In 1945 a young engineer by the name of Arthur C. Clarke, had a letter published in Wireless World, in which he wrote about his vision for an artificial satellite that would be at such a precise elevation that it would appear to remain stationary over a fixed point on the earth.  This would mean that only three such artificial satellites would be needed to cover the planet.

In 1964 Dr. Harold Rosen, then an engineer at Hughes, (whom I had the privilege of working with, later in his career, when we brought him out of retirement to work on a different project), translated Arthur C. Clarke’s vision into reality, when Syncom 3, a satellite that he had designed was launched. This was the world’s first geostationary (GEO) satellite.  59 years later, according to the satellite monitoring website Satellite Signals, there are now 563 GEO active satellites.  That number alone, is evidence of the continued importance of GEO satellites, in spite of the recent proliferation of non-GEOs (NGSOs).  Emphasizing the continued importance of GEOs, NSR are projecting that by 2031 of the ~US$30 billion in satellite revenue, two-thirds will come from GEO satellites.

For some of us, mass market low-earth orbiting satellites (LEOs) are a relatively new phenomena, for the younger members of our industry, they are the mainstay and GEOs are a thing of the past.  So, for their benefit and as a refresher for the rest of us, let’s consider why GEOs have been popular for so long, and why they are still being launched.  Two high-capacity ones have been launched this year: ViaSat 3 and Jupiter 3.

Firstly, there is the fact that the footprint of a GEO remains stationary over the earth.  For the majority of applications this means that a relatively simple fixed antenna on the ground will suffice.  This simplicity translates to a lower priced antenna as there is no need for the complexities of a tracking antenna.  For earth observation it means that it is easy to monitor changes in a specific location.

Secondly, there is the size of the footprint itself.  This is usually tailored to a continent (or continents, given that there are multiple transponders on a GEO) or group of countries and/or a shipping route if maritime is a prime target market.  This also means that there is no wasted capacity over empty oceans or deserted land masses.

Thirdly, there is longevity.  A GEO will last for 15 years or more.  Historically, many have lasted for several more years.

Fourthly, advances in technology mean that the latest satellites are not only very high capacity - ViaSat 3 was built to provide 1Tbps and Jupiter 3, 500 Gbps, they are also flexible.  Viasat 3, assuming it is able to go service (its antenna failed to deploy after launch), is a software defined satellite and will be able to move capacity around between beams, allocating capacity to a particular beam if that area is experiencing a surge in demand.

Finally, one cannot forget, satellites’ inherent advantage, broadcast capability.  Admittedly, with the increase in streaming, this is declining in importance, but still remains very significant.  At World Satellite Business Week, last month, Euroconsult presented charts indicating that by 2032 Video will still account for the majority of satellite revenue (US$70 billion vs US$53 billion for data).

At the same time as technology on the satellite has been improving, so too has technology on the ground.  As Kerstin Roost, Director Global Accounts and Strategic Partnerships, ST Engineering iDirect, pointed out in a recent SSPI WISE presentation on The Enduring Value of GEO, advances in technology mean that the latest ground systems offer the ultimate in scalability, enabling operators to scale from a few terminals to many thousands, whilst offering total flexibility by dynamically allocating bandwidth at SCPC like efficiencies.  Advancing capabilities even further, advanced ground systems are becoming virtualized, ultimately moving towards a fully integrated end-to-end cloud control service.

However, these advances on the ground are obviously not confined to just GEO systems, they can be applied to NGSOs as well, and that is exactly what is happening.  SES-17 a GEO satellite shares a ground system with O3b mPOWER, a medium earth orbit (MEO) constellation, and capacity can be dynamically allocated between the satellites as necessitated by demand.  Similarly, some Service Providers are integrating Starlink, a LEO constellation, into the managed service that they offer their customers.

However, one can’t write in praise of GEOs, without addressing the elephant in the room: latency.  There is no getting away from the fact that, all things being equal, the round-trip propagation delay from a GEO is 540 milliseconds, i.e., a little over half a second.  That begs the question, for how many applications is a delay half a second significant?  According to a recent report from Sandvine, ~66% of internet traffic is video, primarily streaming.  The delay may be noticed at the beginning when loading the video (but local storage of popular content eliminates this), but is non-existent after that, so hardly relevant.  Applications where the delay may be significant include, voice and online gaming, accounting for ~1% and 6% of internet traffic according to the same report.  Internet of things (IoT) is a rapid growth area, but since most applications are very low data rate, as yet IoT doesn’t merit a mention in traffic breakdowns.  Nevertheless, IoT includes remote operation of machines and vehicles, where half a second’s delay would not be acceptable, but for the majority of IoT applications GEO is already a major service provider.

To coin Mark Twain: “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”  So too, I believe have reports of the demise of geostationary satellites (GEOs).  At World Satellite Business Week in 2015, all the major operators, with the exception of Steve Collar, then CEO of SES (which had recently launched O3b) were sporting black t-shirts emblazoned with the words: “GEO is cool.”  Is GEO still cool?  I think so.

Elisabeth Tweedie’s entire career has been focused on commercial satellites, telecommunications and broadcasting, specifically in the highly specialized area of evaluating the long term potential for new ventures, initiating their development and finding and developing appropriate alliances.

During the course of her career she has advised and worked with senior stakeholders in global and international businesses, governments and regulatory bodies. Her core expertise is in understanding new technology and its practical applications; identifying key drivers for both B2B and B2C markets and identifying, evaluating and developing JV opportunities.

Elisabeth has an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Aston (UK) where she graduated top of her class; she is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Advanced Management in Telecommunications Program. Early in her career she authored numerous published multi-client reports on the market and economic aspects of telecommunications and media industries in Europe, Asia and North America and is currently Associate Editor of Satellite Executive Briefing.

By Elisabeth Tweedie, Founder, Definitive Direction. 

As mentioned in a previous blog: “The Unsung Heroes of Battle,” the satellite industry is playing a significant role in combating climate change. That blog was written over a year ago, and since then several more satellites have been launched, increasing the amount of information gathered, and so furthering our knowledge as to where the major emissions of carbon dioxide and methane occur. Later this year, one company GHGSAT will launch a hosted payload satellite that will have the capability to pinpoint carbon emissions to individual industrial facilities, the same way that its satellites do this for methane emissions. Obviously, this information will be a huge boon to governments and local authorities committed to reducing their carbon footprint.

However, at the same time that the industry is playing such a major role in combating climate change, concerns are being raised about its contribution to climate change. These concerns are focused on the pollution caused by the launch industry. Superficially, rockets play a small role in pollution. At the present time the aviation industry burns 100 times more fuel each year than the launch industry.  And the aviation industry itself is only responsible for 2.4% of annual carbon emissions, according to a recent report.

In the past with relatively few launches a year, the overall impact from the space industry was minimal. But as the industry is changing, so too are the number of launches. In 2022 there were approximately 180 successful launches, in the previous year there were 136, a growth of over 30% in just one year. With the shorter lifespan of low earth orbit satellites, there is no reason to expect this growth to slow. In addition, there’s space tourism, currently in its infancy. Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, the two most advanced companies in this field, have already transported several paying passengers into space, and have indicated that once the business gets going properly (and there is a long waiting list of paying passengers) the intention is to provide at least one voyage a month at a minimum. (Some sources have suggested as many as two to three per week). There are other companies aspiring to join their ranks, including SpaceX, although right now, its intention is to take passengers to the moon.

This projected rapid growth in the number of launches alone, would be sufficient to cause concern; a quick back of the envelope calculation indicates that if the current growth rate continues, launches will be burning as much fuel as the aviation industry in less than five years. But that is not the issue.

The real issue stems from where the pollution occurs. All plane flights occur in the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere. At this level pollutants tend to disperse in a few days; in the higher-level stratosphere and mesosphere, pollutants have a much longer life. Black carbon (soot) for example, rather than dispersing in a few days, can have a life of up to five years in the stratosphere. Research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicated that in 2022 1,000 tons of soot were produced by the 180 launches. More research is needed to determine the precise impact of the different pollutants at this level. One concern is that they could damage the ozone layer, by causing temporary or permanent holes. Even water vapor can be detrimental, if the clouds block sunlight from reaching the earth, changing the temperature, so leading to worsening summer monsoons in Africa and India.

Different launchers use different fuels. Some of the most common ones in use today are liquid hydrogen, kerosene, hydrazine and solid fuel. None of these are renewable and come with varying levels of concern. Hydrogen for example is one of the cleanest, as it only emits water vapor when it burns, which is less of a concern than soot. However, it isn’t classified as a “clean fuel” because current production methods are very carbon-intensive. Green hydrogen, which is a renewable fuel could be an alternative, but currently this only accounts for 1% of US hydrogen production.

The other three all produce soot. According to NOAA each passenger aboard a rocket is responsible for 100 times more climate-changing pollution than an airplane passenger.

I’m not going to go into which launch companies are using hydrogen as opposed to soot producing fuels. Suffice it to say, that according to the Aerospace Corporation, last year over half of all rocket fuel used was hydrocarbon based. What I am going to do is highlight a couple of companies that are thinking outside the box and developing engines that use novel fuels.

One of these is Orbex. Orbex is currently building the UK mainland’s first vertical launch site at Sutherland Spaceport in Scotland. Once completed this will be the home for its Prime rocket which will launch smallsats into low earth orbit. Prime will be powered by a renewable bio-fuel known as Futuria Liquid Gas. A study carried out by the University of Exeter indicated that a Prime launch will generate 96% less carbon emissions than a comparable launch using fossil fuel.

Another Scottish rocket company, Skyrora is developing a fuel, it’s named Ecosene, made from recycled plastic which cuts down 70% of the carbon footprint of traditional kerosene manufacture. Ecosene has already won several awards including the Environmental Best Practice Award at the Green Apple Environment Awards 2020.

Creating a reusable launch vehicle is another way of reducing the launch industry’s carbon footprint, or at least it should be, as manufacturing rockets is rarely a clean process. However, questions are now being raised about the environmental impact of the gasses produced during the reentry process. These questions will become more relevant as current constellations of LEO satellites come to the end of their useful life and, in many cases, burn up on reentry, producing not only gasses, but millions of small polluting particles, all of which will have some impact.

So, do we as an industry do more harm than good? At the moment, I would say emphatically “no.” Yes, we’re definitely contributing to climate change, but in a small way. If no action is taken our negative impact will grow, but hopefully so will our knowledge and willingness to migrate to more environmentally friendly fuels, as launch companies take the bold step of converting their engines in order to do so. On the other side of the coin, not only are we making a major contribution to furthering our knowledge and awareness of where damaging emissions are coming from, it must also be remembered that we play a major role in global communications and disaster mitigation.

Elisabeth Tweedie’s entire career has been focused on commercial satellites, telecommunications and broadcasting, specifically in the highly specialized area of evaluating the long term potential for new ventures, initiating their development and finding and developing appropriate alliances.

During the course of her career she has advised and worked with senior stakeholders in global and international businesses, governments and regulatory bodies. Her core expertise is in understanding new technology and its practical applications; identifying key drivers for both B2B and B2C markets and identifying, evaluating and developing JV opportunities.

Elisabeth has an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Aston (UK) where she graduated top of her class; she is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Advanced Management in Telecommunications Program. Early in her career she authored numerous published multi-client reports on the market and economic aspects of telecommunications and media industries in Europe, Asia and North America and is currently Associate Editor of Satellite Executive Briefing.

By Elisabeth Tweedie, Founder, Definitive Direction. 

The digital divide generally refers to the discrepancy between those that have access to broadband and the internet, and those that do not, in other words the “other three billion.” Contrary to popular perception, although the majority of them are, the other three billion are not only located in developing countries. According to the ITU even in developed countries, 11% of urban dwellers and 15% of rural dwellers are offline.

There is also a gender division, although according to the ITU, this gap is closing. Overall 57% of females use the internet, compared with 62% of males. As expected, this varies by country, shrinking to only 1% (88% vs 89%) in developed countries, compared to an 11% discrepancy (27% vs 38%) in the land-locked developing countries (LLDCs), some of the poorest countries on earth.

Multiple factors contribute to this gender gap in developing countries. Digital literacy is a significant issue. This ties back to access to education in general; the latest report from the UNDP indicates that one in four girls in developing countries do not attend even primary school. One of the goals of the UNDP is to eliminate gender gaps in education by 2030.

Other contributory factors include poverty, when resources are scarce, it’s more likely that a boy will have a mobile phone than a girl. This is significant, as frequently, in developing countries, mobile phones offer the only way to get online. One study found that boys are 1.5 times more likely to own a mobile phone than a girl and 1.8 times more likely to own a smartphone. 52% of girls will have to borrow a mobile phone if they want digital access, compared to 28% of boys who need to borrow a phone. Societal norms and fear of harassment are other factors contributing to the lower usage of technology by girls and women.

This lack of access to technology is more than a personal matter. The Brookings Institution combined data from vendor surveys and e-commerce platforms in Africa, and determined that closing the gender gap in e-commerce could add nearly $15 billion to the value of Africa’s e-commerce industry between 2025-30.

Using the internet is one thing, being able to take advantage of it to advance one’s career, is entirely another. This is where the second digital divide occurs. Many women are competent users of social media, but lack the skills to handle a basic spreadsheet, much less use that ability in a science, engineering or technology-based career. In the UK, for example, only 13% of the science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) workforce are women. The US fares somewhat better with women representing 28% of the STEM workforce, nevertheless this is still a long way from parity.

Unfortunately, the current lack of women in these careers, contributes to fewer women aspiring to enter the STEM workforce. Quite simply, there are not enough role models. Not only that, the lack of women in the STEM industries, leads to male-dominated cultures that feel exclusionary and unsupportive of women and minorities. That is not the only factor holding women back. Although these days, there is much talk about gender equality, unconscious bias is hard to eliminate, and the myth that the hard sciences are “masculine subjects” persists, albeit subtly. As if that wasn’t enough, many female teachers have their own “maths anxiety” that they pass onto their female students.

The consequences of women being underrepresented can be far reaching – and devastating. Historically, fewer women scientists led to most medical research being done on male lab rats, in order to avoid having to deal with cyclical hormonal fluctuations and women’s more complicated bodies. The obvious consequences being that some drugs are less effective and even harmful for women. There are many other examples of females being excluded from product research, from voice activated apps that only responded to male voices, to seat belts that don’t accommodate pregnant women.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now playing an increasing role in everyday life. Gender bias whether conscious or unconscious in the software that drives AI and machine learning (ML) can have far-reaching and disturbing consequences. Screening job candidates for example. If most of the current employees in an industry or job are male, which they are in STEM jobs, without deliberate programming to counter this, ML will direct candidate screening programs to favor male applicants, so perpetuating the situation of women being underrepresented in these jobs. This bias comes both from the people doing the programming, to the datasets used. If there are not enough women represented in the dataset or contributing to it, then bias errors occur and perpetuate.

These are just a few of the ways in which girls and women are disadvantaged when it comes to technology. The good news is, that we are now aware of this, and actions, such as the goal by the UNDP to eliminate gender bias in education, are being taken.

On an individual level, we, as women who work in technology, can do our part to support other women, which is exactly what SSPI-WISE is doing. We can also reach out to girls at school and university as the STEM outreach group does through school visits and offering a scholarship to the Satellite conference every year.

According to the World Economic Forum, it will take another 136 years to close the gender gap. Let’s all do our part to ensure that we can close it in less time!

Elisabeth Tweedie’s entire career has been focused on commercial satellites, telecommunications and broadcasting, specifically in the highly specialized area of evaluating the long term potential for new ventures, initiating their development and finding and developing appropriate alliances.

During the course of her career she has advised and worked with senior stakeholders in global and international businesses, governments and regulatory bodies. Her core expertise is in understanding new technology and its practical applications; identifying key drivers for both B2B and B2C markets and identifying, evaluating and developing JV opportunities.

Elisabeth has an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Aston (UK) where she graduated top of her class; she is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Advanced Management in Telecommunications Program. Early in her career she authored numerous published multi-client reports on the market and economic aspects of telecommunications and media industries in Europe, Asia and North America and is currently Associate Editor of Satellite Executive Briefing.

By Elisabeth Tweedie, Founder, Definitive Direction. 

It seems trivial to be talking about supply chain issues for the satellite industry, when Ukraine is being brutally savaged in ways not seen in Europe for over 70 years, and millions of people around the world are predicted to be pushed into poverty and food insecurity as a direct consequence of the war.

However, largely, but not entirely due to the war, our industry is facing very real supply chain issues, which cannot be ignored.

You only have to think of the ISS and the now defunct Sea Launch to appreciate that the West and Russia are very intertwined when it comes to space. We’re now dealing with the fallout from that alliance.

The first impact, was the sudden withdrawal of Soyuz as a launch provider. OneWeb was the first to suffer here. Early in the war, Russia refused to launch 36 of OneWeb’s satellites that were already on the launch pad; unless, the British government withdrew its investment in the constellation. Obviously, the Brits were not going to do that! That launch was due to take place at Baikonur. Roscosmos, then cancelled all Soyuz launches that were scheduled to take place in the European Spaceport operated by Arianespace, in French Guyana.

Potentially, there are other issues for the launch industry, as Russia has said that it will no longer supply the RD-181 engines used by Northrop Grumman in the Antares rocket, which takes supplies to the ISS. It has also said that it will no longer service the RD-180 engines used by ULA in the Atlas-V rocket, used for US National Security launches. However, Boeing has just flown its first mission to the ISS and SpaceX is already ferrying both cargo and personnel there, so whilst the lack of RD-181s may present a problem for Northrop Grumman, it shouldn’t for the industry as a whole. ULA escapes lightly as it believes it has enough expertise to do its own servicing and has also developed an alternative rocket, relying on engines from Blue Origin.

Things get more complex when it comes to actually getting large satellites to the launch pad. Both Ukraine and Russia had thriving air transport businesses moving satellites from factories to launch pad using Ukrainian Antonov-124s (AN-124). Ukraine also used one of the largest planes in the world, the AN-225 (aka Mriya) of which there was only one operational one in existence. Unfortunately, this was undergoing routine maintenance at the Antonov Airfield, when this was bombed by Russia. Ukraine has already stated that it intends to restore the Mriya. It is estimated that this will take five years and cost upwards of US$3 Billion. Optimistically, Ukraine has stated that it will send the bill to Russia. Alternatively, there is a second AN-225 that is ~70% complete. President Zelensky has been talking to Turkey about completing that one, as a memorial to Ukrainian pilots killed in the war, but so far there are no takers to foot the estimated US$800 Million needed to do this. At least five Ukraine owned AN-124s are believed to be intact, and are listed as operational on PlaneSpotters.Net, FlightRadar24 however, shows no recent or upcoming flights. This may change as Antonov is reportedly, temporarily relocating to Leipzig, Germany, where it already has a base.

12 AN-124s are owned and operated by the Russian company Volga-Dnepr but western sanctions have essentially grounded these planes. So essentially, at the present time, there are no options for air delivery of large satellites. SES-22 and Nilesat 301 have just arrived in Florida by sea from France for a SpaceX launch in June. Originally these would have been delivered by Voga-Dnepr on an AN-124. Fortunately, there was enough slack built into the delivery schedule to allow for the additional time needed to do this. Similarly, Measat-3d is expected to reach French Guyana by sea later this year. Viasat will take Viasat-3 across the US by road for a SpaceX launch. Transporting GEO satellites by plane require additional safety approvals, and both Airbus and Boeing are reported to be considering these. The Boeing 747-8F is comparable in size to the AN-124 whilst the Airbus Beluga is somewhat smaller.

Things were hardly running smoothly for the industry before the war. In common with almost every other industry, satellite manufacturing is experiencing delays. Many of these are due to Covid related issues. Simple lack of personnel became a major contributor, as numerous factories around the world were operating with seriously reduced staff, impacting both parts supply and satellite manufacturing itself. Shipping delays coupled with backups at major ports and rising oil prices are additional universal issues also impacting the industry.

The big one of course is a shortage of semiconductor chips. This is a global issue that is very likely going to get worse. Firstly, there are so many competing industries for chips, that satellites remain small fry, compared to say phones and cars. Secondly, depending on which source you believe, 50% to 90% of the world’s high-grade neon which is needed to manufacture chips, comes from Ukraine and production was halted early in the war. It is a byproduct of large-scale steel manufacturing from plants such as the Azovstal plant in Mariupal. Neon from large Russian steel plants is also transported to Ukraine for processing. The full impact is still tbd, but shortages coupled with difficulty in exporting make price-hikes seem inevitable.

One thing that has become abundantly clear as a result of the war and Covid, is that every industry and country needs to reexamine who it chooses to partner with, and whether just-in-time manufacturing really makes sense.

As mentioned in my recent article for Satellite Executive Briefing. N50 Project is in the process of installing 10 portable connectivity centers to provide communications, access to Aid agencies, telehealth and education for Ukrainian refugees. If you would like to contribute to that effort, you can do so here: https://www.n50project.org/ukraine.

Elisabeth Tweedie’s entire career has been focused on commercial satellites, telecommunications and broadcasting, specifically in the highly specialized area of evaluating the long term potential for new ventures, initiating their development and finding and developing appropriate alliances.

During the course of her career she has advised and worked with senior stakeholders in global and international businesses, governments and regulatory bodies. Her core expertise is in understanding new technology and its practical applications; identifying key drivers for both B2B and B2C markets and identifying, evaluating and developing JV opportunities.

Elisabeth has an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Aston (UK) where she graduated top of her class; she is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Advanced Management in Telecommunications Program. Early in her career she authored numerous published multi-client reports on the market and economic aspects of telecommunications and media industries in Europe, Asia and North America and is currently Associate Editor of Satellite Executive Briefing.

By Elisabeth Tweedie, Founder, Definitive Direction. Climate Change, Global Warming, the Greenhouse Effect, call it what you will, everyone is talking about it; and with good reason, its potential impact on the planet is immense. Venus, about the same size as planet earth, once had an atmosphere that was similar to ours. Then about 700 million years ago, an out of control greenhouse gas effect took over. Now, its atmosphere is 96% CO2 and the surface temperature is circa 460oC. A truly salutary warning. Not that any of us will be around in 700 million years, but most of us will be around in 2030, when, according to Climate Central, multiple cities around the world including Venice, Amsterdam, New Orleans, Ho Chi Minh City and Kalkuta will be below the tideline.

But what you hear far less about is the role that satellites are playing in fighting climate change. Call them the unsung heroes of the battle. In fact, it’s fair to say that without satellites, we would have no idea of the either the scale or the trajectory of the damage. Satellites are fundamental to both identifying the size of the problem, and measuring the numerous changes taking place and of course for detecting the impact of any remedial action that is being taken.

As Krystal Azelton, who in 2018 was listed on SSPI’s “20 Under 35” people to watch, said: “Satellites were absolutely key in understanding we had a climate crisis . . . We are seeing vast improvements . . . in data sharing and access and the push to have open access to government data around the world is huge.” Krystal is the Director of Space Applications Programs at the Secure World Foundation, a non-profit Washington D.C. think-tank.

Monitoring the Earth’s atmosphere is not a new phenomenon, the first satellite to do was Nimbus III launched by NASA in 1969. Today there are hundreds of satellites orbiting the earth collecting vast amounts of data, all of them way more sophisticated than Nimbus III. Some of these are operated by government funded bodies and international organizations, but there are now also many, many commercial companies whose motives may be less altruistic, who nevertheless are making a very significant contribution to our knowledge and capabilities. Some of them, like Planet for example, are also working with government entities and non-profit organizations. This is so important, as without easy access to data, companies and countries won’t be in a position to pinpoint the issue and take remedial action, As Krystal pointed out: “We are seeing vast improvements . . . in data sharing and access” and “the push to have open access to government data around the world is huge.”

The major cause of global warming, is the amount of heat from the sun trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent gas responsible for this, so levels of CO2 is one of the key indicators being monitored. Initially, it was only possible to look at overall levels, but increasing sophistication means that it is now possible to identify carbon dioxide emissions by locale. NASA’s OCO-3 a satellite launched in 2019 and attached to the International Space Station is one example of a satellite doing just that. It gathers information to let scientists see exactly where CO2 is accumulating, and how that is influenced by factors such as temperature, pressure, volcanic eruptions and even plant growth.

Taking that one step further is the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI). TROPOMI is mounted on Copernicus Sentinel-5P, a satellite belonging to the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Netherlands Space Office. One of the things that TROPOMI measures is nitrogen dioxide (NO2). This is relevant, as the presence of NO2 distinguishes CO2 caused by burning fuels, from natural sources of CO2, which aren’t accompanied by NO2.

Methane, also present in the earth’s atmosphere, absorbs even more heat than CO2. It is less prevalent than CO2, but nevertheless its concentration has doubled in the last 70 years. Given its greater potency, reducing methane levels can have a more immediate impact on global warming. Carbon Mapper is a public-private partnership created to pinpoint methane emissions. Members include NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labs, Planet, the State of California and Arizona State University. The satellites that will be launched in 2023 will have the ability to identify methane emissions down to individual buildings. Other entities working to pinpoint methane emissions include GHGSat, a Canadian company that uses two satellites to pinpoint leaks.

Monitoring climate change involves more than pinpointing and measuring greenhouse gas emissions. Observing the rise in sea temperature, the thickness of ice and the rate that it’s melting are all part of the equation. But for me, the most surprising thing being monitored by satellites is the health of trees. Healthy trees, absorb CO2, unhealthy trees do not, and may even emit CO2. The optical sensors on Landsat 9 are so sensitive that they can distinguish 16,000 shades of a given wavelength color, which provides a wealth of information about the health of vegetation. Valuable information in the war against climate change.

Our dependence on satellites in the war against global warming, actually goes further than this. Satellites are playing an increasing role in disaster mitigation, but that needs to be the subject of another blog.

Elisabeth Tweedie’s entire career has been focused on commercial satellites, telecommunications and broadcasting, specifically in the highly specialized area of evaluating the long term potential for new ventures, initiating their development and finding and developing appropriate alliances.

During the course of her career she has advised and worked with senior stakeholders in global and international businesses, governments and regulatory bodies. Her core expertise is in understanding new technology and its practical applications; identifying key drivers for both B2B and B2C markets and identifying, evaluating and developing JV opportunities.

Elisabeth has an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Aston (UK) where she graduated top of her class; she is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Advanced Management in Telecommunications Program. Early in her career she authored numerous published multi-client reports on the market and economic aspects of telecommunications and media industries in Europe, Asia and North America and is currently Associate Editor of Satellite Executive Briefing.

By Elisabeth Tweedie, Founder, Definitive Direction. That has been the question for most of this year. Almost without exception, every conversation with industry colleagues this year, has opened with the words: “are you going to Satellite/NAB/Cabsat/IBC etc.?” Immediately followed by: “Have you seen the latest exhibitor list?” If the big-name companies at the top of the value chain aren’t going to be attending, then the effect ripples down the chain. Prior to being canceled, it looked as if IBC would have been a seriously scaled down event. According to the last exhibitor list neither Eutelsat, Telesat nor Spacecom were going to be there and SES would only have had a balcony suite. Intelsat on the other hand had booked the same stand as in 2019. Other absent major exhibitors, include Speedcast, Panasonic, Microsoft, Harmonic and Google. Imagine which usually has one of the largest stands, only had a couple of meeting rooms booked, Arqiva similarly, only had a meeting room. However, the decision to scale back was not unanimous; some of the operators were still planning on exhibiting; notably, Arabsat, Azercosmos, Es’hailsat, Gazprom, Intelsat as already mentioned, Turksat and RSCC.

Last year things were clear, in-person trade shows and conferences were canceled, so no decisions were needed. This year has been a constantly evolving situation. Travel and quarantine restrictions, came and went and came again. Some events remained online only, others were moved to new dates, then became combination events offering both in-person and online sessions. Online events work fairly well for the conference side of the trade show, not so well for the exhibitors.

And, if changing schedules and travel restrictions weren’t difficult enough, in some cases such as NAB, the whole in-person event got canceled just three weeks before it was scheduled to open. It was touch and go, but for a while, it appeared that IBC, in Amsterdam had avoided a similar fate. But after initially announcing that it would go-ahead, in spite of the partial lockdown in the Netherlands; on November 23rd, just ten days before the show was due to start, the in-person event was canceled. A particularly hard blow, for exhibitors who had already shipped booth equipment and reportedly will only get a partial refund of fees paid to IBC. This decision was possibly influenced by a poll taken by IABM indicating that over 65% of exhibitors and visitors were no longer planning on attending. Given, that Amsterdam now appears to be the European epicenter of the Omicron variant, and the lockdown has been tightened, this proved to be a wise decision.

It’s too early to say if the lack of face to face contact has had a major impact on business. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot of talk about how the industry couldn’t survive without in-person trade shows. Zoom, Teams, phone calls and emails all work well for existing and known potential customers, but everyone has a story about how a chance “collision” at a trade show, whether that be in a queue for lunch, in a bar, or en-route to the event, resulted in a new client, or a new job. As yet, it’s not clear what impact missing those collisions has had on the industry as a whole, although I’m sure some companies may already be seeing the impact in their sales figures.

However, before we get too gloomy, let’s remember that not only have some things opened up, but good things have come out of the move to a virtual existence. Local events have been available to a far wider audience. I live in California and this year I’ve attended SSPI meetings in Luxembourg, New York and the UK, none of which I would have been able to do in a normal year. SSPI-WISE came into existence a year ago, at the height of the pandemic, and now boasts 350 global members. Online show sessions have been recorded, again opening them up to wider audiences. One of my personal frustrations when attending conferences, is that frequently two or more sessions that I would like to attend are taking place at the same time, recorded sessions allow me to attend them all. Personally, and I’m sure I’m not the only one, I’ve been able to hold regular zoom meetings with industry colleagues, which have deepened ties with people I normally only see a few times a year.

Inevitably, when things do return to pre-pandemic normality, many of these online events will disappear, but I do hope that some of the many virtual meetings will remain. This is a global business, and in pre-pandemic days, many of us only saw colleagues a few times a year, at the different conferences and tradeshows. Now video meetings are the norm, and we’re meeting, albeit virtually, far more frequently. Interestingly, we’re also making new connections through association meetings. Maybe not quite the “collisions” that happen at live events, but networks are expanding. I know I’ve made more new connections this year, outside of conferences and shows, than I would do in a normal year.

Also, whilst this year may have involved more difficult decisions than last year, and more sudden changes, the return of live events has been welcomed. Satellite 2021 and Cabsat went ahead at their later dates and were well attended, even if not at pre-pandemic levels.

Looking ahead to next year, no one can say with certainty how things will unfold, particularly with the recent appearance of the Omicron variant; but currently, all the trade shows are pressing ahead with plans for live in-person events. Even before Covid, there was plenty of discussion as to whether all the money spent on travel and booths provided a good return on investment; so, it will be interesting to see how things evolve going forwards.

Fingers crossed; the current surges in Covid cases in some regions, will prove to be short-lived and the “new reality” that we have been living with for the last 20 months, will soon become the old reality, as normal life resumes! And if it doesn’t, we, as an industry, have demonstrated that we have both the enthusiasm and the tools to master the “new reality.”

Elisabeth Tweedie’s entire career has been focused on commercial satellites, telecommunications and broadcasting, specifically in the highly specialized area of evaluating the long term potential for new ventures, initiating their development and finding and developing appropriate alliances.

During the course of her career she has advised and worked with senior stakeholders in global and international businesses, governments and regulatory bodies. Her core expertise is in understanding new technology and its practical applications; identifying key drivers for both B2B and B2C markets and identifying, evaluating and developing JV opportunities.

Elisabeth has an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Aston (UK) where she graduated top of her class; she is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Advanced Management in Telecommunications Program. Early in her career she authored numerous published multi-client reports on the market and economic aspects of telecommunications and media industries in Europe, Asia and North America and is currently Associate Editor of Satellite Executive Briefing.

By Elisabeth Tweedie, Founder, Definitive Direction. 

Last week a 23-ton piece of debris from a Chinese Long March rocket came hurtling back to Earth in an uncontrolled descent. Fortunately, it landed in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, so no damage was done. This was chance, not design. At one point during its descent, airspace over Spain had to be closed in order to avoid a potential disaster. This isn’t the first time this has happened. In the last few years, debris from other launches have landed in Indonesia, the Ivory Coast and Malaysia. Yet there are no international treaties specifying how this debris is to be handled. Other nations however, take a more conservative approach to launch debris, and either design rockets and launches to ensure that the discarded stages land in oceans or deserts or, in the case of SpaceX, on a raft for reuse.

Debris falling to Earth is of concern because of the potential damage to human life. However, in terms of absolute numbers, this pales into insignificance when compared to the amount of debris orbiting the Earth. NASA is currently tracking over 26,000 pieces more than 10 centimeters long. Any one of these pieces, which can travel at up to 40,000 kilometers an hour, has the potential to destroy a satellite, knock out communications, interfere with launches, or, as the crew of the ISS found out last year when they were forced to shelter in capsules in case the station was hit, threaten life in space. Those 26,000 tracked objects are only a small part of the problem. There are, in addition, at least another 500,000 smaller objects out there. Possibly not capable of completely taking out a satellite, but definitely capable of causing damage. And then, of course, there is the Kessler effect. This is what would happen if a satellite broke up as a result of a collision with debris, so causing far more debris that, simply because of its location, would probably collide with the next satellite in the same orbital plane. The space equivalent of a freeway pileup. This is most likely to happen at LEO orbit, purely as a result of the sheer numbers of satellites in that plane.

The major issue with all this debris – apart from its very existence – is the fact that whilst it is in everyone’s best interest to solve the problem before a major disaster occurs, coming up with a viable business model to do so verges on the impossible. Do you charge the company or country that the debris “belongs to”? How would you identify this? How do you persuade a satellite operator to foot the bill for debris removal, while many other companies would derive equal benefit from this?

Fortunately, there are companies and organizations that are not deterred by this challenge and are already working on solutions to address orbital debris.

One of the more innovative of these is Vyoma Space, co-founded by Dr. Luisa Buinhas and winner of this year’s Startup Space Competition, as well as several other prestigious awards. Vyoma is planning to launch two demo satellites next year. These will carry cameras to track debris, including pieces as small as one centimeter, from space. Observing from space as opposed to from the ground means that objects can be observed up to 30 times a day, resulting in far more reliable tracking and projections of an object’s path than can be obtained by tracking from the ground. Vyoma will market this service to satellite operators so that their satellites can be maneuvered out of the way of approaching debris. As the constellation grows, machine learning will be used to automate collision avoidance for clients’ satellites.

Obviously, collision avoidance is a great service for operators, but it does nothing to reduce the amount of debris. There are, however, other companies working to do just this. Astroscale, which recently won the “Sustainability in Space” award at the European Space Forum in Brussels, is one of the most prominent of those companies. It is aiming to both prevent future debris and to remove large pieces of existing debris. Last year, it successfully demonstrated capturing a low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite and maneuvering it to a lower orbit. Once there, it was released to enable it to burn up before returning to Earth. In order for this to happen, the satellite had to be equipped with a special magnetic docking plate. Many of OneWeb’s satellites are equipped with this plate. This operation was known as ELSA-d – end of life services by Astroscale – demonstration. The follow-on ELSA-m aims to deorbit multiple satellites in a single mission. ELSA-m is due to be launched in 2024 as a joint project with the UK Space Agency (UKSA), OneWeb and the European Space Agency (ESA).

Also, in partnership with ten other companies, including Thales Alenia Space UK, MDA UK, Goonhilly and Satellite Applications Catapult, Astroscale is working on an active debris removal (ADR) project. This is to capture objects that have not been fitted with the special docking plates. It received an award of £1.7 million from UKSA to continue to develop its Cleaning Outer Space Mission through Innovative Capture (COSMIC) project. The aim is to capture and remove two defunct British satellites by 2026. As a prequel to this, next year Astroscale Japan will launch a satellite to inspect the debris from JAXA-H2 rocket, in order to identify the best way to capture it in a future mission.

Space has entered a new era. One in which, instead of 10-20 satellites being launched each year, we’re seeing many thousands. The potential for a serious collision with debris multiplies with every launch, and so too does the possibility of the Kessler effect. Logically, debris mitigation should be a united effort involving all space faring nations. However, looking at how difficult it is proving to be to develop a viable global solution to climate change; personally, I don’t hold out much hope that this will happen, at least not in the short-term. It’s a challenging problem that could impact us all, and I seriously appreciate and applaud those companies and organizations that are prepared to take on this challenge!

Elisabeth Tweedie’s entire career has been focused on commercial satellites, telecommunications and broadcasting, specifically in the highly specialized area of evaluating the long term potential for new ventures, initiating their development and finding and developing appropriate alliances.

During the course of her career she has advised and worked with senior stakeholders in global and international businesses, governments and regulatory bodies. Her core expertise is in understanding new technology and its practical applications; identifying key drivers for both B2B and B2C markets and identifying, evaluating and developing JV opportunities.

Elisabeth has an MBA in International Marketing from the University of Aston (UK) where she graduated top of her class; she is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Advanced Management in Telecommunications Program. Early in her career she authored numerous published multi-client reports on the market and economic aspects of telecommunications and media industries in Europe, Asia and North America and is currently Associate Editor of Satellite Executive Briefing.