As devices have gotten more powerful, they’ve also gotten smaller. Today, the processing power of the IBM computer from the movie, “Hidden Figures,” is dwarfed by devices that fit into our pockets. In the movie, that IBM computer hilariously required the installation of a larger door to be moved into its dedicated room. Now, we accidentally put computers that are unfathomably more powerful in our washing machines because we forget they were in our favorite jeans.

But is this movement towards smaller, more powerful devices limited to computers and the IT industry? Or is it bleeding into other industries? What about the space and satellite industry? News coming out of the satellite industry seems to indicate that smaller could be the future.

There is immense innovation happening in the satellite and space industries, and the traditional path into space and satellites are changing. The next generation of satellites may be smaller. They may orbit closer to the Earth, be capable of being repaired in space and may host payloads from multiple different organizations.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the news from the industry that lays out some of these fascinating trends:

Big Aerospace Goes Big on Smallsats
If the future of satellites and space is to get bigger, then some of the industry’s heavyweights may have just made some terrible strategic decisions. That’s because – in light of flat or declining orders for large GEO satellites – practically every large satellite manufacturer is making investments into the production of smaller satellites and satellites for MEO and LEO orbits.

According to this article from Via Satellite, some of the largest satellite manufacturers – including SSL and Boeing – have recently made acquisitions or strategic partnerships to position themselves to better complete in the smallsat marketplace. These decisions weren’t made arbitrarily, they’re the result of ordering and industry trends. Many of the commercial satellite companies are seeing significant potential for smaller satellites in LEO and MEO, and are scaling back their large GEO satellite investments.

So, will the next generation of satellites fit in your pocket and risk taking a bath in your spin cycle? Probably not, they’ll still be pretty large and heavy. But they’re trending smaller, and that’s probably a step in the right direction. But that’s not the only change for satellite manufacturing on the horizon…

NASA Hires SSL to Research Satellite Manufacturing in Space
Launching satellites can cause some problems. It restricts how large some of the components can be, since they need to fit in a rocket. It also increases the risk to getting a satellite on orbit, creates wear and tear on the satellite, costs a ton of money and creates other restrictions.

So…what if we just stopped launching our satellites into space already built, and – instead – built them right up there in space?

Stop laughing. It’s (potentially) a perfectly reasonable idea. At least, that’s what NASA thinks. It’s also what our good friend Gordon Roesler thought when we spoke to him about the future of on-orbit servicing.

According to recent news articles, NASA has hired SSL to explore the concept, which would ultimately eliminate the restrictions of launching satellites by building them in habitats in space. The concept would enable “more simple and capable” satellites that don’t need to built to survive launch, which can be pretty tough on a satellite. This main sound like science fiction…but it’s real. We promise.

So, the satellites of the future may be smaller and be built in space. But what about the satellites being built now? How have those changed and evolved? Well…they may contain payloads from multiple, disparate organizations.

Air Force wants new GPS in orbit before year’s end
One of the largest and most impactful challenges facing the DoD is the threat to our satellite infrastructure. Our adversaries are more advanced than ever, and are capable of denying our satellite capabilities. Unfortunately, we rely on those a lot. Especially in the areas of position, navigation and timing (PNT), for which the military relies on GPS.

To help combat the susceptibility of our GPS satellite network, the Air Force and the rest of the DoD is scrambling to get a PNT alternative in place. This need and requirement to get a PNT alternative in place quickly makes it a perfect example of a capability or technology that could be a candidate to be launched as a hosted payload.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report on hosted payloads. That report encourages the DoD to more aggressively incorporate hosted payloads into their future satellite programs for a few reasons:

• They’re less expensive
• They provide a much faster and efficient path to space
• They deliver benefits in the area of resiliency

Those are all things that the military’s PNT satellite network could potentially benefit from.

The post Does the future of space consist of smallsats and hosted payloads? A look at the top satellite news… appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

During the first part of our conversation with Dr. Roesler, we talked about the current state of on-orbit servicing, differentiated Gen One from Gen Two servicing, and spoke about what future generations of this technology will enable and why on-orbit servicing is in such high demand.

In the second part of our discussion, Dr. Roesler provided some additional details about the exciting and innovative capabilities that robotics can enable in space in the future, and how Gen One and Gen Two servicing may be just opening the door for some truly revolutionary services in space.

Here is what Gordon had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): We’ve covered Gen One and Gen Two on-orbit servicing, but what does the future after those two generations look like?

Dr. Roesler: With the introduction of Gen Two capabilities, we’ll have access to dexterous robotics that can make something like changing out a reflector to address a new service area something that’s relatively easy to do. For example, the Dragonfly Project, a NASA-funded program, is intending to take reflectors and put them in place with a robotic arm on a commercial communication satellite.

So if you can put that in place with a robotic arm, you can also take it off again and put a different reflector on. That will give operators the ability to change the property of the satellite payload on-orbit. To better enable that, there are some easy things we could start doing to our new satellites that would allow us to take more advantage of robotic capabilities.

For example, NASA Goddard has developed a refueling quick disconnect. Today there are still many steps required to refuel a satellite, but this quick disconnect greatly cuts down that number of steps. That quick disconnect would have to be integrated into the satellite design before launch, but it’s not a painful installation and it could greatly facilitate the ability to transfer fuel.

Another new addition we should be considering adding to satellites during design and construction is the equivalent of a USB port on your laptop. It’s something DARPA has developed for the servicer, but it can also be installed on satellites before launch.  With a USB port, you can plug in to a thumb drive or hard drive and it recognizes what the component is and it provides new services. DARPA’s port will be used to hold the robotic tools on the servicer, but it also has power and data feeds just like a USB port. So you could bring up a new payload, plug it in, and take advantage of the power and communications of the host satellite.

That’s when you’re starting to get into Generation Three, which we haven’t discussed yet – modular satellites.

There is a tremendous amount of research and development that still needs to be done to create a truly modular satellite. But that research and development is extremely valuable because, if you have a modular satellite, you can take advantage of lower cost, more prolific launch systems that are being developed. Modular satellites would be assembled on orbit from components sent up on low-cost launches, or modules could be replaced in the future on a satellite that you already built and launched. That said, there would be a lot of testing that would need to be done on the ground and a lot of progress needs to be made.

The other revolutionary Gen Three capability is the assembly of large structures, such as antennas and telescopes, in orbit. NASA is working on in-orbit assembly for future astrophysics missions, on the premise that something large, like a 20-meter telescope, must be assembled in-orbit, due to the massive size of the hardware. In those instances, there is no way you could fold it into a single launch fairing – so [the hardware] would need to be assembled robotically in space.

In the same way, being able to assemble the largest reflector or antenna possible would give communication service providers significantly more flexibility.

GSR: Looking back at Gen Two capabilities and the addition of payloads to existing satellites, what types of payloads and capabilities could be added to a satellite in space with this technology? Why is this an attractive option for the military? For commercial operators?

Dr. Roesler: There would be many different possibilities. For example, one simple thing operators could do is to add cameras that provide the satellite the ability to see around it. In geosynchronous orbit, these satellites are 22,000 miles away and it’s difficult to see small objects. So if these cameras could see small objects close to the satellite, it would give operators the ability to react appropriately.

One other capability that could be added is space weather sensors. I mentioned earlier the consequences of not knowing what caused an outage. If you built a space weather sensor and attached it on-orbit, you’d have an indication of whether or not an outage was related to a solar event. There are also other ways of detecting nearby satellites that could be integrated into a small payload and attached.

The advantage of an attachable payload is that you don’t have to integrate it with a propulsion system and attitude control system. The cost is lower, it’s available for use faster, and the opportunities to get it on-orbit are more numerous.

For example, DARPA has developed a capability called PODS – which stands for Payload Orbiting Delivery Systems – that could carry a wide variety of separable mass elements to orbit – including attachable payloads – aboard commercial communications satellites. With 15 commercial launches to GEO a year, we can take advantage of such methods to get small payloads up there without having to buy entire launch vehicles.

In terms of commercial offerings for attachable payloads, many have told me that they are excited about the opportunity to host some of these payloads. It will produce a revenue stream for them for sure, but it also allows them to start thinking about other approaches for fleet flexibility. It’s also an entrepreneurial opportunity. There are people out there who want sensors for applications like agricultural use or environmental data collection, and some of these things can be done from GEO.

GSR: We often hear that concerns over timing – not having payloads built in time for launch – are a main reason why some agencies shy away from hosting payloads on commercial spacecraft. Could you see a reality where we put military or government payloads on commercial spacecraft on-orbit? Could this help alleviate some of those concerns and drive up adoption of hosted payloads?

Dr. Roesler: You really hit the nail on the head. Sometimes, secondary payloads, hosted payloads – or even the payloads for the primary mission – aren’t ready in time. The ability to add them after launch should be extremely freeing for the whole space enterprise and adds a tremendous amount of flexibility.

GSR: During the panel discussion, the panelists touched on the possibility of constructing satellites in space. Why would it be attractive to literally build or construct a satellite in space? What would that enable us to do that we can’t do with our current system of building satellites on Earth and launching them already constructed?

Dr. Roesler: One of the huge advantages is the reduction in testing and design requirements. If I’m going to launch something in pieces, I don’t have to worry about whether the entire assembly survives during launch – I only have to worry about whether the individual pieces survive. By testing at a lower level of integration, I’m saving costs and I’m saving time when I put them together on-orbit.

Another thing that approach lets you do is change your mind. Say you’re building numerous satellites and you have a choice of payloads and maybe you have a choice of power systems. If you have a modular architecture, you can change your mind about what a particular satellite is going to be in real-time. That’s basically unheard of now.

And, as I mentioned earlier, there’s this idea of taking advantage of smaller launch vehicles. There’s a group of investors today that are developing launch vehicles of much lower capacity than available medium-lift ones.  Similarly, DARPA is working on a launch system called XSP, which stands for Experimental Spaceplane, which is going to put 3,000-5,000 pounds into low Earth orbit. That mass range fills a gap between the very small launch vehicles and the larger ones. So by taking advantage of that emerging launch infrastructure that has a lot more variety to it, we get another reason to consider building satellites in orbit.

GSR: When it comes to all of these technologies and capabilities – on-orbit refueling, on-orbit servicing, adding payloads to existing satellites, building satellites in space – who is taking the lead in the development of these solutions?

Dr. Roesler: In the case of Gen One –life extension– it’s primarily industry. In the case of Gen Two– on-orbit refueling and on-orbit servicing– it’s definitely DARPA.

RSGS is a very large program dedicated to building a GEO robotic servicing vehicles and getting it on-orbit quickly. When I say that, I should also mention our commercial partner, SSL, who is building the bus and the ground segment and will eventually operate the satellite. And I should also mention the Naval Research Laboratory, which is responsible for all the advanced robotic work that’s leading to this capability. The technology is government-initiated, but we know that commercial players are eager to participate.

Then looking at Gen Three, I would say it’s a combination of DARPA, NASA, and industry. DARPA has some small projects centered around on-orbit assembly and also the idea of putting a persistent platform into GEO. One where payloads can come and go.

The analogy I like to use for such a platform is the antenna tower that you see along the highways. When you look at one of those towers, you’ll see a number of devices – cellphone antennas, point-to-point microwave, public safety radio antennas – all hanging on it. That’s because it’s cheaper to pay rent to the tower owner than it is to buy land and build a tower.

Obviously that makes sense in GEO as well. If you can just send up a payload to a persistent platform, you don’t have to worry about propulsion and attitude control. You have all that provided by the platform and you pay a fee to the platform operator for hosting your payload.

That’s really a win-win.

It could also provide flexibility, being able to swap the payloads more frequently and not have to worry about what the market is going to be like a few years from now.

If you missed part one of our two part conversation with Dr. Gordon Roesler, click HERE to read it in its entirety. For additional information on DARPA’s on-orbit servicing programs, click HERE.

The post In the future, we’ll build satellites in space – a Q&A with DARPA’s Gordon Roesler appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Following that discussion, we reached out to Dr. Gordon Roesler, a Program Manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office, who has been at the forefront of many of DARPA’s on-orbit servicing initiatives and programs. During our conversation with Dr. Roesler, we sought to learn more about how far on-orbit servicing technologies and capabilities have progressed, and to get a better picture of what on-orbit servicing can enable into the future.

In part one of our two-part conversation with Dr. Roesler, we talked about the current state of on-orbit servicing, what future generations of this technology will enable and why on-orbit servicing is in such high demand. Here is what Gordon had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): Where does on-orbit servicing currently stand? Is this science fiction, or are we rapidly approaching a reality where satellites can be refueled and repaired in space? How long until we get there?

Dr. Roesler: As we move forward, there are going to be generations of servicing that offer increasingly sophisticated capabilities.

Generation One is what I call simple life extension, and there are already a couple of established players in that field. Effective Space is a UK organization that is building satellites that go up and dock with operating commercial communication satellites and help them maintain their positions and conserve their fuel, so that’s life extension through fuel conservation. Orbital ATK is doing something similar.

Generation Two is what DARPA is working on. We’re looking to use very sophisticated robotics to do things beyond just life extension. Using robotics, we’re looking to perform ultra close inspections, use robotic arms to repair satellites that aren’t functioning properly, or even perform upgrades – such as adding a new module to an operating spacecraft.

In terms of timing, Gen One is slated to launch in the 2018-2020 time frame and DARPA’s Gen Two servicer is going to launch in 2021.

I should also mention the NASA Restore-L effort, which blends Gen One and Gen Two technologies and capabilities. It’s a spacecraft that uses a DARPA robotic arm in order to refuel a NASA satellite. That’s effectively providing a Gen One service with a Gen Two technology.

GSR: What are the commercial benefits of on-orbit servicing? Why are commercial satellite operators interested in this capability?

Dr. Roesler: Let’s look at this in terms of the same Gen One and Gen Two breakout. When it comes to Gen One, life extension is a big reason for commercial interest. Life extension will provide an operator with fleet flexibility. Take, for example, SES, which has around 50 [satellites] in operation; if they can keep one of those on longer than was expected, they can shuffle the fleet around and provide services in a much more flexible way.

At the same time, this offers the benefit of minimizing capital expenditures by filling any gaps that might occur in the fleet without having to build an entirely new satellite. So the Gen One services are very valuable to commercial satellite operators.

Gen Two [on-orbit servicing] provides even more opportunity. Think about being able to bring up a new payload and attaching it to an existing satellite. Rather than having [to build] a new satellite to provide that capability, the operator only has to build a new payload. Not only does it defer capital expenditure, it actually reduces it.

This kind of idea of replacing payloads in-orbit also allows the operators to keep up with the needs of the terrestrial customer base. A satellite’s estimated life is around 15 years. That’s a long time to predict and understand what your customer base is going to look like or need. The ability to easily adjust the payloads in sync with customers can help keep the business case for that satellite alive.

Then there’s this idea of being able to perform repairs. About once every two years, a commercial satellite goes up and has some sort of deployment anomaly. If that could be repaired, not only does that allow you to recover the satellite capability faster than by building and launching a new spacecraft, but it also reduces insurance claims payouts. It’s really a win-win. So there’s a host of benefits from the development and introduction of Gen Two capabilities.

GSR: How do those benefits compare with the federal government and military? Are the benefits for them the same? Are there other reasons why they’re interested in this?

Dr. Roesler: Every one of those benefits that I mentioned also pertains to the U.S. government. The fleet flexibility, the reduced capital expenditures. We don’t have insurance companies, our insurance is from the taxpayers, so if we can save them the cost of a new satellite by repairing an anomaly, that’s a benefit as well.

There is also the ability to protect and provide resilience to our government satellites. An ultra close inspection with a robotic arm can help operators differentiate between an engineering flaw and a hostile act. So it could help to maintain rational behavior. When things fail and we don’t understand why they fail, we tend to be suspicious, that’s just the nature of it. This could alleviate that suspicion.

So there is a strategic benefit to this ultra close inspection. Also, there’s the benefit of being able to include new capabilities for protection of our existing satellites, as well as all the other benefits in terms of longevity and flexibility and repair.

Be sure to check back for part two of our conversation with Dr. Roesler, when we discuss the advanced capabilities that will be introduced via Gen Two on-orbit servicing, and what Gen Three could hold for the industry.

The post The progress and promise of on-orbit servicing – a Q&A with DARPA’s Gordon Roesler appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

One of the most exciting and interesting new technologies that was discussed at this year’s conference – surprisingly – wasn’t a topic of a panel discussion, or available to see and play with on the exposition floor. Rather, it was casually mentioned during the Q&A session by Dr. Gordon Roesler, a Program Manager in the Tactical Technology Office (TTO) at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), following a panel discussion on hosted payloads.

During the aforementioned Q&A session, Dr. Roesler stood up and addressed the panelists about the need to change payloads and otherwise service spacecraft in orbit. He also introduced panel attendees to a new DARPA program that would utilize robotics to do just that.

Enthralled by this new concept and eager to know more, I asked Dr. Roesler to participate in an interview for the GovSat Report, so that he could educate publication readers and staff – alike – about this new program.

Here is what Dr. Roesler had to say:

GovSat Report: During one of the panels at this year’s SATELLITE 2016 Conference, you discussed a new program from DARPA aiming to use robotics to make changes or repairs to satellites in space. What are the main factors driving a program like this forward? What types of missions is DARPA looking to accomplish with this program?

Dr. Roesler: The program is called Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS). The goal of the program is to create a dexterous robotic operational capability in Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO), that can both provide increased resilience for the current US space infrastructure, and be the first concrete step toward a transformed space architecture with revolutionary capabilities.

Today, satellites are placed in orbit, but then are never inspected, repaired or upgraded. They have long lifetimes, but the technology on them becomes obsolete, and they cannot keep up with changes on the ground. One driver for RSGS is to change this paradigm, by enabling some of the same kinds of services that are provided to other high-value assets, like aircraft, ships, and communication systems.

Today’s satellites are not designed with servicing in mind. So the key RSGS driver is to  provide valuable services even to satellites that have no special modifications for servicing. DARPA technology development has shown that a robotic servicing vehicle can provide at least four servicing missions to unmodified but cooperative customer satellites: ultra-close inspection; assistance with orbit changes; use of robotic manipulation to correct mechanisms (solar arrays, antennas) that have not deployed correctly; and mechanical installation of upgrade or add-on capabilities.

GovSat Report: What challenges is the military currently having that make this program necessary today?

Dr. Roesler: The United States is expected to derive multiple benefits from this GEO satellite servicing capability. Since GEO contains the largest concentration of unserviced high-value assets – many of which perform critical defense and economic roles – it would be of great value to have a reliable and responsive servicing capability available in GEO.

The U.S. Government operates far more satellites in GEO than any other nation. GEO satellites have experienced failures, malfunctions, schedule delays, coverage gaps, unforeseen maneuvers, and other anomalous events.

Because GEO satellites reside on or near a single orbital path, the RSGS servicer would travel among them with little propellant consumption, enabling it to perform many servicing missions before using up its own propellant. The vehicle could provide inspection, repair, upgrade, and repositioning services to Government spacecraft when required, while deriving revenue from servicing commercial spacecraft.

Specific servicing needs that are unavailable today include inspection to determine the cause of on-orbit anomalies; anomaly resolution to repair malfunctioning satellites; orbit modification for relocation, transfer to the disposal orbit, or correction of propulsion system underperformance; and capability enhancement, the transfer of packages with new capabilities and installation on GEO satellites. The RSGS program targets these services for spacecraft currently on orbit or in production, none of which have been specifically designed to be serviced.

GovSat Report: The concept of removing and replacing payloads in space sounds attractive, but is it necessary? During SATELLITE 2016, we heard many speakers discussing software defined payloads and building flexibility into satellites. We’re also seeing the rise of commercial companies with business models tied to extending the life of spacecraft in orbit. What differentiates this program from these services and from the capabilities that are being built into spacecraft today for agility and flexibility?

Dr. Roesler: While uploading new software is a valuable approach for introducing some new capabilities, so is installing upgraded processors, sensors, communication systems and hardware to avoid obsolescence. The same dexterous, flexible robotic payload being developed for RSGS can execute deployment assistance and close inspection, but is also uniquely capable of doing on-orbit installation.

Life extension is a valuable capability, but is not the focus of the RSGS program, which instead emphasizes dexterous robotic capabilities that are not available today.

GovSat Report: How do you anticipate DARPA developing this new technology? Will this be done as a private/public partnership with industry partners, or as a stand-alone military program? Has there been any interest from private industry in partnering on this program?

Dr. Roesler: The end state of the RSGS program is to be a commercially-owned and -operated robotic servicing vehicle (RSV), which carries the Government-furnished robotic payload.

The vehicle will be developed in partnership with a team including the government, a satellite manufacturer, the eventual owner, and the operator. The commercial team will be able to leverage Government contributions, including the development, manufacture, integration and testing of the robotic payload and its advanced automation and payload mission management software; participation in integration of the payload and bus; a launch vehicle to deliver the RSV to GEO or to GEO transfer orbit; and assistance with operations team training and on-orbit operations.

The robotic payload will be designed for multi-year operations. Numerous US aerospace companies have expressed interest.

GovSat Report: What is the timeframe for such an innovative and ambitious program as this? Is this a capability that the military can expect to have available in the next five years? Ten years? Or this something that won’t be realized until well into the future?

Dr. Roesler: DARPA plans to place the RSGS servicing vehicle on orbit in about five years.

For additional coverage from this year’s SATELLITE 2016 Conference, click on the following articles:

Frustration mounts over lack of government hosted payload adoption 

The capacity is coming, the capacity is coming! Why now is the time for COMSATCOM in the federal government 

How government and industry can make hosted payloads happen – an interview with Earl White

The post DARPA Looks to Service Satellites in Space – an Interview with Gordon Roesler appeared first on SES Space and Defense.