Here at SES Space & Defense, we are well positioned as both a satellite operator and an agnostic integrator, providing a strategic advantage in delivering resilient COMSATCOM solutions to our government and military customers. While SES is a satellite owner and operator in both MEO and GEO, we also have strategic agreements with LEO operators and other GEO operators that enables us to offer global mission-ready solutions, supporting the warfighter across LEO, MEO and GEO. Our customers require very diverse capabilities to ensure resilient SATCOM, and being able to offer a true multi-orbit technology agnostic strategy is critical for our customers.

Enhancing Mission Assurance with Strategic Relationships and Agnostic Integration
The two main impacts of multi-orbit capabilities are high availability and greater security. By having multi-path, multi-orbit, and multi-frequency offerings, we achieve resiliency through redundancy. SES Space & Defense enhances security by keeping traffic off the public internet. Instead, it routes through our private network, where we can maintain stricter control over security. Having multi-orbit solutions also enables us to seamlessly provide continuous, high-availability solutions when experiencing a significant failure. The traffic is automatically rerouted through our software-defined network, and the customer is completely unaware of any outage, reducing the risk of a single point of failure. Simultaneously, our technicians can work on any outage in the background while the customer maintains connectivity.

For example, we have a customer that requires high availability, which we have traditionally provided through a mixture of our GEO networks and terrestrial connectivity. Around three years ago, through one of our partnerships with a LEO provider, we began integrating LEO into that customer equation. Recently, there was a failure on one of the LEO orbits, which was the primary means for the customer to communicate. As soon as we experienced that failure, our GEO capacity picked up the slack immediately, and the customer maintained uninterrupted service.

As for the enhanced security these partnerships provide, one example is a high-profile customer that operates multi-orbit networks as part of a Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency (PACE) plan. We take their traffic from a LEO provider before it hits the public Internet and put our security wrapper around it through our terrestrial network. From there, it is delivered to the customer’s home base, resulting in a higher level of assured security that accompanies high availability.

Interoperability Challenges Between Providers
One critical component of agnostic integration is the interoperability between multiple providers. Achieving this on the satellite side is admittedly not overly difficult, though there are critical components of the process that must be selected and managed meticulously to enable successful integration. This includes selecting the right appliances and software that are built to standards that can be properly integrated.

Some operators have proprietary modem systems and they may operate at differing levels of security. But, if we can intercept the traffic at a point where we can integrate it with the incoming traffic from the other networks, it is not overly complicated. It can be done, and it’s been proven. At SES Space & Defense, we’re doing it efficiently and successfully applying it in real applications.

Though the satellite process is relatively easy, there is a slight challenge on the ground side. Industry has not yet perfected a single solution antenna with multiple, software-defined waveforms on a terminal that can go from orbit to orbit or satellite constellation to satellite constellation. Some manufacturers are close to achieving this technology but a significant challenge remains in scaling down the required equipment to enable multi-orbit operations across multiple fleets effectively.

In many cases, you must have a proprietary system or a system that’s designed for a specific waveform on a specific satellite, and that’s the biggest challenge. Industry is catching up and some companies are currently working on multi-orbit, single-terminal products that would scale down the equipment needed for the operation. But, overall, the ground side of the industry is not quite there yet.

Agnostic Integration Influencing DoD Procurement
One big question about agnostic integration is how it will affect procurement strategies and partnerships between the DoD and industry. Everyone wants multi-orbit, multi-frequency, high-availability, and resilient networks. However, without someone to integrate the solution, contracting officers often need to issue multiple contracts for the various components required to build a fully integrated network. That equates to additional time, additional money, and different management across the different platforms that need to be integrated. On top of that, the government will have to do more work to integrate it themselves.

From a procurement perspective, the government is increasingly recognizing that industry can take on the integration process, serving as a one-stop solution. Much of the government’s recent approach reflects this shift, as they seek industry-led solutions and integration. Given the advantages in time, cost, and technology, industry is often better positioned to handle this than the government itself.

The post Agnostic Integration: Delivering High Availability, Resiliency, and Secure SATCOM to the DoD appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Without PNT capabilities – and without resilient and redundant solutions that can withstand adversarial attacks – warfighters would essentially enter the field blind, putting the mission and, more importantly, their lives at risk.

To learn more about the role GPS and PNT play in modern warfighting, as well as the commercial solutions that the military is leveraging to provide assured, continuous PNT to the warfighter, the Government Satellite Report sat down with SES Space & Defense’s Senior Director of Innovation and Satellite Programs, Bryan Benedict.

Government Satellite Report (GSR): What role does space-based satellite PNT play in modern warfare? Why is PNT so important for today’s modern military?

Bryan Benedict: PNT is vital in providing both the location and time elements of any military engagement. PNT lets warfighters know where they are and where their objective is located. It essentially answers the “where” and “when” questions.

PNT is so essential to operational success that if a mission is being planned and PNT is unavailable, that operation may be delayed. It is also worth mentioning that various munition systems use GPS as a source of PNT data for targeting purposes.

There are a number of global navigational satellite systems (GNSS) in use by other countries. The U.S. version is GPS. The European solution is called Galileo. China, India, and Japan have their own systems as well.

GSR: Why would the military be concerned about assured PNT? What challenges or threats are there to modern PNT solutions?

Bryan Benedict: The primary challenges and threats to modern PNT are jamming and spoofing. Jamming involves using signals at the same frequency to make the GPS signal unusable. Spoofing involves sending signals that are masquerading as GPS but are intentionally designed to provide erroneous information to the user. Another threat is that adversaries could physically damage the GPS fleet through an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile attack.

Currently, assured PNT for the U.S. military is provided by resilient GPS. It provides ways to work around the loss of some GPS assets or signals and allows PNT even in the presence of jamming. GPS itself is a very low-power signal, and is relatively easy to jam. Alternative PNT allows PNT determination when the GPS fleet is severely degraded or absent all together. SES Space & Defense is working now with other companies to determine how we could leverage our MEO and GEO satellite networks to provide alternative PNT to the USG.

“Not all GPS satellites are M-code capable and not all GPS receivers can process M-code signals. Full M-code capability by the military is expected by the end of 2025.” -Bryan Benedict

GSR: What steps is the military taking to increase the resiliency of PNT signals from space? What is M-code? Has the military officially adopted M-code? What roadblocks exist?

Bryan Benedict: In order to increase the resilience of GPS signals, the military is making it harder to successfully jam and spoof GPS signals. M-code uses next-generation cryptography, higher power and more than one frequency to work around an adversary’s attempt to disrupt GPS usage.

While the military has adopted M-code, roadblocks still exist. Not all GPS satellites are M-code capable and not all GPS receivers can process M-code signals. Full M-code capability by the military is expected by the end of 2025.

To increase the resiliency of PNT, the government has been looking to boost resiliency through the addition of satellites in both the GPS layer and possibly, commercial PNT satellites at other altitudes. They’re definitely encouraging the development of alternative PNT signals from other orbits, including the lower MEO and LEO orbits, as well as through use of alternative frequencies.

The Space Enterprise Consortium awarded a contract to a company that was developing PNT concepts for GEO orbit. If you look at the Chinese Beidou system, they incorporate MEO satellites, similar to GPS, but they also leverage GEO and inclined GEO spacecraft. That means that if their MEO signal is degraded, the Chinese still have the capability to provide regional PNT using their GEO spacecraft.

As far as challenges that currently exist for developing alternative PNT systems, I don’t think the U.S. military has been able to implement M-code on PNT spacecraft outside of MEO. Some of the alternative PNT companies that are trying to do PNT from LEO may not be able to utilize the benefits provided by M-code.

“Commercially provided alternative PNT solutions for the military could provide a stopgap if GPS fleet signals become degraded. If GPS is not possible, commercial PNT would step in.” -Bryan Benedict

GSR: Why would a commercial PNT solution be desirable for the military? What new capabilities or functionality would these new services offer?

Bryan Benedict: The U.S. military would like to have a PNT function that does not depend on GPS, as it is not as resilient as they would like it to be. GPS is a prime target for U.S. adversaries through spoofing, jamming and ASAT attacks. Commercially provided alternative PNT solutions for the military could provide a stopgap if GPS fleet signals become degraded. If GPS is not possible, commercial PNT would step in.

The military is looking for more than one commercial alternative PNT solution. Questions arise whether commercial PNT will be available when needed and whether it can be trusted. Technical challenges exist when alternative PNT is provided outside of the GPS frequency bands and outside of GPS orbit. Ideally GPS receivers could be modified to accept signals from other orbits and other frequencies.

GSR: Why would they need commercial PNT solutions if a new generation of M-code PNT satellites (GPS Block III) is being launched?

Bryan Benedict: While M-code PNT satellites are more resilient to jamming and spoofing, they are no more resilient to an ASAT attack. Commercial PNT would provide an alternative if the GPS fleet becomes unusable.

GSR: Is there a market for commercial PNT outside of the U.S. government?

Bryan Benedict: That is an excellent question. Companies and organizations that rely on GPS – such as banking, utilities, shipping, airlines, and commerce – are dependent upon GPS but frequently have workarounds should GPS not be available. One of these solutions may involve the use of cell towers or other fixed RF transmitters.

“PNT would be a global service, and SES has worldwide satellite network supported by critical ground infrastructure. Providing commercial PNT is an excellent way to provide vital services to the U.S. government.” -Bryan Benedict

I don’t believe there would be customers for commercial PNT as long as they had government-provided alternatives, including GPS and Galileo. It’s unlikely that all of the government provided PNT services will become inoperative, so commercial customers don’t have a strong reason to invest in an alternative PNT system when other government PNT solutions remain available.

GSR: What does SES have planned in regard to commercial PNT services/solutions? Why is this a marketplace that SES is looking to enter? How is the company uniquely qualified to offer these services?

Bryan Benedict: SES is working with small businesses that are developing alternative PNT solutions. Why are we looking to enter this marketplace? First, we believe alternative PNT is a function that the government would like to procure, and SES Space & Defense is organized to serve the U.S. government in particular.

SES Space & Defense is well qualified because of our multi-orbit satellite systems. Future MEO and GEO satellites can host future PNT payloads. PNT would be a global service, and SES has worldwide satellite network supported by critical ground infrastructure. Providing commercial PNT is an excellent way to provide vital services to the U.S. government.

The post PNT – Answering the Where and When During Warfighting Missions appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Ahead of the event, the Government Satellite Report had the opportunity to sit down with one of the conference speakers, Juliana Suess – a space security Research Fellow on the Royal United Services Institute’s (RUSI) Military Sciences team and host of the podcast War in Space.

During our discussion, Juliana delves into the current state of the space threat landscape, as well as the role SATCOM and multi-orbit capabilities are currently playing in military operations today, and pulls back the curtain on some of the expected trends and hot topics that will take center stage at the event.

Government Satellite Report (GSR): What does the space-based threat landscape look like for today’s militaries?

Juliana Suess: When we examine the counter-space weapons landscape, there is a whole host of different capabilities that range from temporary and reversible measures to the non-reversible and permanent damage end of the spectrum.

Though space has become increasingly contested within the last few years, I think what we’ve been seeing are counter-space attacks that fall on the temporary and reversible range in the electromagnetic spectrum or the cyber sphere, though kinetic tests against states’ own assets have also taken place.

GSR: What impact is SATCOM having on multi-domain military operations today? 

Juliana Suess: SATCOM is a key enabler for all operations. I think quite often there’s a misconception that space is an add-on luxury that militaries can begin to afford once everything else is in order. In reality, space-based capabilities are a requisite, because we need SATCOM as part of a military’s daily operations.

If we look at the UK Space Power doctrine, not only does it already state that the vast majority of operations couldn’t be sustained without space, but it also goes on to say that SATCOM is responsible for all beyond-line-of-site communications. So, whether it is an aircraft or a vessel at sea, all multi-domain operations are made possible through satellite communications.

Space is a connector. Without the information and data that we receive through SATCOM and space, a lot of modern military operations simply wouldn’t be possible.

GSR: What benefits are multi-orbit SATCOM capabilities providing to military operations today? 

Juliana Suess: Resilience is a key aspect as it pertains to multi-orbit SATCOM. For example, if an orbit was compromised through a Kessler syndrome-type event or through a large-scale attack on satellites that would make part of an orbit unsafe, having the resilient capability of migrating service to a different orbit and using those satellites is tremendously impactful.

There’s also a utility aspect in these orbits to be considered. For example, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) has very low latency. Communications that don’t have to be classified or tightly secured can leverage a commercial provider in LEO. Whereas more highly secure communication channels can then be reserved for the assets that sit in Geostationary Orbit (GEO).

GSR: What are some of the challenges, needs, and requirement trends you’re seeing from militaries as it pertains to satellite capabilities? What gaps still need to be bridged?

Juliana Suess: In the UK, we have SKYNET – our sovereign satellite communications program which covers a lot of the required satellite capabilities that we need. But when we specifically look at Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), the UK is still very reliant on the U.S, although at least some of those gaps could be bridged with commercial partners.

I think the challenge overall – and the UK is not unique to this – is just money. Space is expensive and space-based projects take a long time. For example, the UK could no longer be part of the EU’s Galileo space program, which is the EU’s answer to GPS. The idea was floated that the UK could build its own PNT system, but the funding aspect made it impossible for a country the size of the UK.

In terms of further trends that we’re seeing, I think resilience will be a continuing factor and consideration as we continue to build out space capabilities. That will translate to having onboard resilience elements such as inter-satellite links that allow satellites to jump over compromised ground segments. Having proliferated constellations in conjunction with multi-orbit capabilities will also be a continuing trend. Militaries will continue to not put all their eggs in one orbital basket, which will be incredibly helpful.

GSR: Next week, military and space industry leaders will convene at the Defence in Space Conference in London. What are the hot topics and trends you foresee being discussed at the event?

Juliana Suess: Since the conference will be an industry-heavy event, I think there will be a lot of discussions around the sovereign assets versus buy-in debate. The UK has put forward the Own-Collaborate-Access (OCA) framework through which it wants to view its space capabilities and the procurement of those capabilities. So, I think that’s definitely a topic that will be explored in terms of how to strike the right balance, as well as if commercial partners are brought into the fold how can they be protected from potential attacks?

When we saw the cyberattack against ViaSat at the beginning of the large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, that was a commercial provider that had the Ukrainian military as one of its clients. That cyberattack highlighted the vulnerability of commercial actors, especially when they’re being used by armed forces or states.

That brings me to the next trend that I think will have a lot of discussion around it, which is how do we keep pace with the threat? I think specifically for space, we need to make a lot more consideration of horizon scanning when it comes to threats because once you put a satellite into space, it’s could be in orbit for the next 10 to 15 years.

In terms of anticipating threats that we need to protect against, we must prepare our hardware and software before launch. In that sense, space is quite unique as we must make more considerations on future protection and resilience before they even become operational.

To learn more about the Defence in Space conference, click HERE.

The post From Sovereign Space to the Pace of the Threat – What to Expect from Defence in Space 2024 appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

In the second part of our conversation, Nitin discusses how the ICT Portal is powered by a multitude of DoD data sources, and dissects exactly where that data comes from, how it’s delivered to the portal, and what innovative capabilities and features can be performed leveraging that data.

Here is what he had to say:

GSR: Where does the data that powers the ICT Portal come from? Can you talk a bit about the data sources, as well as how the data is delivered to the ICT Portal?

Nitin Bhat: When we look at a customer’s needs, they’re typically global in nature. Their needs do not stem from a geographic standpoint and are not constrained to a specific location. A lot of the customers we serve have locations all across the globe. They will usually need to have something up and running in a certain amount of time.

From a satellite standpoint, we would start with user terminals. User terminal is a very broad definition, as it could encompass laptops, phones, video devices, satellite modems, antennas, etc. User terminals could include a whole host of devices that could be typically found at the tactical edge. Those user terminals are all sources of data for us to gather. Then we can analyze problems and map everything out for customers.

The user terminals then typically talk to satellites. And the satellites – no matter if they are in GEO, MEO, or LEO orbits – all become sources of data for us to ensure that they are healthy and functioning properly. From there the data, voice, or video comes down to teleports. And this teleport becomes another data source. There could be power devices or huge antennas there. There could also be customer infrastructure there that carries the traffic from the satellite standpoint. All of that – again –  becomes another set of data sources.

From there, typically the data travels to the public Internet, government gateways, or to a data center where it then goes to the cloud. But for us, everything is viewed as a point for collecting data. If it touches the customer’s network in some fashion, we collect all that data.

“Capacity management is another feature. Satellites do not have unlimited resources or capacity to provide data. We need to manage the capacity in the right way.” -Nitin Bhat

Data might also travel through a terrestrial network as it goes from point A to point B. SES Space & Defense has its own global terrestrial network, the Global Communications Network (GCN). The GCN meets certain security standards from a government standpoint. That also becomes a data source.

GSR: Once data is fed into the ICT Portal, what are some of the features and capabilities the portal can perform with that data?

Nitin Bhat: Broadly, the ICT Portal can be viewed as something really useful for our own operation center and for our customers. And the uses don’t necessarily need to be different. Some could overlap for both.

A basic feature of the ICT Portal could be as simple as a ticketing system, where you let the customer open their own tickets by logging into the portal, avoiding the need to call a 1-800 number to alert people to a problem. We may want to create tickets on our own because we are proactively monitoring a customer network. When we see something that doesn’t seem right on the single pane of glass, we can auto-generate a ticket and start looking into it.

Another example would be troubleshooting aids. When we see something go red, we might say, “Hey, what happened? Did we get any alarms? Did we get any up-down status from these devices that we were monitoring?” It helps someone who’s troubleshooting. Customers now have these aids to examine and decipher where the problem could have stemmed from.

The third feature is reporting. Reporting is where you’re relaying to the customer, “The network has been up this month for 30 days. It has been up for 99.9 percent of the time.” This enables us to show the customer that we are meeting the obligations from an SLA standpoint. The network is indeed performing the way that it has been designed and is behaving correctly.

It’s also useful for the customer to know how their devices are configured and what parameters are set. From a management perspective, if a device isn’t operating properly, a customer can pinpoint that device, open a return merchandise authorization (RMA), and return that hardware. The ICT Portal will be able to relay the hardware’s serial number, and how it malfunctioned, and assist the customer with the logistics piece of it.

Capacity management is another feature. Satellites do not have unlimited resources or capacity to provide data. We need to manage the capacity in the right way. That becomes another feature where we can tell the customer how much capacity they’re using today – at this moment in time – to accomplish what they’re trying to do from either voice, video, or data.

“Decision makers can also leverage the ICT Portal to predict future trends and proactively plan and allocate resources, budgets, and time to whatever capabilities they are planning for.” -Nitin Bhat

Spectrum monitoring is another feature. Blue-on-blue or red-on-blue interactions can cause spectrum interference. Customers need to know whether that’s impacting their communications or data transfer on their satellites. We need to monitor the spectrum on the satellites, and the ICT Portal allows you to do that.

GSR: In terms of the military, what benefits does the ICT Portal deliver to key decision-makers during warfighting or other critical missions?

Nitin Bhat: It depends on the audience because each government stakeholder might want a different view of what’s going on. Some may be interested to see whether there have been any adversarial attempts to jam communications, and they might want that piece of data. However, a person who is running the program may simply want to know if the delivery of services is occurring on time and at the right level of uptime that they wanted.

Someone who oversees running the network might want to be able to access troubleshooting tickets to improve certain network functions in the future. Someone at a very high level may want to know how AI applications and processes could be integrated into the network, to enable automated and smart functionalities.

Decision makers can also leverage the ICT Portal to predict future trends and proactively plan and allocate resources, budgets, and time to whatever capabilities they are planning for. The ICT Portal pairs perfectly with the DoD’s mission to construct a resilient space architecture, due to its ability to determine whether multi-orbit or multi-constellation solutions would be better utilized for specific missions.

To learn more about the ICT Portal, click HERE.

To read part one of our conversation with Nitin, click HERE.

The post The Data Sources that Power the ICT Portal appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

At this year’s GOVSATCOM conference, multi-orbit SATCOM took center stage as representatives from SES Space & Defense, Viasat, and OneWeb convened for a special session, “The New Multi-Orbit Paradigm,” to examine the logistics behind making these on-demand satellite connectivity and communications capabilities a reality.

SES Space & Defense CEO, David Fields, kicked off the discussion by highlighting the implications of the satellite industry’s shift from geosynchronous (GEO) SATCOM capabilities to non-GEO solutions. “The shift to non-GEO has really added an incredible amount of complexity to what we’ve done over the past few years,” said Fields. “Operators now must think differently about how they manage the networks, manage that complexity, and how we are going to vertically integrate.”

Fields explained that SES Space & Defense is turning its attention to leveraging its GEO and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) constellations for other space capabilities, like hosted payloads, sensors, space relay, and other future solutions that are coming down the pike. Focusing on other applications and uses of GEO and MEO constellations will enable the company to maximize the capabilities it delivers to its customers.

“The point is how do we make sure we deliver a Service Level Agreement (SLA) to customers like the Navy who have mission critical solutions and mission critical requirements,” said Fields. “This is really driving the change in partnerships…Everyone has to be invested in the mission’s success in order for that to happen.”

According to Fields, when it comes to multi-orbit SATCOM, SES Space & Defense has been an all-orbit provider for quite some time. “We have our own GEO fleet, and we have our own MEO fleet,” said Fields. “But we also partner with all the LEO providers as well.”

Fields explained that by partnering with LEO providers, SES Space & Defense is extending enterprises out to remote locations with a staggering number of applications that are being deployed. “It’s not about one orbit, but it’s about all the orbits,” he said. “It’s about what’s the application. Sometimes LEO is going to be the best application, and sometimes it may be MEO or GEO. I don’t think it’s an ‘or’ scenario. It’s an ‘and’ scenario. So how do we tie those things together?”

Expanding on this idea of applications leveraging all-orbits when necessary, Fields stated that it’s critical for providers to put the customer’s mission first and ensure its success. “If that’s not successful, we’re not going to be successful,” he said.

Andy Lincoln, Viasat’s Chief Engineer of Global Space Networks, agreed with Fields, saying that the future of SATCOM lies in the idea of hybrid networking. “The multi-orbits are all important because they have different capabilities and limitations,” he said. “They’re like children. You have to love them all, but sometimes for different reasons.”

Being able to meet the complex satellite requirements of multi-orbit military missions is a primary goal of the DoD’s hybrid SATCOM architecture. And the DoD has made major strides in giving direction and painting a picture of what capabilities and solutions it wants from the commercial satellite industry.

“I think the biggest piece that was missing in the past – when it came to government interaction – was the lack of conveying vision,” said Fields. “What [the DoD] has done in the past few years – through the hybrid SATCOM architecture – is laying out a roadmap and vision for where we want to go. That is critical.”

In addition to the DoD’s progress in articulating its architecture vision to commercial industry, the Department has also seen constructive improvements in the procurement and acquisition arenas. “A lot of positive things have happened in the last couple of years as managed services have been procured by the government,” said Lincoln. He explained that the government has a better understanding of off-the-shelf solutions, their terms, conditions, and features – as well as their capabilities and limitations.

“They’ve learned…that you can buy it or not buy it. That’s good training for the acquisition professionals in the government,” Lincoln said.

To watch the full GOVSATCOM session, “The New Multi-Orbit Paradigm,” click the video below:

The post Satellite Executives Discuss the Multi-Orbit Paradigm at GOVSATCOM 2024 appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

What makes O3b mPOWER capability unique?
The launch of SES’s second-generation satellite network, O3b mPOWER, marks the company’s next step toward delivering the highest throughput, most efficient, and most flexible enterprise-grade satellite connectivity services to customers yet.  O3b mPOWER combines many key attributes typically found with geostationary satellite solutions like geographic reach per on-orbit asset, flexible ground infrastructure, and the accommodation of customer-defined User Terminals (UTs) and waveforms, along with “uncontended” capacity, which means that you get what you pay for… it’s not being statistically multiplexed and simultaneously sold to others in an orbit similar in overall latency performance to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) solutions.

The Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) is unique for its orbital resilience while also remaining in the optimal realm for real-time or cloud-originating user applications.  O3b mPOWER is particularly unique in its ability to serve enterprise-class customers… that is,  many users connected from a single point like a ship, airplane, office, or base, with high throughput, low latency throughput needs, and consistent or guaranteed performance.

Perhaps even more significant for potential users is that the O3b mPOWER constellation features an “open architecture” that allows customers to employ it for a wide variety of operational scenarios beyond basic Internet connectivity, including Command & Control uses, Protected Communications, and emerging or evolving operational use cases like LEO Relay Services, Multi-Orbit Routing, Intelligence Surveillance & Reconnaissance, Gateway-Free UT-to-UT connectivity, and other unique mission-critical applications.

On the point of security, O3b mPOWER is a constellation of High Throughput, Software Enabled Satellites placed into a non-geostationary orbit (NGSO), protected with security enhancements outlined in Committee on National Security Systems Policy 12 (CNSSP-12).  O3b mPOWER can support user-derived protected waveforms along with existing and emerging holistic network cybersecurity capabilities.   Further, since the O3b mPOWER satellites are constantly moving relative to a geographic point on Earth, and small channelized user beams are equally adapting to ever-changing user location and demand, unintentional interference is unlikely and adversarial instigation of intentional interference becomes extremely challenging.

Our O3b mPOWER High Throughput, Software Enabled Satellites allow SES to place many Gbps of low latency capacity into a single ~250km diameter geographic area if required or to spread that capacity across numerous beams in a large region and adapt it to the changing needs of our customers.  Satellites in the O3b mPOWER constellation have an estimated lifespan in excess of ten years, and the constellation itself only requires six satellites for a global equatorial to 50^o latitude coverage making our offering enduring and affordable for users.  Overall, O3b mPOWER provides superior capability to reliably address high throughput, low latency user connectivity requirements while being less susceptible to exceeding Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) regulations.

How are O3b mPOWER services delivered? What does the customer need to know?
SES, or via its U.S. proxy subsidiary SES Space & Defense for U.S. government customers, offers O3b mPOWER services in two primary operational constructs, “Commercial Managed Services” and “Sovereign Services,” sometimes referred to as “Transparent Mode.”

Commercial Managed Services are full stack integrated, operated, monitored, and managed end-to-end network services using SES defined and developed User Terminals. These enable users to experience low latency enterprise-grade connectivity with the highest possible uncontended throughput and maximum overall system efficiency.  This vertically integrated hardware and software stack enables SES to adapt capacity to ever-changing user demand moment-by-moment, creating operational savings that SES passes along to its customers.

Sovereign Services provides a technological advantage for customers who desire to define their own User Terminals, employ waveforms of their choosing, operate services from any location desired, add security solutions to meet operational requirements, or incorporate a host of other important mission-specific needs into their connectivity offering.  Sovereign Services provide users maximum flexibility while delivering low latency enterprise-grade connectivity with the highest possible uncontended throughput.  SES, offers two categories of Sovereign Services to global markets:

• Sovereign Capacity Services
• Sovereign Managed Services

Sovereign Capacity Services are low latency, high throughput satellite capacity offerings.  Customers define and employ their own ground infrastructure and User Terminals, and then interface with the SES backend network architecture to realize connectivity outcomes that meet their operational goals.  As a primer for deployment of customer owned Sovereign Gateway infrastructure, we also offer the possibility for customers to utilize a part of SES’s Commercial Gateways, referred to as Hybrid Sovereign Gateways, to securely host their Sovereign Capacity Services.

Sovereign Managed Services are network services exclusively tailored to address our customers’ mission needs. They are integrated and operated by SES, specifically SES Space & Defense for U.S. government customers.  Sovereign Managed Service users benefit from the scalability of in-place common ground infrastructure that can independently support many customers, minimizing time to operation, training, and sustainment while providing significant infrastructure and operational savings to users.

What’s in it for equipment vendors? How can they take part?
Within the realm of Sovereign Services, SES is working with reliable, high-quality equipment vendor-partners to ensure maximum operational flexibility for our customers. Each partner brings a differentiated value proposition to the O3b mPOWER solution, whether it’s a Program of Record waveform like the Enhanced Digital IF Modem (EDIM) or the Protected Tactical Waveform (PTW), by providing interoperability with existing infrastructure, or through delivering new capabilities for overall service enhancements.  Some vendors have capability certifications such as DO-160 or MIL-STD 810 for unique operational environments, while others offer operational enhancements like Communication Signal Interference Removal (CSIR) or state-of-the-art simultaneous multi-beam, or even multi-frequency / multi-beam connectivity.  Sovereign Services maximize a user’s choices to enable the desired outcome.

To be a part of the O3b mPOWER vendor partner ecosystem, solution providers engage SES to receive O3b mPOWER specific Government Technology Certification (GTC) Interface Control Documents (ICDs) through which they will enhance their solutions for use with the O3b mPOWER constellation. Once completed, vendor partners receive O3b mPOWER Government Technology Certification.  SES offers O3b mPOWER as a completely open-architecture solution enabling faster adoption of NGSO services – either as a stand-alone capability or a resilient and, if needed, simultaneous augmentation to other connectivity orbit options.

The post O3b mPOWER – A First of its Kind NGSO Capability appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

It makes sense. That information is critically important for the government and military decision-makers looking to lease space on satellites or looking to purchase managed satellite services. Also, space is exciting! These spacecraft of marvels of modern technology, developed in state-of-the-art facilities and then launched into space on literal rocket ships.

But what often gets ignored or swept under the rug in discussions between COMSATCOM providers and their government customers is the other part of the satellite equation – the satellite gateways. These unsung heroes of satellite communications are essential components of a functioning satellite network, but they’re infrequently discussed in the marketing materials and sales slicks of COMSATCOM providers.

But that needs to change.

Recent satellite technology advancements and some exciting new satellite services that are about to come online are poised to give government and military users more gateway options than ever. The result will be government and military users having choices in how they want to transmit their data, and how they want to secure it.

But before we take a deeper dive into the future of the satellite gateway, we have to better understand their essential role in the larger satellite network.

Gateways 101
The gateway has a function that its rather descriptive name implies – it is the gateway for the satellite signal. The data that is in that satellite signal needs an entry point in which to enter the ground terrestrial infrastructure, which will then deliver that data to the various end users that need it. The gateway serves as that essential entry point.

Whether the data that is being transmitted via that signal is an email, a voice call, or vital satellite or ISR imagery that’s imperative to the mission, it needs to be fed back into a terrestrial network somewhere. The gateway is the connection between the users on Earth and the satellites, helping move the data around the globe.

Historically, when a government or military user has leased satellite capacity from a COMSATCOM provider or leveraged a managed satellite service, they’ve only had one viable gateway option. In that scenario, they’ve been limited to using the gateways owned and operated by that COMSATCOM provider. But this is where things are starting to change and where the government and military are starting to have more options.

One size does not fit all
There are a number of reasons why using a COMSATCOM provider’s gateway and terrestrial network infrastructure is a perfectly acceptable option for government and military users. This infrastructure has already been purchased and deployed. It can be leveraged immediately with no additional upfront cost to the customer, and there are often service level agreements (SLAs) that ensure a certain level of uptime and resiliency.

This makes using the COMSATCOM provider’s gateways and networks more rapid, economical, and hassle-free. That could be incredibly enticing to individuals who don’t really care about the network that they use, the equipment that is in the gateway, or the security of the data – they just want to get up and working quickly and at a more reasonable cost.

However, there are also valid reasons why a government or military customer might not want to use their COMSATCOM provider’s equipment and infrastructure.

For a large global military with a large amount of resources, building out a gateway might not seem that expensive or difficult. And that added cost and effort could be considered well worth it for added flexibility, mobility, control, and security. In some cases, that need for control of the equipment and the security of the data could be a roadblock that keeps some military customers from adopting COMSATCOM services altogether.

Thankfully, the advanced technologies inherent in a new generation of satellite services – including the O3b mPOWER satellite service – give military and government users incredible flexibility in their gateway options. Upon launch of O3b mPOWER, four different gateway types or configurations will be available to users. These include:

• Commercial managed service gateways: These gateways are the previously discussed gateways owned and operated by the COMSATCOM service provider. In this arrangement, the user simply purchases the satellite service and the provider – in this case, SES – provides all of the requisite satellite capacity, gateway services, and even the terminal if the customer requires. In this scenario, the gateway, equipment, and network belong to the satellite provider – the end users simply get the service.
• Sovereign gateways: These gateways are at the opposite end of the spectrum from managed service gateways. In this arrangement, the customer is the owner and operator of the network – including the gateway, equipment, and terminals. They’re responsible for the purchase, installation, management, maintenance, and security of that hardware. The COMSATCOM provider owns and operates the satellites, transmitting the signal and providing the customer with bandwidth.

• Hybrid sovereign gateways: As the name implies these gateways are a hybrid of both commercial and sovereign methodologies. In this arrangement, the customer places their hub equipment within a commercial gateway, leveraging the use of the COMSATCOM fleet owners commercial terminal to link with the satellite, but using their own equipment to connect to their network.  The COMSATCOM provider provides space within their gateway for customers to put their equipment so they don’t have to build their own gateway.

• Transportable government gateways: These gateways, often abbreviated TGG, are smaller, more mobile versions of the large 5.5-meter permanent gateways, and are designed to be transported to where they’re needed. They can be used as a temporary gateway in cases where a customer may not need a permanent version, or as a back up to a permanent gateway.  They can also be used when a customer wants to be able to move their gateway to a variety of locations for mission reasons.  The TGG is transportable on both military and commercial aircraft, and comes with its own power source and a climate controlled unit to hold hub and other rack equipment.  The TGG is a essentially a sovereign gateway, smaller in size for transportability, but capable of performing full gateway functions on a customers network.

With the emergence of advanced satellite services like O3b mPOWER, government, and military customers are no longer stuck with a single gateway option. So, when choosing a satellite provider, they need to look at more than just the constellations in orbit – they need to look at and evaluate the gateways and terrestrial network options back on Earth to ensure they meet their requirements.

A commercial managed service would be the best choice if a government customer wants to get up and running with their satellite service quickly and at a lower upfront cost.. However, if security and control are essential, sacrificing that control for ease of deployment is simply not an option, a sovereign gateway or hybrid sovereign gateway would be the best choice.

To learn more about the gateway choices available to O3b mPOWER users, click HERE to watch my lightbox video.

The post Something New for Military COMSATCOM Users – Gateway Options appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

But as military and government SATCOM requirements become more complex, satellite providers are beginning to fine-tune the capabilities they provide to their customers by leveraging the best facets of all orbits to deliver blended and resilient, multi-orbit SATCOM services optimized to meet their customers’ needs.

To learn more about each orbit’s connectivity strengths and weaknesses, how SATCOM providers leverage an all-orbit strategy to fill orbital coverage and latency gaps, and how government and military applications can benefit from an “all-orbit strategy”, the Government Satellite Report sat down with SES Space and Defense’s Vice President of Product Management, Michael Geist.

Here is what he had to say:

Government Satellite Report (GSR): For our readers who may not be familiar, can you break down the differences between LEO, MEO, and GEO?

Michael Geist: The most basic difference between these three different orbits pertains to the altitude plane in which each satellite constellation resides. LEO is situated between about 300 kilometers to about 2,000 kilometers above Earth, with MEO sitting at around 8,000 kilometers and GEO about 36,000 kilometers.

GSR: And why do those altitudes matter?

Michael Geist: They matter for a variety of reasons pertaining to application and user experience, and two critical aspects of that involve latency – the time that it takes for information to travel from Earth up to space and back down again – and coverage in terms of how many satellites are required to enable a worldwide presence.

For example, when we consider global or worldwide coverage with a LEO constellation, it takes hundreds or thousands of satellites to provide constellation objective presence. Whereas MEO only takes six satellites to provide a worldwide presence, and GEO only takes three satellites for the same.

Another difference between LEO, MEO, and GEO is the typical satellite lifespan in each of the orbits. LEO satellites typically have about a three to five-year lifespan. MEO satellite constellations have about a 10 to 12-year lifespan. And GEO has a 15 plus year lifespan.

“As SATCOM service providers, we have to take into consideration how many customers there may be for a given application – and the market acceptable Average Price per Unit and Average Revenue per User  – are required to close a business case.” – Michael Geist

Those average lifespans are important to consider from a business case perspective because we can then think about how much the asset costs. And how often do I have to replace it? How much money does it cost and how long does it take to put that constellation into space? How often do my customers have to refresh their user equipment, and other things of that nature?

When developing a business case for providing SATCOM services, you have to consider the cost of putting a constellation into space and the associated terrestrial networks on the ground to serve customers, as well as the amount of capacity those constellations may provide to support the ability to service a number of customers. As SATCOM service providers, we have to take into consideration how many customers there may be for a given application – and the market acceptable Average Price per Unit and Average Revenue per User  – are required to close a business case.

Then we should consider what we can do with that capacity, and what we can’t, while also keeping in mind how much capacity there is per on-orbit asset. And does the orbit match the different applications that we may be trying to serve?

For non-geostationary orbits, service providers also have to think about the availability of a constellation in regard to the dwell time of the individual satellites over specific geographic latitudes. And by that, I mean that for inclined plane constellations, satellite dwell time at high latitudes far exceeds dwell time around the equator. If we look at a typical large LEO constellation, there may be thousands of satellites spending a majority of them dwelling at the highest latitudes, spending their least amount of time around the equator. That has an implication on the amount of availability that customers would have in areas that have the largest populations. In order to have more capacity near the equatorial region, you’d need more satellites in your constellation.

And then when you combine that with factors like equivalent power flux density limits around the equator for non-interference operation with GEO satellites, that has another impact on how much throughput at a given frequency that providers can push through a satellite and constellation. And how many satellites they’ll need to deliver the service they’re promising.

All of these different nuanced considerations come into play and have an effect on both the service provider and the user.

GSR: How do they differ regarding the SATCOM coverage, availability, and latency they provide? And which orbits are best suited for internet traffic, enterprise traffic, and broadcast connectivity?

Michael Geist: LEO typically has an end-to-end latency of under 100 milliseconds, which includes physical layer and network latency with perhaps some congestion depending upon where and how you measure it. There’s another metric that one of our aviation partners refers to called “stick-to-glass” latency. To understand stick-to-glass latency, think in terms of flying an unmanned aerial vehicle. There’s what you see on the screen, there’s you maneuvering a stick in your hand, and then the time it takes for the UAV to react to the stick maneuver. That’s typically referred to as stick-to-glass latency. There are other metrics as well like “User Experience Latency” which is quite similar to stick-to-glass latency but can be different for different user applications, for example machine-to-machine applications or human-to-machine applications.

“SES’s O3b mPOWER constellation is specifically designed for enterprise class services, whether they’re fixed, on-the-move, on land, at sea, in the air or even in space.” – Michael Geist

If we get back to stick-to-glass latency though, you’ll find that it’s typically around 250 milliseconds for LEO. MEO has a network layer latency of about 150 milliseconds but with a stick-to-glass latency of 250 to 350 milliseconds. GEO has a network layer latency of 650 to 850 milliseconds, but a stick-to-glass latency of a little over a second. Latency ranges quite a bit between the different constellations. But that doesn’t mean that latency is the only factor of importance when determining the quality of an orbit for a given application.

When you think about coverage, LEO has a very small coverage area. MEO has a medium coverage area, and GEO has a very large coverage area. From an application standpoint, GEO makes a lot of sense for broadcast applications, because you can transmit something once and reach a lot of users simultaneously. Quite the opposite is true for LEO. In LEO, to broadcast something, you have to broadcast many hundreds or many thousands of times to hit every user within a geographic coverage area, because of the small coverage area per satellite.

MEO is in the middle of that. MEO isn’t typically thought of for wide-area broadcasts however, because it’s highly efficient and very fast for enterprise-related applications. SES’s O3b mPOWER constellation is specifically designed for enterprise class services, whether they’re fixed, on-the-move, on land, at sea, in the air or even in space. GEO is clearly the best solution for broadcast traffic. I would argue that before the emergence of LEO, GEO was also a fantastic choice for Direct-To-Home Internet traffic in areas lacking other means of broadband connectivity. Companies like ViaSat and Hughes have been the predominant GEO space-based Direct-To-Home satellite internet companies. Then with the emergence of LEO – just from a fundamental technical and not necessarily a business case financial standpoint – LEO is probably the best technical solution for home internet connectivity.

For enterprise traffic, that’s where MEO finds its strength. It’s extremely fast, ranging from many tens or hundreds of Megabits per second to Gigabits per second in speed. It’s extremely efficient in terms of the waveforms that it uses. And it has a system latency that matches well with cloud-native applications. So, I would put enterprise traffic squarely in the area of MEO and what we do with O3b mPOWER.

GSR: Since some orbits are better suited than others in terms of coverage, connectivity, and low-latency requirements, is it possible for SATCOM providers to leverage all three to fill in each other’s gaps?

Michael Geist: Yes, I would say I think that we’re soon going to find a time when simultaneous multi-orbit connectivity is more commonplace or completely commonplace. I say that because frequency is a finite resource, and as demand per user terminal exceeds the availability of the finite resource from a single orbit or a single satellite to a single use or user terminal, then this will become more than normal.

“O3b mPOWER is certainly a relevant, high-value component of a multi-orbit strategy.” – Michael Geist

We’re already seeing this in the cruise market. SES provides half of a service offering with one of our cruise partners where we – as a prime contractor – have been contracted to deliver a blended MEO/LEO service capability because neither LEO nor MEO can solely deliver the types of throughputs that are required on their own. By combining them, the cruise industry gets the best of MEO for guaranteed enterprise traffic for business operations, crew traffic, and things of that nature – combined with the best of LEO for large amounts of best-effort internet traffic. Together, they meet the total aggregate throughput capacity requirements of our cruise industry partners.

I project that perhaps in the next 10 years, we will see that pattern find its way into the aviation market as passenger capacity demand continues to increase, and perhaps in other markets as well.

GSR: How does the O3b mPOWER constellation fit into the all-orbit concept? Is it capable of leveraging all three orbits in conjunction with one another to provide maximum scalability and availability performance to government and military customers?

Michael Geist: O3b mPOWER is certainly a relevant, high-value component of a multi-orbit strategy. In particular, O3b mPOWER is best utilized as an enterprise solution – with its low latency, extremely high throughput, fantastic frequency and network efficiency, and maximum flexibility in terms of waveforms and antennas – providing an interoperable solution with other orbital solutions that exist in the marketplace today.

In other words, the best multi-orbit capabilities will be the ones that do not require the user to have to install a different antenna for every service solution that they want to use. The best multi-orbit solutions will involve the ability for a user to integrate a single-user terminal solution that allows them to operate over multiple different orbits, either independently or – at some point in the future – simultaneously.

“Any application where SATCOM is the primary tether to a remote user’s network is going to benefit from multi-orbit solutions.” – Michael Geist

GSR: What are some government and military applications and use cases that successfully leverage all three orbits? What role does multi-band resiliency play when facing threats from near-peer adversaries?

Michael Geist: Any application where SATCOM is the primary tether to a remote user’s network is going to benefit from multi-orbit solutions. Our near-peer adversaries are going to attempt to eliminate our communications options, so as long as we have resilience relative to networks and orbits, then we’ll be in a better position, especially when our warfighters are on the front line. In some cases, SATCOM is the only option they have as far as reach back goes, so resilience is critical.

Government or military applications currently leveraging multi-orbit capabilities include things like aero command and control, aero ISR, naval applications where our Navy partners desire independent command and control, MWR functionalities, and land common move applications – and the number of examples is growing.

The number of examples 10 years ago was zero, and if it wasn’t zero it might have been one. I just named five or six different applications. If you talk to me in 10 years, I think we’re going to find other sets of applications where it’s becoming more and more required. It’s definitely an exciting time to be an integrated multi-orbit service provider.

Click the video below to watch Michael Geist’s full presentation on the value of all orbits.

The post Leveraging an All-Orbit Strategy for Government and Military Applications appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

To stay ahead of the threat, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is collaborating with its commercial space partners to ensure that warfighters are provided with satellite services and capabilities designed to outmaneuver and outlast the adversary. Last December, I had the opportunity to attend the DoD Commercial SATCOM Workshop, a special event – hosted by U.S. Space Command – where military and satellite industry leaders came together and tackled some of the DoD’s most pressing satellite communication (SATCOM) challenges, including how to ensure resilient connectivity and assured comms throughout special operations and warfighting missions.

DoD’s SATCOM Goals
One goal that the DoD is looking to achieve is quickly ramping up SATCOM services for special operations within hours of deployment. But with adversaries deploying space capabilities designed to degrade and deny connectivity and comms to the warfighter, the DoD wants to ensure that special operations SATCOM services are backed up with spectrum agility. When warfighting missions become more agile spectrum-wise, it becomes increasingly difficult for an adversary to narrow down its attack calculus.

Another goal that the DoD is getting after is to provide warfighters with SATCOM services that support multi-path communications in remote locations or extreme environments that lack terrestrial networks. Leveraging multi-path comms when executing operations in austere environments helps to ensure redundant, uninterrupted communications in the event an adversary was to breach, degrade, or deny any level of a mission’s PACE Plan.

Industry Answers the Call
A solution that the commercial industry is ready to put forward to support the DoD’s spectrum agility and multi-path comms goals is multi-orbit SATCOM. Providing the DoD with access to multi-orbit services that can switch spectrums mid-mission would ensure that warfighters are supported with resilient connectivity options and redundant communications pathways. Multi-orbit satellite capabilities would also give the military a competitive advantage in the space domain by making it increasingly difficult for adversaries to target and degrade an operation’s connectivity and comms services.

Last March, SES Space & Defense, Hughes, and ThinKom, successfully demonstrated these multi-orbit SATCOM capabilities. Together, the three companies proved their ability to effectively roam between SES’s satellite networks in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) and Geostationary Orbit (GEO).

When executing warfighting operations, if it becomes clear that an adversary is attempting to jam or attack a mission-critical satellite, having the flexibility to transfer mission services and capabilities over to another satellite in a different orbit guarantees connectivity resiliency and comms redundancy.

DoD Adopts Multi-Orbit Services
The DoD has taken notice of these multi-orbit solutions and plans to integrate them into its communications architecture. Last September, it was announced that the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory awarded SES Space & Defense with a multi-year contract to conduct tests to integrate space broadband services across a multi-orbit satellite network that would support the Defense Experimentation Using Commercial Space Internet (DEUCSI) program. The DEUCSI program intends to leverage commercial space internet (CSI) constellations with the ability to alternate between Geostationary (GEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), and Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites.

“An integrated multi-orbit, multi-band satellite architecture is a requirement in today’s contested and congested environment,” said Jim Hooper, SES Space & Defense’s Senior Vice President of Space Initiatives. “The DEUCSI program is a great example to showcase…multi-orbit, multi-band holistic approaches to deliver seamless interoperability to the U.S. Air Force to achieve unparalleled situation awareness and strategic advances for mission success.”

Last September, the DoD made another step towards adopting and integrating multi-orbit services when the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) awarded indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to satellite operators and integrators – including SES Space & Defense – for Proliferated Low Earth Orbit (PLEO) satellite services. Embracing PLEO services will deliver resiliency and assuredness benefits to DISA by having satellite capabilities that are both multi-band and multi-orbit.

“Today, the military is facing near-peer adversaries that have demonstrated their ability to disrupt, deny, and degrade our communications networks,” said Ben Pigsley, Senior Vice President of Defense Networks at SES Space & Defense. “Both multi-orbit and multi-band network solutions offer an elevated level of resiliency and increase availability to government customers.”

Events like the DoD Commercial SATCOM Workshop provide the private sector with opportunities to learn about the military’s top satellite and space challenges directly from DoD leadership. As the military and industry continue to foster this open dialogue, the private sector will be better equipped to redirect its attention and efforts toward developing and producing SATCOM solutions and services to support the DoD in reaching its goals.

The post DoD, Industry Tackle Connectivity and Comms Challenges at SATCOM Workshop appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

There are a number of things about these IDIQ contracts that are newsworthy and downright revolutionary for the DoD. First, this is the first time that a multiple award contract model has been leveraged to deliver PLEO COMSATCOM services to the government or military, a decision that DISA claims will, “…deliver capabilities to the warfighter faster and at [a] lower cost.”

The contracts are valued at $32,000 with a $2,000 minimum guarantee to each contractor. However, the total cumulative value of the contracts is $900 million over a period of five years. The government then has the option to add an additional five-year period of performance. Effectively, this gives the services and commands within the DoD the ability to acquire up to $900 million in LEO COMSATCOM services over a period of, potentially, up to ten years.

The 16 different satellite operators and integrators chosen for these contracts include:

• SpaceX
• Capella Federal, Inc.
• BlackSky Geospatial Solutions, Inc.
• SES Space & Defense
• Hughes Network Systems, LLC
• Inmarsat Government, Inc.
• Amazon’s Kuiper Government Services (KGS) LLC
• Intelsat General Communications LLC
• OneWeb Technologies, Inc.
• ARINC, Inc.
• Artel, LLC
• PAR Government
• RiteNet Corp.
• Satcom Direct Government, Inc. (SDG)
• Trace Systems Inc.
• UltiSat, Inc.

But the structure of the contract – as a new approach to acquiring COMSATCOM services – is just one aspect or element that makes it stand apart. The awarding of these contracts for what the military is calling “Proliferated Low Earth Orbit (PLEO) Satellite-Based Services” is illustrative of two major trends that we’re seeing as it pertains to the military in the space domain.

Integrating COMSATCOM
For the better part of a decade, the military has been debating whether to continue investing in its own, exquisite, purpose-built communications satellites or pivot to utilizing those developed and operated by commercial partners. While the allure of fully owning, operating, maintaining, and securing their own satellites delayed this shift, COMSATCOM innovations ultimately made it inevitable.

As Gen. Curtis Michael Scaparrotti (Ret.), former Commander of United States European Command, once told the Government Satellite Report, “Commercial satellite providers are the engines of innovation, providing capabilities today and on the horizon that are quite promising.” It’s this innovation that has pushed commercial satellite operators to expand into new orbits – including Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) and LEO – and has led to the development of new capabilities that could effectively integrate with the existing MILSATCOM satellites.

These new PLEO IDIQ contract awards show that the military has truly embraced innovative COMSATCOM solutions and satellite services, making them readily available to the DoD as an essential tool in enabling connectivity and communications at the tactical edge. They’re also evidence that proliferation into new orbits, frequency bands, and waveforms is seen as essential in the new reality that the DoD faces in space.

Embracing multi-orbit satellite
Once seen as a benign environment where nations could operate safely without disruption, space is now universally considered an austere, warfighting domain.

As Gen. Kevin P. Chilton (Ret.) recently explained at a Mitchell Institute Schreiver Spacepower Forum, “…U.S. Space Command now operates in a domain where threats are on the rise. Adversaries like China are increasingly seeking to contest this domain…[and] their capabilities include everything from ground-based direct ascent missiles, to electronic warfare, jamming, and co-orbital rendezvous satellites.”

In this environment, it’s not enough to simply proliferate satellite resources within one orbit. For true assurance and redundancy, today’s military will need satellite communications that are both multi-band and multi-orbit.

As Ben Pigsley, the Senior Vice President of Defense Networks at SES Space & Defense, recently explained, “Today, the military is facing near-peer adversaries that have demonstrated their ability to disrupt, deny, and degrade our communications networks…Both multi-orbit and multi-band network solutions offer an elevated level of resiliency and increase availability to government customers. Higher availability is critical to the command-and-control networks operated by the DoD.”

Aside from the benefits to resiliency and assuredness, the introduction of commercial services at different orbits has the potential to deliver new capabilities to the DoD. LEO and MEO satellite constellations offer lower latency and the ability to deliver fiber-like connectivity to practically anywhere on the planet – making them the perfect solutions for high-bandwidth applications that may not have operated effectively over traditional satellite connectivity from Geostationary Orbit (GEO).

But now that the DoD has a contract vehicle in place to acquire these services from 16 different providers, what should they be looking for?

Integrate not just operate
Not all of the satellite providers and integrators on the list are identical or offer the same services and solutions. In fact, some of the recipients that received PLEO contracts don’t even operate their own LEO satellite constellations.

So, what should the disparate services and commands within the DoD be looking for when looking to purchase PLEO satellite services through this contract? Here are three considerations that they should keep in mind when evaluating PLEO satellite service offerings:

1) A secure, integrated space and terrestrial network
True end-to-end satellite solutions require more than just space assets – they require an integrated terrestrial and space network that is capable of getting data and information to where it’s needed from anywhere on Earth.

Often, to build a true end-to-end solution, an established terrestrial network will need to be integrated  with multiple satellite offerings. Also, without a dedicated terrestrial network, data often needs to be moved through insecure methods to its final destination – including through the Internet.

If the DoD is going to benefit from PLEO service anywhere on the globe, they need to be working with a provider that can integrate multiple satellite constellations and its own established terrestrial networks to offer true, secure global connectivity that does not require sensitive military data being directed through the public Internet.

2) EM&C capabilities
For the military to have seamless command and control of its integrated space and terrestrial architecture, it needs enterprise management and control (EM&C). As Frank Backes, Senior Vice President for Federal Space at Kratos explained, “[EM&C] allows military and commercial satellite communications systems to be tied seamlessly into the terrestrial infrastructure.”

Any provider or integrator that the DoD considers needs to offer EM&C capabilities if COMSATCOM, MILSATCOM, and terrestrial networks are going to be integrated and deliver capabilities seamlessly to warfighters on the battlefield. As Backes further explained, “Among the goals of EM&C are giving more satellite link choices, reducing resource allocation times, improving bandwidth efficiency, and providing situational awareness to SATCOM.”

3) Experience building global solutions
Building a global, integrated MILSATCOM, COMSATCOM, and terrestrial network, and providing a managed service is complicated and requires both experience and expertise.

In some instances, terminals or gateways may need to be installed to make a global solution work where needed. In other instances, frequency clearances, approvals, and landing rights may be required for a satellite service to be used in other nations.

It’s important that the DoD works to identify the providers and integrators with deep experience and knowledge in building and operating global networks. This is the only way to ensure that the personnel with the connections and expertise are available to navigate these challenges and get networks operating seamlessly.

To learn more about the PLEO contract award from DISA and U.S. Space Force, click HERE.

The post 3 Reasons Why the DISA’s PLEO Contract is Revolutionary appeared first on SES Space and Defense.