annual budget of the United States to get there. That’s an incredible amount of money for the time when adjusted for inflation. Now the ambition is to go to the surface of the Moon and create a continued presence by building a base on the south pole of the moon at a 10th of that original budget. That’s 1% of the US budget. This is due to several different factors, like our computing power, which has gone up exponentially and is a fraction of the weight, size and quality. One of the facts you hear when discussing going to the moon is that the entire Saturn Five and Apollo landing module had less computing power in it than a modern cell phone does. That part is key. 

We’ve had tremendous strides forward in material science. It’s cheaper and faster to manufacture several of these different key components that go into our spacecraft. There’s a much larger supply chain to support onboard radios and star trackers that you can just buy commercially now. We’re seeing this in NASA’s posturing for returning to the moon. The Eclipse program is a great example of that, where they are using landers that are created by commercial companies as opposed to large governments. So to answer more succinctly, it’s about the cost and availability of the infrastructure to support returning to the moon. There’s a tipping point, we’re finally there.

What does it what does it mean to establish a lunar infrastructure?

There are several key elements that we need to return to the moon. Let’s start by talking about the end state of what we’re trying to do. Let’s anchor ourselves to the idea of putting a base on the south pole of the moon. Imagine something like the International Space Station, perhaps with a few smaller modules where a team of astronauts can live sustained on the surface of the moon. There are a lot of things that we need to be in place to make that work. We need space transportation; reliable ways of getting cargo to and from the moon. Also, how do we communicate with the spacecraft that are going there? Once you’re there on the surface of the moon, how do you have power? If I want to charge my iPhone, how am I going to do that on the surface of the moon? 

On Earth, we have ports where a ship can dock and reliably offload cargo in a fast and efficient manner. We need to create an equivalent on the moon. Something to consider is when you’re landing, you have rocket exhaust coming out the bottom, and it’s shooting out extremely hot gases, it will start to blow all the sand on the surface of the moon around, and there’s no air to slow it down either. These sand particles will travel at the speed of a bullet, and they can rip through the wall of a base. So, we need to put landing pads, ports and infrastructure in place before we can send people out there. These are all challenges because we’re still working through the challenge of just putting cargo safely on the surface of the moon without it tipping over or crashing along the way. There’s a lot of technology that’s going to have to go into creating a regular mode of operations on the surface. 

To hear more from Darren about creating a true lunar economy, tune into Episode 50 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast here. 

We sit down regularly with some of the biggest names in our industry, we dedicate our podcast to the stories of leaders in the technologies industries that bring us closer together. Follow the link here to see some of our latest episodes and don’t forget to subscribe.     

New satellite companies often face challenges as they establish themselves alongside legacy players in the sector. To help us understand this turbulent business landscape, we spoke with Martina Löfqvist, the Head of Strategy & Partnerships at Picterra, on Episode 48 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast, about her experiences and advice surrounding startup and scale-up companies. Read on for her insights. 

“Building stuff for space that you actually fly into space is very complex because there are a lot of regulations around it. Even though it’s become cheaper and easier to launch, there are still a lot of regulations around what you can launch and how you can launch it. If you want to build a novel piece of technology, it takes time to innovate on that. 

When it comes to software, that is a little bit easier to develop. When you have some new technologies and developments, such as machine learning, it’s quite complex. We’re seeing right now that there’s a lot of hype around AI, which is also great for us because more people understand what it actually means now, but it’s still a challenge to develop a really solid solution and end product. 

In terms of the space industry in general, there’s still a link missing between what the space industry creates and what appears on the commercial market. There’s still a challenge in terms of commercialization. Of course, you have some b2b sales within the space industry, which I think is easier because you would be selling to companies that understand what you’re doing. When you go out into other industries, there’s still an education piece that needs to be done. 

For example, when it comes to Earth Observation in the agriculture sector, a lot of farmers don’t understand why you need satellite data. I heard someone at a conference recently say that they had talked to a farmer, and they explained all the amazing things that you can do with Earth Observation and analytics, and the farmer said, “Well, I have a window. I could just look out and see how my crops are doing.” So there’s a communication aspect where we need to make sure we’re offering clients added value. 

To achieve that, we need more marketing people, salespeople and strategists into the industry because they can bring our products to life. To do that, smaller companies need to have a strong culture. One of the reasons I joined Pixar was because of its culture. Of course, its technology is really amazing, too, and I have a personal connection to that, coming from a software and AI background to the product that we have. But I do believe the saying, ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’. Throughout history, there are many great examples of how humans have been able to accomplish amazing things by having a very strong team. Having a collaborative culture at the core of a team allows you to innovate. 

Hiring the right people and making sure that the team feels safe, heard and appreciated is important because if you have that, you’ll also express that outward. You’ll also have more ideas flourishing within the company, and people will feel safe enough to express their concerns, admit their mistakes, and engage in more creativity. When we’re hiring at the Picterra, something that we really look for is emotional intelligence. It’s vital for us that our people have an understanding of themselves and how they relate to other people. Compassion is important too. 

To hear more from Martina, tune into Episode 48 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast here.

We sit down regularly with some of the biggest names in our industry, we dedicate our podcast to the stories of leaders in the technologies industries that bring us closer together. Follow the link here to see some of our latest episodes and don’t forget to subscribe.     

As new regulations are passed to improve sustainability in the space sector, companies are having to adapt their service offerings and create new solutions. To help us unpack the topic, we invited Dr Jur. Olga Stelmakh-Drescher, the Chief Policy, Legal and Government Relations Officer at Exolaunch, to speak with us on Episode 45 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast. Here are the highlights of the conversation. 

What do you think the broader industry can do to improve space sustainability?

I believe we need a strong international engagement and community, and more efficient communication and sharing of best practices. That needs to come not just from leaders in the global arena but equally from policy, opinion and decision-makers. I would probably be seen as provocative for saying this, but it seems that the community needs to start understanding the cases affecting sustainability and space to fully grasp the criticality of this topic and start taking real action. The measures that have been commanded for implementation have to be executed. 

From a legal perspective, how do current space laws and regulations address sustainability concerns?

Sustainability is on the agenda of ministers these days, it’s a very popular topic. There were multiple attempts undertaken by a variety of stakeholders that resulted in a globally binding engagement or commitment. However, the solutions are extremely fragmented and differentiated. There are many good examples of original efforts, like an FCC five-year rule for orbiting satellites or the European initiative to develop a European Union Space Law focusing on safety, sustainability and security. But the question we should ask ourselves is, ‘Was it sufficient?’ Does it ensure the sustainability of the space environment? It’s not just you and I who have to discuss this topic; it needs to be a global engagement. Unfortunately, it stays in the realm of discussions and actions.

Are specific legal frameworks in place to incentivise space companies to prioritise sustainability in their operations?

The specimen ability rating is one such framework, but it’s not a legal one. It focuses on incentivising space companies to prioritise sustainability in their operations. This rating constitutes a tiered support system that takes a series of metrics based on models previously published by government agencies and academic institutions and serves to quantify and measure sustainability-related decisions taken by operators. Points are awarded according to the positive impact on the space environment, and actions resulting in the most sustainable impact received will receive more points. The sustainability rating also considers the design, operation or end of life of a mission. The question now is how we will ensure that more and more actors volunteer or pursue its scoring. I believe that we need more tools like this that incentivize space companies to prioritise sustainability.

What role do international treaties play in promoting space sustainability, and how effective have they been so far?

International treaties create legal grounds for sustainability. Unfortunately, back in the day, the consequences of space activities were neglected, and the entire focus was on the first attempts and tries. It was somewhat of a learning curve, and the law did not reflect the key concerns of that time. Who could have foretold that conducting space activities wouldn’t be a privilege of the few, but instead, launching space objects into space would become routine, and space debris would turn into a growing problem? International treaties need to catch up. 

To hear more from Olga, tune in to Episode 45 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast here. 

We sit down regularly with some of the biggest names in our industry, we dedicate our podcast to the stories of leaders in the technologies industries that bring us closer together. Follow the link here to see some of our latest episodes and don’t forget to subscribe.