Category: Uncategorized

Are we entering the era of Space 3.0?

We hear the name “Space 2.0” or “NewSpace” in the news frequently, often referring to a new market and technology trend in the space industry. What is it, and are we entering into a new era, which I call Space 3.0? In many ways, we are harkening back to the 1960s…let’s talk a look.

First, Space 1.0 has many characteristics which originated in the 1970’s and 1980’s under the Space Shuttle, planetary, and classified military programs. Space 1.0 programs require high quality and performance requirements, often have multiple payloads to meet many user needs. The original reason for these attributes was the high cost of the satellite and the launch. When the launch is a large fraction of the mission cost, the mission manager must focus on mission assurance and reduce risk to the utmost extent. This approach drives up the cost, sometimes to a point where the highest program risk is a cancellation due to cost overruns incurred to reduce performance risks (the cost escalation death spiral). Space 1.0 mission costs range from $250M to >$1B, as exhibited by the recent Decadal Survey missions. NASA and the DoD are still very much Space 1.0 organizations, as the risk profile and budgets are not organized around budgets <$50M, except for a few NASA Earth Science Technology Office programs.

Space 2.0 first came into being with several major events: the introduction of the CubeSat and ESPA standards for rideshares, the growth of SpaceX and low-cost launch, demonstrated viability of commercial remote sensing by Maxar and Planet, and lastly the introduction of megaconstellations. The megaconstellations drive down subsystem costs for the whole industry, thus making ESPA-class satellite buses more affordable. With Space 2.0, higher risk can be accepted as it’s possible to have spare satellites literally sitting on the shelf. Launch costs are in the range of $5000/kg for rideshare and $25,000/kg for dedicated launch, thus making the financial risks more palatable. Satellite sizes are typically between 4 kg for a 3U CubeSat and 200 Kg for a typical ESPA-class satellite. Space 2.0 missions achieve cost targets of $1M to $50M, depending on the size and performance of the spacecraft. With Space 2.0, the number of satellites launch are now dominated by commercial satellites, not government.

We are now entering a new era in the space market, which we call Space 3.0. First, the number of launch options both in terms of cost, volume, and orbit are significantly increasing. Dedicated launches now permit going larger than ESPA Grande, at 350 Kg or larger. In addition, SpaceX may once again radically change the launch landscape, this time with Starship. Costs as low as $100/kg are being advertised, although even a $1000/kg represents a 5-fold decrease. More significantly for some customers, there will be practically unlimited fairing volume (8-meter diameter). Achieving the appropriate orbit will be an engineering task accomplished by Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTVs) being built by several companies such as Spaceflight and Momentus. The next big trend will be the introduction of a “Space Internet” using Optical Intersatellite Links mixed with Ka-band RF communications, such as being developed for the Space Development Agency Transport Layer. Further commoditization of space subsystems will enable a “COTS+” approach whereby a basic spacecraft is customized to handle multiple payload variants. Examples of companies leading Space 3.0 are Blacksky, Satellogic, Capella, and PredaSar. The most important change in mission formulation is that with Space 1.0, the spacecraft development was a customized item, in Space 3.0 the spacecraft is the commodity and the payload is the key development.

What other interesting developments will Space 3.0 bring? We believe these include customized production, where a model run one year may be 50 Infrared Sounder weather satellites, and the next year a 50-unit run of space telescopes. We see very large monolithic structures being launched, such as the possibility of 8-meter diameter telescope, partially assembled in space. We see extended life mission through rendezvous and refueling. And most importantly, we see many new data products being generated, processed, and delivered to the ground or air in near real-time, enabling new commercial growth, science, and exploration of our universe.

What is the difference between NOAA, NASA, and Space Force weather satellites?

NOAA, NASA, and Space Force each operate satellites which contribute to our understanding of the weather but have different priorities, time scales, and acquisition approaches.

NOAAs mandate is protecting United States lives and property with operational (not research) satellites, with the planning occurring within the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESD(S). NOAA collects satellite data for ingest into Numerical Weather Prediction models supporting short-term and medium-term forecasts, which broadcast meteorologists use for the local weather forecasts. Importantly, NOAA coordinates with international weather agencies, especially EUMETSAT, sharing data for global weather models. NOAA does not develop the technology or acquire weather satellites, rather they work through NASA for these traditionally expensive procurements. NOAA also directly procures commercial data through the Commercial Weather Data program, in which, rather than owning satellites they buy Radio Occultation and soon other data. NOAA is prohibited by the General Accounting Office from developing new satellite technology so they rely on other agencies for this purpose. Current operational satellites include GOES series and JPSS.

In contrast, NASA’s mission is primarily atmospheric and climate science research which improves our understanding of the Earth, along with supporting NOAA acquisitions. NASA satellites such as AIRS have contributed to weather data. NASA Earth Science Technology Office has developed new weather technologies such as TEMPEST-D which measures precipitation. Recently, NASA Earth Science Division developed the TEMPO satellite for aerosol and air quality measurements, and the CYGNSS satellite constellation for Radio Occultation measurements of upper atmospheric temperatures and other properties. The governing document for NASA Earth Science priorities is the ESAS Decadal Survey, of which priorities such as 3D Winds, Planetary Boundary Layer, and Air Quality are typical observation interests.

In comparison, the Department of Defense is mission-focused, at a global and hyper-local level with a wide variety of data products including some not a priority to NOAA. In terms of responsibilities, Space Force is the primary acquisition and operation office for weather satellites, while the Air Force Research Laboratory supports technology demonstrations and prototype development. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center supports new weather data processing technology development and is the acquisition office for the Commercial Weather Data Pilot. The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) supports development of prototype remote sensing satellites specific to Navy METOC needs. Example satellites include the Defense Meteorological System Program polar satellite program and the NRL WindSat program. The governing document for DoD priorities is the 2014 Joint Requirements Observing Committee for Space Based Environmental Monitoring (SBEM). This document lists the 12-gaps in weather measurements, including  Theater Weather Imaging and Cloud Characterization. Unfortunately, the document was outdated by the time it was released, as it did not include Microwave and Infrared Sounding.

Regarding applications, Air Force 557^th Weather Wing provides the data processing and forecasts support for all the branches, except Navy. For the Navy, the Naval Meteorology and Oceanographic Command (METOC) provides the fleet with critical weather and oceanographic data. For the DoD, instead of a 5-day forecast, an example data request may be visibility in Kandahar, Afghanistan at 0500 hours from ground to 15000 ft. The increase in Uncrewed Autonomous Vehicle operations adds additional needs on DoD weather, as drones can be more susceptible to high winds, icing, and other unfavorable conditions.

These US government organizations work closely with each other to coordinate activities and leverage each other’s expertise. For example, Brandywine Photonics CHISI instrument started as a Phase II SBIR project and transitioned to a NOAA Phase III SBIR. Space 2.0 has changed the landscape of these collaborations, whereas formerly the organizations would team on one big satellite (failed NPOESS program), they can now each contribute one satellite to a hybrid space architecture.