Satellite Manufacturing in a State of Transition

Satellite manufacturing might be somewhat in limbo right now as operators look to see how the upcoming mega-constellations change the world of satellite communications. For manufacturers, however, there is no time to rest and wait, as they need to be prepared to satisfy their customers’ ever-growing needs, whatever they might be.

The requirements from customers are always ‘better, cheaper, faster,” says Andreas Lindenthal, chief operating officer and member of the board at Bremen, Germany-based, satellite manufacturer OHB. “For some of our customers — mainly the communication operators — the pressure in the market has increased significantly, therefore, they are not looking just for incremental improvements in this area; they are looking for disruption.”

What exactly that disruption might be is, however, somewhat uncertain. In addition to high-speed technology development, which is forcing operators to rethink traditional approaches based around large, long-lived Geostationary Orbit (GEO) satellites, there is a changing economic environment in which business cases are no longer as clear and stable as they once might have been. The operators need to be able to respond quickly and therefore require satellites to be delivered faster than what would have satisfied them ten years ago. “Satellite operators are telling us that they don’t have such a long term, stable unchanged business cases for 15 years, 20 years of satellite operation anymore,” says Lindenthal. “They are under pressure from their customers to have enhanced flexibility on the satellite from their side, therefore, they want to procure satellites, which are more flexible.”

In 2018, only eleven (or seven) GEO satellite orders have been placed around the world, a continuation of a decline that the industry has been witnessing in the past years. And while manufacturers believe that GEO satellite orders are likely to somewhat pick up in the future as companies order replacements for their aging fleets, it is clear that GEO satellite orders are no longer set to remain the indicator of the satellite manufacturing industry’s health as they were in the past. “There haven’t been many orders placed. People are waiting to see what the constellation performance is going to be like,” says Aidan Joy, the head of satellite assembly integration and test at Airbus. “The overall market is in a situation now where different business models are being analyzed. But whether it’s constellations, large GEOs or medium-sized GEOs, we will see those different business models mature and as a manufacturer we will need to be able to respond.”

Whichever the future direction, the manufacturers agree that the drive for more cost-effective solutions, shorter lead times, and increased flexibility is here to stay. The ways to meet the goal con be many, according to the manufacturers, with no one size fits all solution available.

End of a Beginning for OneWeb

Airbus is at the forefront of the satellite manufacturing revolution with their two production lines in Toulouse and Florida, where they produce satellites for the OneWeb constellation of 600 Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites.The first batch of satellites is set for launch iin the near future from the European spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, marking ‘the end of the beginning’ for Airbus according to Arnaud de Rosnay, the head of telecom satellites at Airbus Defense and Space. “Three years ago, we started from a clean sheet of paper,” says de Rosnay. “We had to do everything — the design, setting up the supply chain, building the factories both in Toulouse and Florida, and producing hardware.”

Airbus, one of the world’s leading spacecraft manufacturers, found itself in a rather unfamiliar territory. The company’s portfolio may have included daring missions to distant planets and some of the world’s most sophisticated GEO telecommunication satellites. With OneWeb, however, the firm had to move from years-long production of prototypes or semi-prototypes, to spitting out two satellites a day, while maintaining the highest level of reliability and quality. “In our existing facilities, we would make perhaps ten or twenty satellites per year,” says de Rosnay. “Now we are talking about producing thousands. It’s a complete change of scale in terms of having to be able to produce very fast very large quantities of identical satellites.”

Full Automation — Not the Way Forward

There have been many lessons learned for Airbus. The company realized that full automation —as used for example in the manufacturing of cars or planes — is not the right way forward. “We are not using a lot of automation as such,” says de Rosnay. “We have some robots and cobots but we didn’t see the case for the level of automation you could see, for example, in [the] automotive industry. While thousands of satellites might be a lot for the satellite manufacturing, the volume is still relatively small compared to let say cars or mobile phones.” Instead, he says, digital smart tools assist human operators to work more efficiently and make sure that every screw is as tight as needs to be.

“Every piece of equipment has a bar code and the tooling — which is used to fit the equipment, too — has a bar code, and you scan both and the tooling knows what level of torqueing should be applied on every bolt,” says de Rosnay. “Once it’s done, the data is recorded and it’s validated through 3D scanning. All this is really adding value to the assembly of the hardware and removing the risk of anomalies because we have to produce faster but still keep a high level of quality.”

A Collaborative Approach

One of the biggest challenges in getting the OneWeb Satellites production line off the ground was setting up the supply chain to be able to meet the volume needed for the manufacturing of the constellation. Similarly to Airbus itself, its suppliers in the past were only required to produce parts for a handful of satellites. As a result, Airbus had to engage with a variety of completely new suppliers frequently with no prior experience with delivering space-grade hardware. “For the supply chain we had a complete collaborative environment,” says de Rosnay. “Our suppliers became partners and we did a lot of collaborative engineering with them. This collaborative approach is changing the way we are working in space.”

The ability to use more commercial low-cost parts instead of bespoke parts made in individual units helps drive down cost and reduce lead times, de Rosnay says, adding that Airbus is now implementing lessons learned from the OneWeb Satellites exercise in other areas of its business to achieve better efficiency.

Better cooperation and communication between engineers designing new space systems and manufacturing managers is among the strategies that American space giant Lockheed Martin uses to slash lead times and cost. “It’s about making sure that our engineers create designs that are efficiently producible,” says Lockheed’s spokesman Mark Lewis. “If you don’t have technical people designing in the parameters of the tools that the manufacturing groups use, that creates barriers and speed bumps.”

OHB’s Lindenthal stressed the importance of increased exchange of information between suppliers and system integrators in order to cope with the growing expectations of customers in the most efficient way.

The need for cooperation and communication extends to the customers as well, according to Joy. Only by understanding the customers’ needs can the right solutions be found.

Stockpiling on Flexible Satellites — A Way to Reduce Lead Times

According to Lindenthal, not all constellations of the future will require hundreds or thousands of satellites. Smaller Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) or LEO constellations consisting of tens of spacecraft might prove a more economically viable solution for many operators. Manufacturing of such systems will thus require a rather different approach compared to that used by Airbus for OneWeb.

One way to meet the requirement to deliver satellites to customers in a shorter period of time would be to manufacture flexible satellites with programmable payloads and keep them in stock for the customers to purchase whenever they need. The approach, while presenting economic risks, could allow operators to launch new satellites within two months from ordering them. “We can produce a fully flexible satellite in terms of the satellite platform and the payload,” says Lindenthal. “Once the customer would know the specifics of the mission, we would just build the software. Software defined payloads could be adapted very quickly.”

According to Lindenthal, providing a satellite with a new payload has taken up to three years. With flexible software-defined payloads, the task could be accomplished within a few months. Moreover, even with the satellite in orbit, operators could reprogram the payload to suit the changing needs at any time. The satellite platform itself would support flexibility, providing the ability to change position and reorient itself once in orbit. “Maybe after three or five years of satellite operation in a certain position for a certain application, you could reconfigure the same satellite, starting a new mission,” says Lindenthal. “You don’t need to launch a new one. You would have a flexible payload and active antennas, which could be reconfigured later in orbit.


Airbus’ Aiden Joy believes that flexible payloads are key for future GEO missions, offering customers the benefit of using an asset for a long period of time and at the same time the ability to change the mission’s specifications. “At the moment the operators are in a decision period about what the optimum solutions for them might be,” says Joy. “In general, once you launched a capability, obviously the longer the life can be, the more cost-effective it is. If you can build in flexibility with things like flexible payloads, you can extend the life and potentially be able to use it for different missions.” Airbus hopes to cut lead times for large GEO satellites from three years to 18 months. The way to achieve that, Joy says, is in greater standardization and modularity of spacecraft.

Airbus’ upcoming Eurostar Neo GEO bus has been designed not only to be customizable, but also modular, so that the mission can be scaled up or down based on the requirements.

Further improvements can be achieved with the implementation of new manufacturing techniques including additive manufacturing, digitalization, and the use of big data to optimize design and manufacturing. And whilst no one knows in which direction the market eventually decides to go, the need for flexibility might in the future apply not only to satellites and payloads but to satellite manufacturing itself.

“We need to be ready to respond wherever the market goes,” says Joy. “We need to have the flexibility in our systems to be able to build whatever the market needs. It’s possible that in the future, we will be building significant numbers of geostationary satellites over a period of a couple of years and then we may need to switch to constellations.”

The world of satellite manufacturing is clearly changing. But where exactly it will go in the future, only time will tell.

3D Printing — An Enabler of a Satellite Manufacturing Revolution

U.S. satellite manufacturer Lockheed Martin is on a mission to slash lead times and cost of satellite manufacturing by 50 percent. One of the company’s key tools for achieving this goal is additive manufacturing, or 3D printing. Whilst the space industry has been a rather slow adopter of the disruptive technology, Lockheed’s additive manufacturing manager Brian Kaplun says that the technology has made some massive strides over the past few years and is now very much in the mainstream.

Lockheed’s first 3D printed part was a bracket used on Nasa’s Juno mission to Jupiter, which launched in 2011. Since then, the company’s catalogue of 3D printed components has expanded massively with the latest achievement being two large titanium domes for high-pressure fuel tanks to be used onboard satellites. At 46 inches (117cm), the two domes are the largest 3D printed structures Lockheed Martin has ever created for space applications. “We are able to additively produce thermal structures, we can now build entire bus structures for smaller satellites in one fell swoop, we can incorporate electronics into our design and then build them as one cohesive unit,” Kaplun told Via Satellite. “We have additively produced propellant tanks for a range of commercial and governmental customers.”

What in the past could have taken years to make can be manufactured within months or weeks with 3D printing. The propellant tanks, for example, using the traditional forging technology, would have had lead times anywhere from a year and a half to two years,” says Kaplun. “With additive manufacturing we have produced an equivalent for the forgings in two weeks.

Additive manufacturing, Kaplun says, allows Lockheed Martin to make preforms for parts that would traditionally take a long time to make or create bespoke tools for traditional manufacturing. Thanks to the technology, the company can also experiment with new materials at a faster rate. “3D printing allows for a much more rapid turn,” says Kaplun. “We can get test articles to customers and to our material analysis. It’s really an enabling technology for our material science.”

From metals such as titanium or aluminum to polymers doped with additives with electrostatic and electrical properties, the range of materials Lockheed Martin’s engineers can use to create satellite parts is expanding. Recently, the company developed a printable form of copper that can be used to print antennas directly onto structures.

In April 2018, Lockheed announced it would cooperate with Stratasys to make bespoke 3D printed parts for the Orion spacecraft, which is set to take people to the Moon in the early 2020s. VS

previousConversations in Paris Offer a Number of Talking PointsnextBehavioral Targeting