The panel was entitled, “Developments in the Adoption of Hosted Payload and Smallsats for Government Use,” and it brought together industry leaders, government decision makers and members of the Hosted Payload Alliance to discuss the benefits that hosted payloads could deliver to government organizations, the challenges hindering hosted payload adoption and things industry and government could do – together – to overcome those challenges.

One of the panel participants was Earl White, a former Air Force Senior Executive and Intelligence Advisor at the United States Space Security and Defense Program. Earl’s contributions to the panel discussion resonated with me, since he spoke clearly and passionately about mutually-beneficial hosted payload programs that withered on the vine, and the reasons why – he believed – they failed. He also asserted that he had a list of steps industry could take to make hosted payload programs more viable, that he could provide offline to those in the audience that were interested.

We followed up with Earl following the conference to get that list from him, and to get his opinion on hosted payload in the military and government agencies. Here is what Earl had to say:

GovSat Report: In your panel discussion at SATELLITE 2016, you touched briefly on hosted payloads and their potential benefit to government and military organizations. Can you expand on that for our readers? Why should government agencies and military branches be looking at hosted payloads as an alternative? What can they deliver for these organizations?

Mr. White: As a career space intelligence officer I see hosted payloads from a mission assurance perspective.

I’ve been following the development of counter-space threats for many years.  Space is now a warfighting domain, not because of U.S. actions but because of large investments from countries interested in negating the advantages the U.S. has created through our use of space.  As current systems providing essential services to warfighters and policy makers come under increasing risk, hosted payloads offer a way to quickly improve resiliency.

A second big advantage, of course, is the cost savings from leveraging large commercial investments in the bus and primary payloads.

GovSat Report: Why do you feel we don’t see more successful hosted payload programs across the federal government? What keeps the government from embracing hosted payloads to fill more of their satellite and space requirements?

Mr. White: Hosted payload proposals seem to surface when a company has surplus SWAP (size, weight and power) in a future satellite system, and smart people see the opportunity to provide a useful service to the government.  The proposals I’ve seen often have substantial cost advantages over current systems, and yet almost always fail.

There are several reasons.  First, if the government needs a space-enabled service, there is probably an existing program of record to provide it. The program was competed and approved through a lengthy process that considered the available options.  The best way for a hosted payload to be embraced is to participate in that acquisition process, which for the Department of Defense (DoD) means being considered in an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Industry, however, operates on a much faster timeline than the government, and decisions on whether to fly a hosted payload often can’t wait on a multi-year government decision process. We just don’t have the decision or the funding processes in place to take advantage of the speed of the industry, and it’s getting even more critical with the emergence of New Space.

Second, the national security community must have confidence that the systems they use are going to be available when needed.  It’s fairly easy to have confidence when buying a commodity like COMSATCOM bandwidth, but it’s a much different calculus with a hosted payload.  Here you have to understand the health of the company—will the bus and primary payload make enough money to continue operating?  What happens if it doesn’t?  You have to have confidence in the cyber protection of a system you don’t control. You also need to know that primary commercial payload operations will not interfere with urgent government use of the secondary. We’ve seen examples of government-industry partnerships that work, but that isn’t yet a mainstream experience.

I think another reason is that national security space organizations like the NRO and Air Force Space Command have been extremely successful in what they do, and it’s a well-known business principle that the more successful a business, the more resistant to change. Why change what works? Unfortunately, the threat environment is changing dramatically and what is successful today is not going to be good enough for tomorrow.  Part of tomorrow’s solution – I’m convinced – is in hosted payloads. And the nation needs to learn how to leverage them effectively.

GovSat Report: What can industry do to help increase the number of successful hosted payloads programs?

Mr. White: I can think of several things. Industry needs a strategic approach that matches an end user’s needs. For instance, industry might match their future capabilities against the list of missions that STRATCOM wants to protect, and focus on a mission where they can add resilience to the current capability. It may be cost advantageous to add resiliency to a current system over the government fielding an entirely new constellation.

Second, a company with Independent Research and Development (IRAD) funds might consider working a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the DoD or National Lab to develop payloads that meet future government needs. Some of the labs are aware of the future national security space needs and are always eager to get rides into space.

The most important things, however, require the cooperation of the government.  Industry needs a much closer relationship with the acquirers and users of national security space. It is impractical for every company with SWAP to participate in an AoA, yet there needs to be a way for the government to understand and consider hosted payload options.

I’d recommend that industry look to the example of the Commercial Cell in the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC).  This cell was created by an association of competing SATCOM companies to represent their operational capabilities to the JSPoC with a small footprint and without revealing proprietary information.  I think this model might work with AoAs as well.

Finally, I think it’s important for industry to take note when they run into roadblocks to hosted payloads, and work with the government to define changes to regulations or laws.  We are in a dynamic and increasingly dangerous environment. None of us can afford to let regulations or laws stand when they no longer serve our needs.

GovSat Report: What does the government have to change and what does senior leadership have to do to increase the adoption of hosted payloads?

Mr. White: Today’s senior government space leaders understand the need for resilient systems and agile acquisitions and are already acting to make changes in their organizations.

You can see it in the National Geospatial Agency’s Commercial Imagery Strategy published last December.  I’m particularly eager to see what comes out of AFSPC’s Space Enterprise Vision (SEV), which I believe is now in review at the OSD level. I hope and expect that the SEV will direct increasing consideration of hosted payloads, and will provide mechanisms to make that happen. Still, the acquisitions organizations are going to need a great deal of industry help as they make the transition. I also see great promise in OSD’s Silicon Valley initiatives. They don’t yet address the New Space industry, but I’m hoping that the agile processes developed there will translate into much more agile space acquisitions—perhaps fast enough to match commercial decision making timelines.

GovSat Report: Where do you see hosted payloads in the next five to ten years? Do you anticipate that the government will overcome these challenges and utilize them more extensively? If so, where do you see them having the most adoption and impact – for civilian agencies or the military?

Mr. White: I fully expect national security space to increasingly consider hosted payloads as options for resilience and cost savings.  If they successfully build the needed processes – and industry responds with well-thought out, well-planned and well-designed options – we should see a real increase in the number of hosted payloads flying in the next decade.

The large LEO cross-linked constellations now in development would offer amazing opportunities for hosting government payloads, and are particularly attractive when integrated with traditional GEO ComSats.  It’s very easy for me to see opportunities in tactical ISR, missile warning, weather, secure communications and space situational awareness.

There are many that could add a great deal of resiliency to national security space. The key is getting the government to engage early enough with requirements for security and command and control, and to think through all the regulatory and funding hurdles well in advance.

To learn more about hosted payloads, click on the resources below:

• What is a Hosted Payload?
• Hosted Payloads Infographic
• VIDEO: Pete Hoene on the benefits of hosted payloads
• PODCAST: CHIRP team discusses program and benefits of hosted payloads
• PODCAST: Nicole Robinson on the benefits of hosted payloads for NOAA and other federal agencies

The post How government and industry can make hosted payloads happen – an interview with Earl White appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

One of the overarching themes at this year’s event was technological “disruption”. The theme wasn’t negative, as in satellite disruption from jamming or interference – although that was discussed at length – but rather optimistic in evaluating disruptive technologies that are going to shake up the industry and impact how the satellite industry operates.

High-throughput satellites (HTS) were atop the list of disruptive technologies discussed.

Every major satellite operator either has launched – or is in the process of launching – HTS satellite constellations. This new generation of satellites has the potential to deliver incredible capabilities and benefits to government agencies, military services and other users simply due to its incredible increase in bandwidth resulting from its ability to take advantage of frequency reuse. This means that each individual satellite can deliver exponentially more data at incredibly higher throughputs than traditional, wideband satellites.

This is extremely essential for military and civilian government organizations, whose demand for reliable connectivity extends beyond the reach of terrestrial networks and out into the field where SATCOM connectivity is the most viable option. HTS enables a high-speed, high-bandwidth experience that is accessible in even the most austere environments. HTS also enables many of the advanced capabilities the military needs in the field, including the delivery of high-quality, real-time intelligence data.

This need was echoed in the remarks of Aneal Krishman, who not only serves as a Principal at Veritas Capital, but also served in Iraq as an infantryman with the U.S. Army Reserve. During a panel discussion titled, “Disruptions and Opportunities: MilSatCom and ComSatCom in Both Space and Ground Segments,” Aneal said, “In Iraq, most of the bandwidth we were using and the technology that was set up, was over commercial networks that were dedicated to the government….for example, the drone program…”

But why is HTS considered disruptive? The answer lies in the cumulative launch of HTS satellites across the industry and the government’s corresponding ability to leverage the advanced capabilities. In some cases, one single HTS satellite can deliver the same capacity as an entire constellation of traditional, wide-band GEO satellites. The result will be the government’s ability to acquire more satellite bandwidth, capacity and capabilities without having to increase spending.

That disruption is important to the evolution of our national space architecture, especially today. Discretionary government funding for social programs, military modernization and homeland security priorities has proven to be limited, leaving many to cut back their spending and reprioritize where they’re putting scarce budget dollars.  Leaders on the various panels at Satellite 2016 certainly recognized fiscal realities and were actively engaged in discussions on how best to leverage the commercial market.

Cost efficiencies and budgets aside, there are other benefits to leveraging commercial HTS constellations. One of which is the ability to utilize this technology sooner.

COMSATCOM providers actively replenish their respective satellite fleets. This means that they’re constantly ordering, provisioning and launching new satellites with exciting new capabilities and innovative new technologies. This includes new HTS constellations that are now either launched or will be launched in the very near future.

The same innovative HTS technologies are available to the government through the satellite manufacturers, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and SSL. However, by the time they allocate budget dollars, compete contracts, select vendors, build satellites, schedule launch and bring that satellite online, years could have passed.

In those years in which the government was, “building it themselves,” there was most likely a similar satellite being built and launched – or already operated – by a COMSATCOM company. Simply put, integrating COMSATCOM into a wider architecture will facilitate technology insertion at commercial industry’s pace and deliver HTS technology to the military – and the advanced capabilities it delivers to the warfighter – much sooner.

This isn’t just sentiment or verbiage espoused solely by the COMSATCOM industry and service providers. Military decision makers have openly acknowledged their inability to keep pace with the COMSATCOM industry. In fact, Doug Loverro, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy at the Department of Defense (DoD) was quoted as saying, “In order to keep pace with the ever-expanding user need. And the users are incorporating new technologies – video, Internet, streaming services and more we haven’t thought of yet – as fast as the commercial world produces them on the ground. We can’t go ahead and maintain that pace of change in space. The only people that can maintain that rate of change in space is the commercial world.”

Mr. Loverro went on to identify many of the aforementioned economic and process challenges as contributing factors to this disparity between government and industry, citing the WGS satellite constellation as an example. “[The DoD] defined WGS in the 1996 budget that we submitted to the President. That system was defined twenty years ago. The systems that are being launched by the commercial world today were defined two years ago…three years ago. They’re not subject to the bureaucratic process and – quite frankly – the economic process that drive DoD decision makers. And that’s critical because it allows new technology to be ingested.”

The commercial satellite industry has proven quick to integrate leading edge technology into their fleets without significant delay.  The coming disruption of HTS will enable a broader range of COMSATCOM services and solutions to the government – all available at competitive price points.

My time at SATELLITE 2016 reinforced that this truly is an exciting time for the use of COMSATCOM across the military and federal government. The emergence of HTS technology and the launch of next generation HTS constellations not only will provide the bandwidth necessary for truly revolutionary IT services and capabilities in the field, but do so at a drastically reduced cost. The pace at which industry moves will expedite the availability of bandwidth, capacity and advanced capabilities to end users – delivering the connectivity of the future to the tip of the spear today.

To learn more about High Throughput Satellites, click on the resources below:

• High Throughput Satellites for U.S. Government Applications
• The Big Beam Boom (High Throughput Satellites)

The post The capacity is coming, the capacity is coming! Why now is the time for COMSATCOM in the federal government appeared first on SES Space and Defense.

Earlier this month, the GovSat Report editorial team had the opportunity to attend the SATELLITE 2016 Conference at the Gaylord National Convention Center, in National Harbor, MD. This four-day-long event – one of the satellite industry’s largest and most influential conferences and expositions – brought together industry leaders, satellite experts and government decision makers to discuss innovative new satellite technologies, industry trends and best practices in the use and acquisition of COMSATCOM hardware, services and solutions.

During the very first panel discussion I attended at this year’s event, entitled, “Developments in the Adoption of Hosted Payload and Smallsats for Government Use,” experts from private industry and the federal government came together to discuss the state of hosted payload adoption across government agencies, and the factors impacting their adoption. Surprisingly, the outlook wasn’t as positive as one would anticipate.

Hosted payloads have the ability to deliver an impressive list of benefits to government organizations, federal agencies and military branches. By hosting a government payload on a commercial satellite, government users can drastically decrease the total cost of putting that payload into space. This cost savings is achieved by splitting the expense of constructing the spacecraft and launch.

But cost savings is just one of the important benefits of hosted payloads. The use of a hosted payload as an alternative to the construction and launch of a government owned and operated satellite can get that payload and its mission-critical capabilities into space faster, since satellite fielding – and therefore the hosting opportunity – typically operates in a 36 month purchase decision-to-launch cycle, and since most COMSATCOM providers have a few launches during the course of the year simply to replace satellites and refresh their constellations.

The U.S. Government knows of these benefits and acknowledges them. According to Philip Liebrecht, the Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator and Deputy Program Manager of Space Communications and Navigation at NASA, “There are a lot of advantages of these hosted payloads when you look at them from the government’s vantage point. Especially from NASA’s standpoint. But the big ones are the potential for lower costs, the more rapid technology refresh, architecture flexibility…redundancy, robustness and resiliency. And all of those are important.”

Mr. Liebrecht’s comment brings up another very important benefit of hosted payloads that many ignore – they’re capable of making government satellite constellations and programs more secure and resilient. Government owned and operated satellites shine like beacons in the sky for adversaries. However, government payloads on commercial satellites are harder to identify. They also can be difficult to impact without also impacting other, non-governmental satellite capacity and capabilities. Attributes of resilience, including disaggregation, distribution, diversification, proliferation and protection can all be enabled and enhanced by the use of hosted payloads.

However, despite these benefits, the overarching tone during the panel discussion was one of exasperation and frustration due to the perceptively slow adoption of hosted payloads across the government.

This frustration was plainly and eloquently explained by Earl White, a former Air Force Senior Executive and Intelligence Advisor at the United States Space Security and Defense Program, who said, “I left government service last month after 27 years with the National Reconnaissance Office and Air Force Space Command…I left frustrated. In my last seven years in Air Force Space Command, I saw three major proposals for hosted payloads come through – and a few smaller ones as well – and in every case, they were going to leverage large commercial [satellites] and provide some kind of benefit to the government at bargain basement price. All three failed. In fact, every hosted payload proposal that I saw come through Air Force Space Command failed.”

Frustration aside, the panel did identify some solid reasons why hosted payload adoption has crept forward at a slower pace, and also identified some ways in which the military, federal agencies and industry can all work towards making hosted payloads a more trusted and relied-upon method for enabling satellite communications and capabilities. Let’s look at the causes first.

What’s Hindering Hosted Payloads?

Surprisingly…not much. Based on the discussions and presentations during the hosted payload panel, the biggest challenges for hosted payloads appear to be cultural and procedural. Or, as Al Tadros, the Chair of the Hosted Payload Alliance and Vice President of Civil Defense Business at SSL, explained, “Some of [the challenges] are real – such as scheduling and programmatics – and some of them are perception – such as culture and tradition – that have real manifestations that need to be addressed.”

Ultimately, the government and the industry operate at a different pace. They also differ in philosophy when it comes to the planning and execution of programs.

The federal government works at a much slower pace than private industry. The planning of government satellite programs needs to begin almost a decade in advance due to the large number of processes and amount of budgeting that needs to take place. Private industry operates much more quickly and with far less time to execute. This is where it becomes difficult to align government processes with commercial launch schedules. The government is often unprepared to meet such quick turnaround times, and private industry simply doesn’t work or plan as far out as the government does.

Then there’s the cultural issue. Many hosted payload programs are challenging programs of record. This is often a losing battle since many government employees at the program management level are hesitant to change, even when senior decision makers are in favor of it.
The federal government and military are also often concerned about the legal ramifications and issues that may arise from making certain commitments. Private enterprises simply looking for a verbal or written confirmation of an agency’s interest in a collaboration or partnership will be turned down by legal departments concerned that they’re angling the agency towards potential litigation. This cautious nature ends up torpedoing many hosted payload public-private partnerships before they even get off the ground.

An example of this was provided by Mr. White, who shared the following anecdote:

One of the [satellite] companies had investors that were ready to put money – big money – into a constellation, but they were a little bit nervous. And they wanted some kind of confidence that the government would buy this kind of service – and not much confidence, just a little bit. So I drafted them a letter for the Commander of Air Force Space Command to sign…The letter was very noncommittal and basically said that the solution was one that we might be interested in…Well this mealy-worded letter was sufficient for the investors until Air Force Space Command legal reviewed it and said, “no way…if this company goes out of business, they may sue the government…”

Coming Together to Make Hosted Payloads a Reality:

Although the challenges outlined above may seem relatively minor, they’ve managed to restrict hosted payload missions and deployments by the U.S. government to just a handful of notable programs. However, the panelists did present a few enticing ideas that can help both private industry and government entities come together to make more hosted payloads a reality.

The first concept is to be flexible when it comes to hosted payload models. Often times, a hosted payload program is a collaboration between the government, agency or military branch and its private industry partner. Panelists urged the `government to come to industry early in the process so that a collaborative solution to the government’s problem or need can be identified. Conversely, they also urged industry partners to work collaboratively to identify different models in which to implement a hosted payload, enabling the government entity to find one that both fits their needs and comfort level.

Next, the panel discussed some simple steps that can be taken to better align industry and government in the timing and execution of hosted payload programs.

Included in these proposed steps was the creation of a “train schedule” of launches that clearly shows the federal government when there are upcoming industry satellite launches that could play host to hosted payload programs. They also encouraged industry partners to provide a number of potential launch opportunities in succession that can give government entities options should they miss their initial target launch date. This is a step that Kay Sears noted was very effective in the successful completion of the SES and Air Force CHIRP hosted payload program.

Finally, industry needs to understand the financial restraints and challenges that federal government agencies face. Hard cost caps are a reality for agencies such as NASA, and industry partners need to work collaboratively to fit programs under them. Cost uncertainty also has to be eliminated to bring a hosted payload program from conception to completion, since significant cost overruns can cause the canceling of programs at cash-strapped agencies.

This was well explained by Mr. Leibrecht when he explained how hosted payload programs fail at NASA, stating that, “the most common case is that the cost of the hosting was just too high to come up with a mission that could fit within the cost cap. And in some cases – and as frequently happens with high technology payloads – there are changes in the payload as the development process takes place and all of a sudden there is a change in the requirements for the host. And those drive the cost up, and the mission is canceled. Cost is very, very important…”

Although there continues to be some frustration at the slower than anticipated pace of hosted payload adoption, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The government recognizes the benefits and understands what it can gain through more aggressive uses of hosted payloads. And the successful hosted payload programs – including CHIRP and the Air Force’s Pathfinder program – are setting the stage by eliminating uncertainty and doubt about the validity and ROI of hosted payloads. With some simple compromises and minor steps, the challenges can be overcome, and this cost effective, security-increasing and mission-expediting alternative can see even more rapid adoption.

To learn more about hosted payloads, click on the resources below:

• What is a Hosted Payload?
• Hosted Payloads Infographic
• VIDEO: Pete Hoene on the benefits of hosted payloads
• PODCAST: CHIRP team discusses program and benefits of hosted payloads
• PODCAST: Nicole Robinson on the benefits of hosted payloads for NOAA and other federal agencies

The post Frustration mounts over lack of government hosted payload adoption appeared first on SES Space and Defense.