Category: Satellite & NewSpace

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.     

Meet Felix Motzki, the CTO of Reflex Aerospace, a German NewSpace startup and satellite manufacturer. Felix oversees the development and delivery of Reflex’s innovative customer satellites, but before Reflex, Felix spent the majority of his career in engineering. He joined us on Episode 51 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast to discuss his transition into a C-level leadership role and what attracted him to Reflex Aerospace. 

Why reflex aerospace? What are you doing differently to bring value to this crowded space?

When they first approached me, I thought they were just another satellite company. But our interesting approach, and what’s really specific to us, is that we want to approach the mass or lower-cost market. When I say lower-cost, it’s still expensive stuff, but you’re not shooting for the 20-30-ton satellites that cost hundreds of millions. Now, we want to attack that segment of 50-500 kilograms, which is a segment that can’t be covered with a CubeSat. We want to do everything that you can’t do with the CubeSat at around 500 kilograms. 

There are a lot of companies, but they usually offer a standard bus or a modular system that can be put together to offer something similar. That’s explicitly not what we do. We actually build a satellite for that customer. It will always be a custom bus, whether the customer wants 1, 2, 3 or 30. We still want to do it fast. We were launching our first satellite in 2 months, which is quite a short timeframe. We do that by not focusing so much on developing a standard platform but on developing standard processes. We are working on innovating the design process to streamline it and make customised designs as fast as possible. 

How did you find that transition from being an engineer to leadership?

I’ve taken the decision the transition really well. It was a learning experience, and I’m still learning after many years as a manager. I’ll probably never stop. I probably should never stop. It was a very hard decision for me to take because I was very happy developing electronics and software. There, if there’s a problem, if you just work longer, you either find a solution or figure out there is no solution. This is quite a thankful job, and it’s paid very well. And it’s exciting and interesting. I could disconnect from it when I went home in the evening or during the weekend. I knew managing people was going to be different, but it took me several months after I was offered the leadership position to get used to it. I do not regret it. I would have been a good engineer amongst millions of other good engineers. My talent is probably more managerial, which is where I can stand out.

What has been the biggest lesson you’ve learned from a management perspective?

I’m not sure if I could name one biggest lesson because I’ve learned a million lessons. I’m learning every day. There are some key experiences which I will always remember and which will always make me think more deeply. For example, the first time I had to fire somebody was the hardest day in my professional career. It was somebody I had not hired myself, and the person was really not helping the team at all. They were holding back the team, and it was clear that we had to let him go. Still, I remember that day very well, which taught me a very important lesson. You have to invest in and hire the right people. It pays off for sure. You cannot invest too much time in finding the right people. You don’t want to put just anybody in that position, so it’s important to find the right fit. 

To hear more from Felix about his talent attraction philosophy, tune into Episode 51 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.     

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.     

As the commercial satellite sector expands in the wake of SpaceX’s success, there are more opportunities to transition or progress in your satellite career. On Episode 49 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast, we were joined by Tami Dias, the SVP of Global Sales at ST Engineering iDirect, to talk about her advice for people joining iDirect and the industry in general. Here’s what she said: 

What’s your perspective on the talent space in the commercial world of satellite?

It’s a really interesting situation at the moment. Everybody’s in conversations about something. Traditionally, the satellite indnustry was like a big family where everybody knows everybody. It was like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon game, except in our sector it’s like two degrees of separation. You could always ask somebody about a candidate. Now, it has opened it up to lots of new people because satellite is in the media. It’s a buzzword. Anything Elon Musk does is going to get attention, right? Think of how many times people mention SpaceX or Starlink now. That creates interest in joining our industry, which links to diversity and inclusion. New people with new ideas are really important to the longevity and changing the face of the industry. In addition to new players emerging, we’re bringing in new people.

What would you say to someone considering joining iDirect?

You’d be joining a company that is very focused on inclusion, diversity, growth, and newness. We’re in a state of transformation, which is exciting to some people, but concerning to others. There’s a lot of change going on, and you have to be able to embrace that. It’s fast-paced. We have so much happening on a daily basis that it seems crazy, but it’s super exciting. iDirect is a rare bird where everybody is super smart and super good at what they do, so you have to come in with some game, or else a closed mouth and open ears, because you’re going to learn a lot. You’ll get a lot of mentoring here, and we welcome idea exchanges and new perspectives from people from outside of the industry. 

What one piece of advice would you give to people entering the satellite industry more generally?

Be flexible and be open to change. Study. That’s also really important. It’s an old industry, so there are a lot of people who know a lot of stuff. If you want to keep up, you’ll need to immerse yourself in that legacy and the historical elements of the satellite industry. Get to know all the new stuff that’s coming out, too, because there’s a lot of it. You’ve also got to realise that customers are customers, but our customers really have done what they’ve done out of necessity. They consider it a really important part of their business because we’re providing things like essential communications. When you think back on what’s been done with the military, maritime, or aviation, these major industries wouldn’t be able to operate without what we provide. I would have the new people in our industry really think about that. 

To hear more from Tami, tune into Episode 49 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.     

With so many countries and organisations vying for access to space, who controls the limited available resources? It comes down to space superiority – or the group that has the most prominent presence. To help us explore this phenomenon, we invited Philip Hover-Smoot, the CEO of Scout Space, to speak to us on Episode 47 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast. Here are his insights: 

“From a business perspective, our immediate concept of space superiority is ensuring that the people tasked with maintaining it are appropriately equipped to do so. We take our job for the US Department of Defense extremely seriously; that is why we exist. Frankly, we can’t exist without them. There is a symbiotic and synergistic relationship there. Their stakeholders are perfectly aligned with ours, and their problems are ours. We are trying very hard every day to understand what those problems are so that we can create solutions for them.

That said, when I think about space superiority, the importance there is not necessarily how we make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent on cool tech. Space has been a war for domain since day one. It still is, and honestly, I think we’re squandering it. If you look at the approach of the US, both from a government spending perspective and from a commercial industry spending perspective, we are not prioritising it appropriately. We’ve been advocating on the Hill for more attention to be focused on appropriate spending and budgetary allocation. We’ve been out talking with investors, trying to convince them that this is an important problem that needs to be solved. 

Realistically, I do not think that we (and by that, I mean the Western NewSpace world) are squandering an opportunity. A lot of blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice went into getting us to the position of primacy that we have today. The US leads space, but that won’t be the case forever. If we are not innovative, and we are not allocating money appropriately, we are going to lose our superiority, and that is not a thing we want to lose. The strategic implications of that are hugely substantial. Space superiority, to me, is not just us selling widgets to Space Force to go help them find dots, streaks and blobs. We love that business. We’re going after it. But it’s about the whole industry and government realising that there’s a real threat, and that threat is imminent, and it needs to be addressed. 

Our attitude is almost childlike in NewSpace. We think, ‘Oh, this is a fun domain to go and put up EO constellations in and test weird communications capabilities in’. The reality is that none of that matters. If it’s contested, they’re all dead within 10 minutes. To me, that is unacceptable. Moreover, a lot of commercial industry today is recreating tech that’s been around for 50 years, and we’re saying it’s novel, and we’re trying to do it at a lower price point. There’s some logic to that, but I think we’re missing the boat. Space superiority is about pushing the edge and finding new ways to do things. That means looking at truly novel capabilities; things that no one’s ever done. That needs to change if we want to maintain our space superiority.”

To hear more form Philip, tune in to Episode 47 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.     

Greenhouse gas emissions are a growing concern for the environment. To help us tackle this issue, GHGSat offers a satellite monitoring service that helps organisations understand and reduce their emissions. We unpacked this on Episode 46 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast with the company’s Senior Vice President of Strategy, Jean-Francois Gauthier. Read on to find out more about the company’s role in reducing greenhouse gasses. 

What are the advantages of measuring greenhouse gas emissions from space? 

Satellites offer very specific advantages to monitoring greenhouse gases. Firstly, you have the ability to look at the planet from a certain vantage point, which is the very foundation of Earth Observation. With that, you’re able to look at whole regions of the planet repeatedly as well. The ability to frequently revisit and look at large areas without having to deploy boots on the ground is a crucial advantage that satellites bring to the table in terms of generating insight and data that is useful and actionable. 

When it comes to greenhouse gases more specifically, satellites are one part of a larger toolbox that includes aircraft, drones and in-situ monitoring. Satellites play a very important role because of their ability to take frequent imagery over large areas, which you simply can’t do with drones. It’s also too costly to do with aircraft or other methods. Of course, there are drawbacks, such as the higher detection threshold, so the size of the emissions we see is much bigger than what you would see with a drone or an aircraft. That’s why all these solutions are complimentary, but space plays a really important role.

Where has GHGSat made the biggest impact on behaviour so far?

Things have evolved since I joined the company in 2016. It’s important to understand that this segment did not exist at all back then – this is something that we pioneered. The measurement of emissions directly at industrial sites using satellites did not exist before we launched our satellites. So, there was an education period. Some people looked at me like I had four heads, others just said, ‘So you’re spying on us? Is that allowed?’ Eventually, that attitude has evolved and grown. 

Our timing was nearly perfect. Honestly, there was a bit of luck involved in that as well. Methane has become a very important topic in the last three, four, or five years, and it just so happens that it is the gas that we focus on. Of our 12 satellites, 11 focus on methane, and 1 looks at CO2, but we’re not stopping there; we’re still launching more satellites. 

And why are we doing this? First of all, the technology works. We generate dozens of plumes every day all around the world. Now, the name of the game is monitoring these industrial sites more frequently to get a better idea of how persistent these emissions are so that action can be taken. We’re continuing to scale according to demand, which has been very strong. 

To go back to your question about impact, that’s not our focus now. Not that we’re not working on improving the technology and pushing the limits – we are – but we’re looking at the next generation of satellites and aircraft technology so that we can continue to stay at the leading edge. We’re focusing on driving an impact and finding the right partners to generate action on the ground to reduce emissions because this is what this is about. It’s great to measure emissions, but our passion is about also making a difference. The potential for impact is huge, and we’re only just scratching the surface. 

To find out more about reducing emissions through satellite observation, tune in to Episode 46 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.     

Earth Observation data has countless applications, from disaster management to weather prediction. While governments have heavily invested in some of these applications, smaller players are also making big changes in the satellite sector. On Episode 44 of The Satellite & NewSpace Matters Podcast, we spoke with Michael Hurowitz, the Founder and CEO of Weather Stream, about how his company navigates the commercial complexities of making earth observation data accessible to everyone. 

What are some of the biggest issues around being a data-driven space payer, where sometimes access to this information is critical to life?

If you look at traditional infrastructures such as government satellites, government data systems, and government built weather models, there’s an enormous economic benefit to them. There have been a lot of attempts to study that in as much detail as possible. From a company perspective, however, trying to play a role in that world is difficult because of the sheer complexity and costs of doing these things. The weather and climate space in particular is dominated by predominantly government infrastructure, so most of the skilled people we need are happily employed in research and operational environments. 

However, without that investment from the public sector, there wouldn’t be an opportunity for companies like ours to exist, because if you try to build it all from scratch, the costs would be off the charts. We’re standing on the shoulders of giants and looking for those niche, high-value pieces of the problem that we can affect through a commercial business model. 

Ultimately, if our data sits in a database, and it’s only pay-to-play, we’re not gonna be able to have the impact we want. But, at the same time, if we don’t bring enough revenue in to keep our investors happy and fund the satellite program, we’re not going to be able to meet our users’ needs. It’s strange to strike the balance between wanting to give away as much as you possibly can while supporting our fundamental business model. We still have to defend our use of resources to our investors. 

Ultimately, the public sector is a little more stable, but also a little more risk-averse. The role that small businesses can play is to help take those risks that the public sector either shouldn’t take or doesn’t know how to take. Small teams of people can minimise the bureaucracy, try things, build as fast as we can, and be okay with working with a different mindset. If the public sector spends a billion dollars on a satellite program out of taxpayer money, it has to work and it needs to fulfil the mission requirements. Anything less, we would consider a failure. 

At a startup, we have to take a different approach, but ultimately, we’re going to be measured on the quality of the product. If you can build a quality data product that is sufficient in its accuracy and timeliness to meet users’ needs, that’s the ultimate test. The problem to solve is, can you get there with a smaller budget? That’s a very difficult problem to solve.

Is satellite data or weather data accessible to all currently, and how does that fit into creating a viable business model?

There has been some really amazing progress internationally with the WMO 40 in particular. The WMO has been working with many countries for years now to establish one of the most efficient sectors on the planet in terms of sharing information, and we have removed barriers to sharing, import, and export data access. There are still infrastructure elements in the way, but even for an individual who’s interested in weather, you can go download the software if you have a suitable computer, and you can run these models yourself. Not that many people try to do that, but it’s all there. The core code is open source. It’s all freely available. All you really have to do is sign a few licence agreements and accept some of the terms that come with it, but there’s a lot to start with. 

Every commercial enterprise in the weather sector has leveraged these capabilities. We all rely on government satellites, including their infrastructure, to start with. We connect that to our core technology, which is in-house and microbial radiometry that characterises the environment. We then connect that to end applications and try to figure out where in the value chain we can move the needle in a way that the government won’t try to do. For example, the government isn’t going to try to build bespoke solutions for specific industries, so that’s where our niche is. 

What are some of the areas that the government hasn’t gotten into that Weather Stream is able to provide information for?

There’s data and then there’s applications. The data we’re talking about is the fundamental environmental conditions, the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth, the oceans, the sea, ice, snow, soil moisture, etc. Those are the datasets that the satellite programs are designed to acquire, but it’s about how you leverage that data. That’s where the industry comes in. 

One of the barriers is actually just the technical know-how required to get started, which is a training issue. In terms of the applications that we focus on, there are so many interesting sectors like the insurance world where this data can move the needle for their businesses. When you talk to end users, you find all kinds of use cases where if we just had a little bit better resolution we could use it in new ways, and that moves the needle for us as a business. So that’s what we try to find – these day to day operations that have niche use cases for data that can enable new ways of doing business or new products and services.

Have you found it difficult to relay your value to particular sectors that may not think that using data from space would be beneficial to their industry? 

There’s definitely an educational challenge/opportunity. It’s something that’s truly new and different, so it takes time to educate people on how to use it. One of the biggest challenges for what we do is that most of the environmental satellites are being consumed by other complicated modelling systems and data systems, so by the time it gets to an end user, it’s gone through multiple levels of abstraction. When you’re looking at a weather forecast, people don’t really understand what data simulation is. In reality, people are looking at how we deal with things like rainfall, how we think of storms, etc. How do you take a real-world storm and then assign a 5, 10 or 25-kilometre grid and say, ‘Within this one cell, there’s all this physics going on, but we have to treat it as one cell’? We need advancements in all of those areas to improve our understanding.

To find out more about the weather and Earth Observation sectors, tune into Episode 44 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.