SatNews

2025 Silicon Valley Space Week Updates

The Dual Use Dilemma “It is dual use or die”

By Chris Forrester

Chris Quilty (Co-CEO, Quilty Space), and a very well-known industry consultant and adviser, delivered a fascinating  Keynote for delegates at the Silicon Valley Space Week’s MilSat Symposium on October 30. He was introduced by Silvano Payne, publisher of SatNews, who thanked Quilty for standing in for a speaker who was not able to attend because of the US Government’s shutdown. Chris Forrester reports.

And while Quilty might not be in an Army or Navy uniform, his knowledge of the military and commercial segments of the satellite industry made him more than well-qualified to address the ‘Dual Use’ conundrum. 

He reminded delegates that on November 7 the US Secretary of Defense/War Pete Hegseth would be holding a special meeting to discuss major defense acquisition reform. “We’ve never heard that before,” said Quilty. “Evidently this is all about speed, and getting things done.”

Quilty rhetorically asked, “What is dual use? Is GPS dual use, for example? One might argue that it is not dual use, but when one sees how GPS is being used in Ukraine and I think it is dual use.”

“How about Play Station2? Is that dual use? Everyone might smile but because of the processors on board the device the Japanese Trade Ministry in 2000 listed it as a dual use product and placed all sorts of restrictions on access to it.”

He told delegates that semi-conductors in the recent past had been declared as restricted products. “Today, it is almost ‘back to the future’ because there’s now talk of restrictions being placed on some products.”

Quilty advised that – in the US – there are two core definitions for dual use: the US Munitions List which is administered by the State Department and is specifically designed to cover items that are military including missiles, rockets and their associated items. Then there’s the Commerce Control List, which is administered by the Dept. of Commerce, and covers commercial products which have a potential dual use but are not inherently defense related. These are the two restrictions which government imposes on industry.

“Historically, if your product was on a Control List then this wasn’t a good thing. Investors certainly would not like it given that it would mean restrictions n what you could do with your product. Indeed, there are many new businesses which would include in their slide deck when making a pitch that their product was ‘dual use’. But today’s situation is somewhat different, the world is on fire and we have conflicts around the world. Defense spending is on the rise, and it is difficult to keep track of the major government activity around the planet. Only this week Germany announced plans to build its own $9.5 billion secure LEO constellation, and this is in addition to IRIS2.”

He said that ‘Defense Tech’, not something that was categorised a few years ago, is now a major segment. Space and Defense is ‘hot’ and the reality is that investors are actively pursuing businesses that have dual use in their portfolio.  The appeal is obvious: having government involved is a solid positive, and in many ways is a source of free capital and a considerable level of stability that is hard to find in the market place. 

“Last year, for the first time ever, we saw the Dept. of Defense as well as the Space Force both issuing their commercial space strategies. The DoD made it clear that they wanted to lean on the commercial sector. One application that was made clear would remain under government control, and that was GPS. However, there have been a slew of commercial investments in Position, Navigation & Timing (PNT) products, including Iridium only last week. In other words, even though a product might seem to be walled off, there are commercial opportunities.”

Recent commercial developments have included commercial launch programs, commercial crew, Moon missions, and now the Space Development Agency which has brought in dozens of commercial businesses.

The Trump administration has come in like a whirlwind, and whacked many programs and upset people in the process. The message is clear, that the administration wants to shift from government-driven programs to more commercial. “But if NASA is not building weather satellites, then who is?”

Quilty said the new rationale was to boost speed, but also to tap into the speed of new innovation. “Tanks and cold steel products are being moved aside in favour of new technology. Drone warfare and cyber/electronic warfare is where US adversaries are moving. The other reason for change is that government is no longer the key source of technology development.”

He added that VC investment in the space-related and defense sector is also booming. US government investment in the Golden Dome might end up being billions of dollars, but this would prompt far more cash coming from private investors in related activity.

Quilty said the logic for dual use was inescapable. “It is dual use or die. Government does not have the cash to do everything on its own. It is a marriage of convenience. We are also changing from a government-dependent spending model to commercial supply. And the herd is moving very quickly. The risk profile is also changing. Government used to be the safe place where you could depend on the long-term view. Now, commercial companies are investing in alternate solutions. Will Golden Dome work, who knows! But I do know that the spin off commercial benefits, from dual use, will be tangible. I am a fan of Golden Dome.”

Golden Dome: Strategic Implications and Opportunities for the Satellite Industry

By Chris Forrester

Silicon Valley Space Week’s third day of discussions and networking, as part of its MilSat Symposium, focused on the proposed US Government’s significant ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense scheme, and its likely benefits for the space and satellite industry. Chris Forrester reports.

The Golden Dome system is a proposed multi-layer defense system for the United States, intended to detect and destroy various foreign threats—including ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles—before they launch or during their flight. Some of the panel, fresh from viewing the reality – or otherwise – of the Netflix hit ‘A House of Dynamite’, at least could see the problem, if only from Hollywood’s point of view.

Indeed, the movie, which aired last weekend, was mentioned by the panel who begged those who had seen it not to reveal the ending!

Chris Quilty (co-CEO at Quilty Space) moderated the top-level panel which comprised Tom Barton (CEO/Co-founder Antaris); Tim Lynch (VP/Space Security Missions Mission Strategy & Advanced Capabilities, Lockheed Martin Space); Matt Magaña (President, Defense & National Security, Voyager Technologies); Patrick Markus (VP & GM, DGSD Hughes, Hughes Network Systems) and Rob Mitrevski (President, Golden Dome Strategy and Integration, at L3Harris).

The panelists did not quite have dollar signs in their eyes, but each of the companies were enthusiastic supporters of the plan. 

Tom Barton explained his company is focussed on the simulation of aspects of the Golden Dome including missile activity. He said the ideal situation was for a ‘vendor neutral’ policy to be employed. “Golden Dome is going to be difficult,” he admitted.

Matt Magaña told delegates that Voyager and had a portfolio of technologies capable of going into Golden Dome including guidance and navigation as well as propulsion systems for weapons and space and including AI and Machine Learning aspects. He said the industry needed to see budgets in place and then there could be discussions with supply-side vendors – and the necessary investment – as part of the overall plan. With the government’s shutdown there is considerable strain on the system as far as information flow was concerned.

Tim Lynch from Lockheed Martin said that for the best part of 50 years it had been an industry leader in missile technology and defence-related products. He said the first tactical objective was to sense [an incoming event], then to enable a response. He added that while the name of the project was new, in reality the US defense sector had been working on the challenges for years. Intercepting missiles was not new, although using a space-based missile was new but was a key part of the Golden Dome’s layered approach.

Patrick Markus from Hughes said their focus was on ground systems, tactical networking and the communications networks for Golden Dome. He said there is now an energy in this renewed problem which was good for the industry overall. 

L3Harris’s Rob Mitrevski said that the government’s Executive Order needs covered a variety of steps, from regional to national, to international, and from defense of the homeland to wider activity. “We see ourselves playing a part in each of these steps”. He said that the Golden Dome plan sets out the vision for the project and the reason is the threat from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and woild be a ‘call to action’ for the US.  “We all know how to handle certain parts of the architecture but also the three tiers of the supply chain so that it works as one,” he suggested.

Mitrevski also said that L3Harris had already invested its own cash in projects that would have a relevance to Golden Dome, including new buildings and production possibilities. “You cannot wait for demand to come. We have to be ready,” he stated.

The panel agreed that Golden Dome was all about focus and improved readiness. There were plenty of reasons why government money had been diverted to other tasks and places in the past but today’s threats were very real. Indeed, it wasn’t about taking out a missile or two from a rogue nation but a much wider readiness against threats. There would certainly be a high cost, however while the complete architecture was not yet fully known it was difficult to price or provide a timeline.

There was also agreement that human system control would not be fast enough and all the systems would need to be automated although with appropriated controls in place. 

One audience question asked what if the Trump administration was not around in 2028, and could the whole Golden Dome project be cancelled? The panel admitted that could happen – although unlikely – but if cancelled then today’s investments would be transferred to other projects and satisfying existing demand. The concept of ‘dual use’ is valuable and very much in the mind of the panelists and a good insurance for the future. There were also benefits that would flow from Golden Dome developments, not least Earth observation as an example. 

Spectrum at a Crossroads. GEO, MEO, LEO, HAPS and Drones all need access

By Chris Forrester

There were apologies all around because of the US government shut-down meant that actual military personnel at the Silicon Valley Space Week’s Milsat Symposium on October 29 at Mountain View, were thin on the ground this year. Normally, the event has plenty of uniformed and more casually dressed military participants. However, moderator Ahsun Murad (Co-founder/President & CEO at Optimal Satcom) promised delegates that his panel would more than cover the missing attendees with their skills and insights. Murad’s expertise covers civilian and military users, both US and foreign, so he promised a valued perspective to the question of Spectrum at the Crossroads: Commercial Ambitions, Government Priorities and Global Gaps. Chris Forrester reports.

Murad’s panel were certainly capable of important insight and comprised Janna Lewis (SVP of Policy & General Counsel, Astroscale U.S.); David Radi (VP/Government Solutions, Omnispace, but who in a ‘previous life’ had been an intelligence Naval officer) and Randy Segal (Partner at Hogan Lovells US LLP) and who – in one life or another – had worked in the sector for some 35 years.

Murad highlighted a pair of massive spectrum deals this year which involved EchoStar (AT&T for $23 billion, and the $17 billion with SpaceX) and thus proving the value of spectrum and surprising many observers. He asked his panel how they saw the transactions. Randy Segal suggested that the two deals should be separated, saying that the AT&T terrestrial transaction was dependent on well-understood and traditional valuations of $/MHz ‘pop’ and was a relatively straightforward calculation. The satellite deal with SpaceX was a very different creature and was a much more complicated calculation and concerned filing priorities, regional priorities, GSO vs NGSO, bringing the spectrum into use, and the perspective of actually selling satellite spectrum. 

Segal added that this was the first time that there had been a significant sale of satellite spectrum to be used in a novel venture such as that planned by SpaceX. She reminded delegates that the recent deal between Ligado and AST SpaceMobile and cash paid to clear spectrum, and then for the spectrum to be shared by different users (including Inmarsat, Ligado and AST). She stated that Charlie Ergen’s sale of S-band spectrum – as with L-band – was extremely valuable because of the nature of where the spectrum sits within the band. It can close the communication link, and thus is quite valuable. The challenge now comes from the regulators and their approvals or modifications to the scheme and include power transmissions which might end up at the ITU and thus is much more complex. “The SpaceX spectrum purchase was a very big number”.

Omnispace’s David Radi told delegates that his company was sitting on 60 MHz of S-band spectrum, and whether worth $17 billion, or $19 billion, “We – in the past – had asked ourselves why didn’t people see value in that spectrum”. He added that now he had a bigger smile on his face!

Omnispace’s business model is Direct-To-Device, whether IoT, or handheld, it was important. He admitted that his spectrum wasn’t going to support movie streaming but for government applications it was perfect and could serve many purposes. It was also good for automotive.

Murad added that LEO and MEO, both being global, were no longer regional players (as GEO is). He asked the panel what this meant in terms of challenges. Astroscale’s Janna Lewis said her aim was to secure spectrum for specific applications and gave as an example ‘on-orbit servicing’ that simply had not been imagined. “We look for opportunities, but we talk to the FCC and ITU about spectrum and is a core part of our business.”

Lewis said that the time-scale for any sort of change, and the ITU is typical, “was glacial”. The ITU only meets every 3 to 4 years to take a fresh look at spectrum allocations and whether there was a need to update what – in essence – were treaties between nations. Those decisions flow down to the sovereign nations. 

Segal stressed that the world had not ended for geostationary satellites. Broadcast, satellite radio, satellite TV and other broadcast services and for nations which just want to cover their country, all depend on Geo. In fact the smaller geo satellites now being developed, which are less costly, can suit much better than LEO. So, that spectrum is still being used and is important.  Moreover, that country being served is not going to let go of that spectrum. This affects new systems coming up, new services coming into play, and NGSO needs but you still have GSO systems that are needed. Indeed, the simple laws of physics have not allowed these demands to co-exist. She reminded delegates of the needs of the International Space Station and the growing number of commercial space stations, and their demands on sending and receiving messages. It means you have spectrum demands at GEO, MEO, LEO, VLEO and even on drones and High Altitude Platforms (HAPS) that need spectrum. She said the industry needed solutions, such as laser/optical developments which could help.

Radi then raised the topic of the half-ton Gorilla in the room, and the obvious problem of interference, and how to mitigate that interference. “It has to be worked out,” he argued. Omnispace is in the process to merging with Lynk Global under the helpful stewardship of SES which will then be a major investor in the resulting business. Radi said Omnispace’s frequencies are “right next” to an ordinary cellphone’s frequencies. “Bringing all this together is critical and key to our success with our investment,” he added.

Murad asked his panel what the differences were between the other Direct-to-Device players including Starlink, AST, Lynk, Iridium, Apple/Globalstar and Viasat. “What are their strategies, and do they have the spectrum,” he asked.  Segal reminded delegates that the D2D ambition is not new and had been around for many years with Ligado (formerly known as LightSquared) but it never came to fruition. Omnispace uses satellite spectrum for D2D. AST’s model began with MVNOs (the Vodafones and AT&Ts of the world) who would use their own spectrum to tap into the AST system. AST use of L and S-band would supplement that activity. The Apple/Globalstar model is not wholly clear how their relationship with T-Mobile would be used. Starlink is different again.

“But key to all this is the chipset. You must have a chipset which works and where the cellular operators and the satellites work together to make a service happen,” Segal added, but also expressed the view that she saw Europe’s D2D strategy being different again, and a European partnership emerging. She said that she expected Europe to remove the S-band frequencies from EchoStar because they were not used. “It is the same with L-band, because other than Inmarsat there’s nobody using the wonderful L-band around the globe, although the Viasat scheme (with Space42) could make use of it.”

Omnispace also admitted that while it had its 60 MHz of spectrum, it was not available over North America or Europe, so SES was expected to have to help to “crack that nut”. Radi added that Lynk is building its own satellites and the backing of SES will be extremely helpful overall.

Nevertheless, the panel was optimistic. It barely had time to discuss the spectrum needs of ‘in-orbit’ servicing and where the ‘space tug’ would cross orbits and frequencies, or the upcoming satellite C-band FCC 2027 auction, or  reversing the “glacial” progress of some of the world’s regulators. But they were optimistic.

Viasat commitment to D2D explained

By Chris Forrester

Silicon Valley Space Week’s second day, and part of its Satellite Innovation sessions, saw delegates enjoying a detailed update from Viasat’s Kevin Cohen (VP/Direct to Device, Strategic Partnerships), who delivered a Keynote. Chris Forrester reports.

Viasat, by any measure, is an important player in the satellite sector. A few weeks ago it announced a joint-venture with Abu Dhabi-based Space42 for a Direct-to-Device constellation in a new low Earth orbit project called Equatys. Space42 owns the Thuraya satellite system. The new scheme is anticipated to be capable of supporting well over 100 MHz of harmonized MSS spectrum already allocated across more than 160 markets. The new project is expected to establish a foundation for reliable global communications with commercial rollout targeted within 3 years.

Viasat is also just days away from launching its latest ViaSat-3 F2 geostationary satellite probably on November 5 subject to the usual weather conditions at the Cape. The satellite is expected to more than double Viasat’s bandwidth capacity.

Its most recent revenue results for its first-quarter declared on August 5 were $1.171 billion (up 4% year on year).

Kevin Cohen updated SVSW’s delegates with Viasat’s latest news and developments and in particular on Direct-to-Device and Equatys. He said that there were satellite proprietary hand-helds in use (Globalstar, Inmarsat, Iridium and Thuraya) but these would – in his view – migrate to a single hand-held that was already in everyone’s pockets. But smart phones were just one aspect. There were vehicles, aircraft, maritime and emergency services to be connected. 

“This is all good news,” he said. “So, what’s the problem?” The core problem, he explained, is the capital intensity to acquire spectrum and deploy services He explained that Viasat’s approach was to share infrastructure to save cash, and yet end up with meaningful services to many users and at the same time achieve standards and seamless roaming and handing off of a signal. 

He added that the cellular industry had over time densified coverage, and continued investing in spectrum. But he said that Viasat thinks it can harmonise spectrum and supply a price-per-gigabyte that’s potentially profitable for all concerned. However, the satellite industry needed to adopt standards to prepare for extended interoperability, and which would facilitate innovation and choice. Innovation is needed to get close to parity as far as pricing is concerned with terrestrial operators and which would lead to mass adoption.

Cohen said Viasat did not believe that one space-based operator would dominate. But there must be interoperability and portability between competing solutions. 

He stressed that its j-v in Equatys need not be limited to Viasat and Space42, but was open to other players and then seamlessly integrated with terrestrial networks. It will have a global reach, he said, and at launch would supply orders of magnitude better than was available today.

Cohen said he expected services such as Zoom and Microsoft’s Teams would be possible as part of the evolution of the technology. October 14 saw the telecom arm of the United Arab Emirates’ sign an MoU with Equatys covering their expected adoption and harmonisation of the satellite service over time, and extending beyond the Emirates own border.

Raising the cash. Getting the ‘block & tackle’ right

By Chris Forrester

Silicon Valley Space Week’s second day, and part of its Satellite Innovation sessions, kicked off with another busy room to hear ‘Mobilizing Capital for Space Innovation: What Investors Want from New Tech’, reported Chris Forrester

The expert panel, moderated by Alexis Sáinz (Partner, Hogan Lovells US LLP) and comprising Mike Collett (Managing Partner, Promus Ventures); Dr Shahin Farshchi (Partner, Lux Capital); Karl Schmidt (Managing Partner, KippsDeSanto & Co); Noemie Vauthelin (US Zone Director, Safran Corp. Ventures) and Alexandra Vidyuk (CEO and General Partner, Beyond Earth Ventures).

This was undoubtedly one of the most important sessions of the 3-days as it was all about ‘raising the money’. Alexis Sáinz spends most of her time in the space sector. She reminded delegates that the year had suffered “significant uncertainty” in the M&A markets. “The space industry is seeing massive disruption in demand, lead by Defense, but tough decisions to be made for investors”. 

A common thread amongst all the panelists was that they all mentioned AI, while ‘Robotics’ was also of interest and over and above the more traditional space-based investment opportunities. Karl Schmidt also mentioned that he saw SPAC’s (Special Purpose Acquisition Company) which were re-entering the market in greater numbers than in 2024. Private equity was always available for early-stage investment, he said, but also along the process to Series B, C, and even further options, but also where some well-established businesses needed to shore up their supply chain and that could lead to opportunities.

Schmidt added that there were differences between the US and Europe, and where the US was more likely to put cash on the table when compared to Europe.

Mike Collett explained that start-ups with little revenue can always be looked at, but inevitability potential margins need to be solid and with real business ahead of them. There are plenty of financial sources out there for when growth was in place. “Do the small things, do the block & tackle well, it is amazing what might flow 3 or 4 years later,” he suggested.  Collett added that going public might not be the best advice, and many companies were deciding to stay private.

Alexandra Vidyuk said her base metric for investment was that venture debt in the space industry was guided by the need to see that for every $1 invested should be matched by $3 from government. She added that recent Space Tech investment requests were, by and large, over-subscribed and this was a good sign. However, some investors were reluctant to tie up their capital for 6,8 or 10 years. They were looking for shorter involvements.

Safran is the French multinational aerospace, defence and security business. Safran employs around 100,000 and achieved sales last year of €27 billion. The Ariane rocket is a j-v between Airbus and Safran. Safran’s Noemie Vauthelin said that government cash was always a good guide to a project’s potential health. Safran’s overall policy was risk-averse, but they would be prepared for long-term investment.

Dr Farshchi said that in aerospace and defense there was a concentration of businesses to invest in. Investors see that these few companies, such as those in AI, can enjoy very real returns as growth kicks in. In some cases within just 6 months an investment has doubled. This can lead to very real challenges for businesses which are, in my view, in the middle. They are no longer early-stage, but if not sought-after then raising some cash is possible, but perhaps not the $25 million or $50 million in the next round.

Collett said that Europe was definitely seeing fresh activity especially in Defense-related opportunities and the position had improved significantly over the past 6 months.

The panel said that Space-based companies can still raise capital through a traditional variety of methods, including venture capital (VC) and private equity, as well as having government contracts in place, or where a strategic partnership was available to help provide confidence.  The panel said there is a growing focus on private investment, with venture capital flowing to early-stage companies for R&D, while larger, established companies might, of course, pursue public offerings or government contracts for increased stability.

AI, AI and AI dominates SVSW. AI is a “Supersonic Tsunami”

Silicon Valley Space Week (SVSW) opened in Mountain View on October 28 with the ‘hottest’ of hot topics under examination for its Satellite Innovation segment. Those topics covered the usual space, rocketry and launch suspects, each brought bang up to date by highly skilled panellists but topics such as AI, D2D and LEO-based telecom featured throughout the day. Most sessions touched on how automation and AI would impact the space economy. Chris Forrester reports. 

The opening panel addressed Next-Generation Satellite System for 2026 and Beyond and comprised Dr Tom Cwik (Chief Technologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab), Simone D’Amico (Chief Science Officer and Associate Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics (at Stanford), Dr Ward Hanson (Lecturer in Economics at Stanford), Sita Sonty (Partner & MD at Alix Partners), Brooke Stokes (Partner at McKinsey & Co) and moderated by Janna Lewis (Senior VP of Policy & General Counsel, Astroscale US).

The panel’s key topics included – of course – AI and Quantum as well as the space economy generally and the technologies that were moving the investment needle in the space economy. ‘Space-based telecom’ saw the audience select as a major topic for examination.

McKinsey’s Brooke Stokes said that civilian-based funding remained a challenge, and some areas – not least Earth Observation – had not performed as well as some had anticipated. Nevertheless, she saw AI helping many aspects of the industry overall.

Dr Hanson asked his fellow-panellists whether there would ever be a competitor to SpaceX, and stressed that he had never seen such a variety of opinions on AI, ranging from a ‘Dot-Com-type bubble burst’ expectation and ranging up to concepts that were AI-based but had yet to be invented. 

Sita Sonty said 2026 would see some differences, and where Launch was increasingly commoditised, but innovation would come from integration and would draw investment into the space sector and with value creation coming in 2026. “Cost reduction would draw investment, and AI could drive that,” she added.

Simone D’Amico had no doubt that AI would be a major catalyst and embracing scalability and intelligent infrastructure and these would attract capital inputs. Remember, today’s satellite model where a satellite had a few Megabits of data on board but this was no longer practical, and where the complexity of mega-constellations demanded satellites to be able to reason, and to collaborate with other satellites, and AI and where a single satellite could manage multiple tasks and missions. “We are in the transition phase and moving from static to intelligent platforms,” he advised. 

JPL’s Dr Tom Cwik told delegates that JPL was continually looking at value creation with an emphasis on speed and better formulation, and where an AI assistant helped improve systems and achieve speedier solutions. However, he stressed that these developments might still be a year or two away before AI could be incorporated into constellations. 

The majority of SVSW’s delegates – in an audience poll – saw AI being a “fundamental game changer” (although some 13% saw AI as “over-hyped”) although the industry adoption of AI would benefit as “a significant efficiency enhancer for existing applications” said others.

Quantum Communications also featured highly in the opening panel’s discussion. For example, Simone D’Amico told delegates that there was already real-world usage of Quantum in space. However, AI and Quantum when added together presented a huge challenge and the industry needed computer scientists to handle the challenges that such a combination would create. “We need a new model, so that we do not work in silos.”

Dr Cwik said he expected Quantum networking to make considerable progress, although in his view it would not see Quantum computers being installed on satellites, but would be ground and operator based.

The overall conclusion was that AI was going to make a difference although the new technology was all very well in terms of space logistics but it still depended on human creativity – at the moment – but the day when AI would control perhaps thousands of satellites was definitely coming. 

AI was also extensively discussed in SVSW’s session: Building the modern space stack: Software-Driven systems and AI, and where Drew Svor (Partner, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton) moderated a panel comprising Alan Campbell (Principal Space Specialist Solutions Architect at Amazon Web Services), Dr Lucy Hoag (Founder/CEO at Violet Labs), Dr Owen Brown (VP/Solutions Development at Scientific Systems), Guy de Carufel (CEO at Cognitive Space) and Lauren Perry (AI Principal Engineer/Scientist at The Aerospace Corporation).

Lauren Perry summed up the dilemma facing many of her clients and the space sector in general and who wanted AI in their business but perhaps didn’t know where to start!  She said that she was seeing greater progress in AI and the tools available to clients. “We are moving in a positive direction.”

The panelists looked at the software stacks needed, whether close to the task or perhaps at the ‘back seat’ and where the focus was perhaps on observation and whether it was on board the craft or at the edge. Automation was critical in particular for anomaly detection, machine learning and the degree of human involvement. 

Alan Campbell gave a simple explanation where the question was ‘how many ships were in port at Log Beach this week compared with last?  He said the first challenge was for AI to identify where Long Beach was, and what a ship was and the hundred and one other identifiers which first had to be established. But AI was getting there, especially in changes and context within an environment. “If you can do the job with cost-efficient basic machine learning and predictable, and were repeatable, then spot on”.

Dr Owen Brown explained that speed, scalability and where large numbers of satellites were involved and where ‘baby steps’ might first be needed before large-scale adoption was needed. He added that AI in a multi-domain environment, perhaps in maritime, and certainly in military and which demanded speed and scale [was cool] but for commercial applications and those use cases were more difficult to identify.

Nevertheless, Dr Brown told delegates that AI and its impact was nothing less than a ‘Supersonic Tsunami’ and in years to come AI would auto-generate changes within the software stack.  AI would eliminate the need for today’s mental models. 

Dr Lucy Hoag added that space was increasingly democratised but software tools and the stack in general were needed to achieve interoperability and the interstitial glue was needed as a proxy for agnosticism. AI will fundamentally change the stack, but Government is far too slow in looking at these problems, and our enemies will do the work needed.

Cambell praised satellite operator SES and what he described as its transformational workload plans to modify its Sat-Com responsibilities and to flexibly adjust to missions including moving workloads to different ground stations. 

However, Lauren Perry said she had visited many satellite operator’s control rooms and many of them had not changed in 20 years! She saw AI and Machine Learning making significant inroads in these areas over the next 5 years. She added that the push towards AI adoption and deployment had also come from the commercial sector and that Government needed to do more.  

Guy de Carufel argued that there would be a need to be careful about putting everything in one giant stack and black box. There will need to be guard rails which understand the different functions for these pockets of data. 

The overall message from SVSW was that AI was very definitely present, and available, and its sophistication would be of a huge benefit to most segments of the space and satellite industry and especially in terms of mass examination and comparison of data. 

D2D: Next-Gen Satellite Devices Real-world, or Over-hyped?

By Chris Forrester

Dr Tim Farrar, president of TMF Associates, moderated the popular Direct-To-Devices session at the Silicon Valley Space Week held at Mountain View on October 28. The popularity of the panel, part of the SVSW’s Satellite Innovation segment, and echoed plenty of comments about space-based telecoms already heard by delegates throughout the day. Chris Forrester reports.

However, there remains considerable uncertainty over D2D. Some D2D operators are working with telcos as partners, others are talking about going direct to the user, some are using MSS, others are tapping into the Supplemental Coverage from Space options. Others will concentrate on specific regions or services. Which might succeed? Potential end-users might see D2D as a very exciting time, but the satellite industry and would-be D2D operators need to get many ducks in a row and speedily, if they are to be successful. And that’s without mentioning which handset manufacturers will assist in the operator’s schemes.

There’s also the price versus expectation conundrum. Stuck in the middle of nowhere and a user might happily pay for satellite connectivity as an add-on to their terrestrial phone plan, but if that was a once-only experience would that consumer be prepared to pay extra on a near-permanent basis? For satellite operators to consider a potential of many millions and perhaps billions in terms of a Total Addressable Market was an exciting prospect. And to what extent did vehicles figure in the overall plan, and whether connectivity would be just for safety-based security or for consumer-based services such as built-in entertainment?

Dr Farrar’s panel was well qualified to explore the questions. The panel comprised Mersad Cavcic (Chief product Officer at Globalstar) and itself in the news almost every day because of its activity with Apple; Kevin Cohen, VP/Direct-to-Device Strategic Partnerships at Viasat) and also rarely out of the headlines;   Tarun Gupta (Chief product Officer and Co-founder of Skylo Technologies) and Greg Pelton, CTO at Iridium, itself another headline-making business.

Dr Farrar explained that barely a day went by without press coverage of potential use cases for satellite-based telephony. His panel delivered some solid cases where usage was already taking place, and he asked whether his panelists were concerned that the sector was being over-hyped. Tarun Gupta told delegates that in Skylo’s view we were in an evolutionary process, just as conventional telephony had matured from 1G through 3G, 4G and now 5.5G.  “There is no reason to believe that satellite will be different. Today’s messaging-based services for Internet of Things, or Automotive as well as consumers and emergency SOS or on wearables. How people use these is up to their imaginations. We are seeing dramatic increases in messaging services, and there are plenty of new applications being built on top of these services.”

Viasat’s Kevin Cohen asked delegates to look at one segment, that of aircraft-based services. He said that the initial connectivity supplied by GoGo delivered good connectivity but scaling that up to cover very many aircraft at different locations and congested space areas needed considerably more bandwidth. Airlines offered ‘free’ messaging initially and now we have much more sophisticated offerings, mostly free. Yes, there’s some hype but it will evolve with use-case capabilities. 

Globalstar’s Mersad Cavcic told delegates that his company had 3 years of experience and that today anything and everything was possible because of how technology had developed. We are seeing these developments over the past few months, but the key question is how might the business case follow through? We are also seeing different companies paint quite different pictures of how they see their own services develop and how the finish line might be. Collectively we must pay attention to how these businesses differentiate their brands and how they position their D2D activities. There will be different approaches and which hopefully will get them to a finish line.

Iridium’s CTO Greg Peton said his company had 25 years of experience, not all of it good (the company went through a bankruptcy reconstruction in 2000 having spent some $5 billion on its project). Peton said that people were prepared to pay for satellite-based connectivity, but the businesses cannot overcome the rules of physics. They will not work indoors and allow users to watch Netflix, and this is because there is only so much that a business can invest to make their systems work. “We are in something of a distortion field right now, where there’s lots of promise but little reality, just yet.”

Dr Farrar asked whether MSS spectrum was the key to success? Cohen said the difference now was the addition of terrestrial spectrum into the satellite mix, and the possibility for billions of devices to be served and a potential value for a business. 

Skylo’s Gupta said everyone seemed to be talking about connectivity when in the middle of a hike in the Yosemite. The reality is that a study we carried out last winter showed that 60% of the users in a trial suffered signal loss when on their way to work! There must be an overlay, and it must work. He added that Skylo’s exiting SMS satellite service we seeing plenty of traction from users in New York, New Jersey and other regions which would normally be considered to be well-served by telco. MSS, he said, would make a real difference to the business models. He added that we were not years away from guaranteeing very real connectivity and seamless switching from terrestrial to satellite.

Pelton said that Iridium had plenty of customers who did not demand massive capacity, whether it was in the IoT space and supplying clients with both terrestrial and satellite coverage was expensive and not a high rate of adoption. But a single chipset in a device that’s inexpensive and standards based would make a positive difference. 

Globalstar’s Cavcic said that standards needed more work. He cautioned that it might easily be 3 -to-5 years before a truly ubiquitous standard emerged and was adopted, and you only had to remember that problem included solving connectivity with Geo, Geo bent-pipe, LEO, LEO regenerative, to see where the problems were. 

Viasat’s existing coverage was based on its geostationary satellites, 36,000kms up, and were thus limited in terms of broadband or wideband applications. Lowering that height is key, and he could see positive improvements in safety-based applications. Viasat (and Iridium) were already approved to collect data from aircraft ‘black boxes’ while in flight, for example.  It should also be remembered that it wasn’t just phones, but it was also vehicles, and IoT devices, which translated into billions of devices. 

Pelton was also cautious about the so-called ‘free’ broadband now being supplied by some airlines, saying that of course it wasn’t free because someone was paying at some point. But there’s a chasm in D2D expectations as to where the real revenue was for airlines. “Supplying an ‘all you can eat’ broadband on an aircraft was going to be difficult to monetise.”

Kevin Cohen stressed that while much work on standards had been done, more is needed. Proprietary modifications on handsets are far from ideal, and how might you transfer from on roaming partner to another and how do you slice and revenue share those payments?

The panel addressed Starlink’s new relationship with EchoStar and its spectrum and what difference would the new spectrum mean in the next few years. The overwhelming view was that there was room for more than one operator in any market. They agreed that the customer expected and welcomed competition.

However, each of the experts concluded that there was a potential market and their companies were working hard – in their various styles – to capture a slice of the new business.