ALEXANDRIA - In building satellites, functionality and agility have become of the utmost importance. Through time and in today’s rapidly evolving space industry, modularity, commonly referred to as a plug-and-play (PnP) capability, has shown significant promise—in commercial and military. With its access to speed and interoperability, modularity could be an answer to staying competitive in a largely contested domain.

PnP satellites: it’s not a new concept

The use of modularity and PnP capabilities within the space industry has been explored in the past. In 2008, the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), which was in many ways ahead of its time, showcased the successful assembly and checkout of a PnP satellite in just 4.5 hours, unlike the typical months to years for large satellites at the time.

“We wanted to look at whether you could build a satellite by simply plugging in payloads and within minutes the system would recognize the payload and configure it,” Dr. David Hardy (Ret.) told Constellations in an interview. Among many other roles within the AFRL, Hardy served as the Associate Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for Space and the AFRL Chief Space Experimentalist. He also directed the PnP initiative. “People forget that at the beginning of this century, the idea that small satellites could accomplish anything was [quickly rejected],” not to mention the insignificance of CubeSats, he stated.

Part of the Tactical Satellite Program, also known as TacSat, Hardy’s team began studying the functionality of smallsats, with a focus on agility. “As we looked at the concept of functionality and speed, the idea was, ‘could you produce an architecture that allowed you to assemble a satellite and assemble its payload much more quickly and at lower cost than it has been done historically?’”

While the commercial space industry has seen exponential change since, with many highly collaborative partnerships—or the SpaceX-types of vertical integration—the military still sees benefits from a modular approach.

Military focus: replenish & replace

“If you’re going to build a [proliferated LEO] system and put up a thousand satellites,” Hardy said, “you want to vertically integrate and figure out with subcontractors how to optimize production to the lowest possible cost.” The ability to replenish a capability at speed and augment selectively is what’s needed to remain competitive in an attritional space domain. “What you want to be able to do is what we do on an advanced jet fighter,” Hardy said, referring to the ability to mix and match weapons and payloads as needed.

The heritage from the 2008 PnP program is still in use today, Hardy stated. “There is an existing program within the Air Force working with commercial space to figure out how to configure, launch and checkout a satellite within days or hours,” he added. This work will be beneficial for today’s sought-after space responsiveness which is of increasing importance to the military. Modularity could therefore be the saving grace for replenishment and replacement in an increasingly contested space domain.

Twenty years ago, “the military was not yet convinced that we needed speed,” in the development and deployment of space capabilities, Hardy told Constellations. In fact, “around that time, the Air Force decided that they could take more risks in space because it was the ultimate high ground and didn’t need research on reusable launch.”

With the Air Force doing eight to 10 launches a year during the early 2000s, the analysis to continue to depend on expendable launch systems was defensible, Hardy stated. Since then, however, the elasticity of demand driven by the dramatic decrease in the cost of reusable launch has transformed the launch paradigm.

Today’s update: taking modularity for another spin

In Italy, a startup is hoping to “make space more friendly,” by offering modularity as-a-service to space companies, thereby reducing barriers to space entry. In a discussion with Constellations, CEO of SPiN (Space Products and Innovation) Ran Qedar shared his inspiration for the company.

Recalling his time as a ground segment engineer at the Dutch University of Technology, Qedar played a role in the European Space Agency’s (ESA) European Student Earth Orbiter program. The collaborative project, involving seven universities to build satellite payloads, presented a key challenge.

“It took us three months to develop the software, but it took 12 months to integrate it into the satellite,” Qedar explained. This led his team to ask two questions:

1. Why did integration take four times longer than software development?
2. Why isn’t there an existing plug and play capability on the operating and hardware systems, which takes data from different sensors and converts them for seamless software operations?

The answers led to the inception of SPiN and its Multipurpose Adapter Generic Interface Connector, also known as MA61C. The technology is a plug and play command and data handling system composed of hardware and software components.

While the hardware includes a small processing unit with a wide array of space market interfaces, the software component is a layered system that is able to receive, decode and compare data patterns to identify devices for seamless plug and play connectivity. “It’s an instant sync,” Qedar explained.

SPiN’s goal with its modular interface capabilities is to reduce the cost and time of building satellite systems. “[It’s] not just because of value but also because we see a lot of startups struggling with closing the loop between investment to financial return of having satellites in space,” Qedar said.

To do so, however, requires a certain element of trust among industry members and partners.

“We’re adding a device that does not exist in the current satellite configuration to something that is traditionally very well kept in a specific architecture,” Qedar continued. “It’s hard for [some companies] to evaluate the value of adding the device compared to the value that we give to reduce the time and cost of installation.”

The process requires a lot of education, Qedar said, often having to break down the lifetime, integration and safety of the newly introduced device. “Everything you add to a satellite has a risk, so we need to show them that we have heritage and it’s no risk,” he explained.

Additionally, Qedar said, engineers and designers have grown accustomed to the idea of very little options for change once the satellite’s design has been finalized. “Now we’re telling people, ‘You know what, you can design it but a few months before launch, you can replace something, and it’ll work.’”

Guaranteeing that level of trust to a community of innovators poses a difficult challenge, Qedar stated.

Still, modularity offers opportunity to many.

Democratization in space: play hard, work hard

As the number of space faring nations continues to increase, modularity offers an opportunity for a “slice of the pie,” to those with little access to the domain, Hardy mentioned.

Mathieu Luinaud, Manager at PwC Space, echoed his statements, explaining that nascent space nations tend to lack the industrial base available to the likes of the U.S., China, etc. “They don’t have the satellite assembly line, they don’t have factories to build a satellite,” he said. “For them, modularity is interesting because it helps reduce the need for this kind of specific manufacturing assembly lines and is a way to reduce the industrial footprint needed domestically.” Modularity additionally offers a shortcut for new space nations to engage in more diverse proprietary satellite manufacturing activities without having to build entire supply chains.

Modularity improves interoperability, making access to space more democratic. “It allows different actors to develop their own solutions without a deep knowledge of space systems,” removing the need for costly end-to-end solution development, an ESA spokesperson said.

Still, as with most technological advancements, challenges remain. “Usually with satellites, the level of optimization is extreme, so there is a need for tailor-making,” Luinaud said. Modularity must be compatible with high-end performance needs, he explained, which could put it at a disadvantage.

Similarly, modularity can only work if industry can agree on consistent standards. Only then, Luinaud explained, can different component manufacturers work together.

“This is a key challenge that we haven’t completely addressed at this stage and is one of the more regulatory and political discussions that needs to be undertaken.”

Explore more:

The Road to Interoperability: Plug-and-Playing at a Network Near You

3 Things to Consider for Better Interoperability

Mainstreaming Satellite, Embracing MEF Standards and Enabling Service Delivery in Minutes