Main Engine Cut Off - T+279: Phantom and VLEO (with JP Ramos, Business Development Manager at Redwire)

Episode Date: July 15, 2024

A few weeks ago, we talked about Redwire’s SabreSat spacecraft, and today we’re talking about their Europe-based Phantom spacecraft. We talk about the spacecraft platform itself, how the different parts of Redwire work together, VLEO and its use cases, and how to fly satellites through little bits of atmosphere.This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 33 executive producers—Joel, The Astrogators at SEE, Warren, Russell, Joonas, Stealth Julian, Pat from KC, Will and Lars from Agile Space, Benjamin, Tyler, Harrison, Lee, Steve, Theo and Violet, Jan, Matt, David, Bob, Ryan, Donald, Pat, Kris, Josh from Impulse Space, Better Every Day Studios, Fred, Tim Dodd (the Everyday Astronaut!), Frank, SmallSpark Space Systems, and four anonymous—and 818 other supporters.TopicsPhantom -Redwire SpaceRedwire Announces Development of New European-Built Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO) Spacecraft Platform called Phantom | Redwire SpaceEyes in the sky: The increasing importance of very low Earth orbit (VLEO) for national security - SpaceNewsESA funds Skimsat demonstrator study for VLEO - SpaceNewsThe ShowLike the show? Support the show!Email your thoughts, comments, and questions to [e-mail] @WeHaveMECOFollow @[e-mail] on MastodonListen to MECO HeadlinesListen to Off-NominalJoin the Off-Nominal DiscordSubscribe on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Spotify, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn or elsewhereSubscribe to the Main Engine Cut Off NewsletterArtwork photo by SpaceXWork with me and my design and development agency: Pine Works

Hello and welcome to Managing Cutoff. I am Anthony Colangelo. Today we're talking with JP Ramos of Redwire. He's a business development manager there based out of their Belgium facility. So a couple weeks ago we were talking about sabersat from redwire on the show with spence wise and talking all about uh everything that they can do with a platform like sabersat very unique looking spacecraft this time we're focusing on the european arm of redwire's capabilities and talking about a platform for very low earth orbit as well this this time called Phantom. It'll be based out of their European facilities.

It is a bit smaller. It is focused on different kinds of missions, science communications, different set of capabilities, and really a different class of spacecraft than Sabersat. So really excited to talk about what else they're working on there. We also get into a conversation about VLEO generally in some of the use cases that we could envision that are different and really could be expressed in this form factor different than SaberSat. So

without further ado, let's give JP a call and talk about Phantom. JP, welcome to Managing Cutoff. I should have done a full count before this of how many Redwire folks we've had on the show before, but you are one of many at this point and I have loved every single one. So welcome aboard here. Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure. Let's start with your role at Redwire. I want to just kind of understand what things you've been working on within the company and how that's framed since the portfolio of things that Redwire has these days is pretty expansive. So some wayfinding might help us kind of orient to how you got to this position. Yeah, so I've been with the company now for a bit over 10 years. So I started closer to the engineering activities, more looking into vision analysis, some relatively modest system engineering activities.

And gradually, but relatively soon in my career, I've been dragged into this world of business development, which I find quite exciting. It's a little bit of engineering, but it's also a lot about planning, decision making, and being able to engage with a lot of interesting personalities such as yourself. So it's quite rewarding in that sense. It's very dynamic in nature, and I happen to enjoy it quite a bit. Within the company, my role and my main domain of responsibility is portrayed to satellite missions and specifically around the platform and mission prime activities with the odd subsystem or mission support type of of uh full-on spacecraft is i think new to red wire right this is the the branch up the chain a bit where you were going from a just component world to contributing to a lot of different programs iss solar arrays you know major components but you're stepping into the world of of you, you know, building the whole thing. Um, how has that felt?

Does it feel like a natural progression or was this like a very strategic pursuit for Redwire? I think there's, there's a two power answer to that. Um, uh, for us in, in, in the European frame of, of what constitutes the Redwire family. Um, this is not so new in the sense that we have been acting as a system prime and as a satellite mission integrator for over four decades. So, it's been a long time since we have been acting in this domain. But as far as Redwire family is concerned, yes, this is a relatively new step.

And that's a bit of the magic of the Redwire group is that it constitutes and consolidates a wide range of highly capable elements into a single roof. And then now that opens up the possibility for us to start using many of these pieces and putting them together into a single system. So for Phantom itself, how did this project come about? Was it something that developed over a series of years, or was it, I know it's kind of linked to the Skimset project, but I don't know if the roots are there, or if it was something that existed elsewhere, and then that just found its first home there.

No, I think so so for um well first off i think um skinset is is a video satellite mission that uh found its roots a few years back uh i think the early activities are uh close to 10 years ago but these were more in the visibility stage domain and very early studies as to how do we take that forward. Traction really started pulling up in recent years and we're quite excited there to be able to collaborate in the ESA framework together with Thales in the UK for the development of this in-orbit demonstrator and what we hope to be the basis for future scientific and operational missions. Phantom is in itself Redwire's contribution to SchemeSat,

and it's part of the responsibility domain where we have been acting historically in prior years. So we are responsible for the platform design and architecture definition. We will be working with a myriad of partners, depending on the subsystems, as we start to refine them and consolidate them. And that's actually the domain where we play and where we act, where we feel at home, really. It's a bit of a bread and butter. We have a very strong and experienced satellite team that seeks to elaborate in these areas. And what we're looking forward in terms of Fantom is really to enable that as a solution

for customers in the commercial domain in Europe, and also as a bit of a part of the holistic view of what is today Redwire's VLEO capability. We are able to focus on some areas now in Europe. Our team in the U.S. is also able to investigate and develop in other areas within VLEO. And that, in context, constitutes a very holistic capability around VLEO. And that in context constitutes a very holistic capability around VLEO that allows us to tackle and address customers on both sides of the Atlantic. Maybe we should get nerdy about VLEO for a minute. So this very low Earth orbit is a thing that's always existed, but I feel like interest has only been like a, I don't even know

when the first, I'm sure people were thinking about this way back in the day, but I feel like this is a 2000s, maybe late aughts, early tens kind of like rise to prominence when it really started getting talked about. And, you know, now we see there's a lot of commercial companies that are looking at launching a VLEO for imaging and there's a whole bunch of different ideas on how it might be used, but it does feel like a more modern idea of like, okay, now we can pull this off. So why do you feel like that is a thing that is gaining steam now? Is there something different about either the technology that we're working with or the applications that we're using now that make it interesting to dip a bit closer to the atmosphere and starting to get in arguments about the carmen line like that and feel like this is going to be ripe for for the culture wars online if we've got a satellite at 90 kilometers jonathan mcdowell will feel pretty right but but why is this all

happening right now so i think uh there's two parts to the uh to the elements that you've raised. So one, I would not categorize VLEO as necessarily a new trend. There has been records of missions in VLEO before, certainly. Some of them more in the defense and security center, others in maybe a little bit less prominent, but in the scientific community, there has been also some examples. But you're right in the sense that there has been a bit of an uptrend into the visibility and the interest for VLEO in recent years.

And I think that also is a result of what we're starting to see in terms of debris and proliferation in LEO, just how cluttered things are starting to become and how much impact that causes in terms of not just the satellite and mission design, but actually the operations of systems out there. So as we progress to look into VLEO and LEO as domains where we want to be a bit more cautious about sustainability, I think that's where VLEO starts becoming a bit more interesting. And certainly, I mean, when we're talking about anything below the 300

kilometer altitude mark, even below the 400 kilometer, which is around where ISS sits, it's not that easy to sustain flight at that altitude. And certainly not as easy to maintain it for long periods of time with a chemical propulsion system. So there has been certainly an evolution of the technology that has allowed us to look into this as a more operational domain

rather than an opportunistic regime. So there's certainly a technology push, but also a need push that I think has drawn some spotlight into this. There's got to be something, too, about, you know, if we think back to the beginning of the satellite era, the development lifecycle or the kind of tech lifecycle was a bit longer, where lifespans of satellites started out

in, you know, decade plus time periods, especially in the real heavy geostationary satellite days. Those are like 15 life year lifespans minimum. They often go much longer than that. But as, as the sort of like, you know, development cycles have gotten a lot tighter and satellites that are five years old start to feel outdated because we've gotten better sensors or better software to find radios or all these different little components that were iterating quicker than the satellite buses were. I feel like that brought people to consider the fact that they might only want a five-year lifespan and try to figure out how to close the business case in that sense. you know, close the business case in that sense. Um, I just can't help but feel like that is a related thing that, that people have become more okay with those shorter lifespans because of the technical side of this that's led them to open their mind to say, you know, maybe we don't need

to spend 3 billion. We were, we had a Matt Dash of Iridium on the other podcast I do off nominal two weeks ago. And he was talking about when they went to fund Iridium next, it was, you know, a $3 billion program for 15 year lifespan. And he's like, I could have done $1 billion every five years, but he's not really sure how that would have shaken out given their techniques. So I do feel like that is part of this as well. So in that mindset, the missions that you've talked about with people in VLEO, why do those work with this shorter lifespan? I think it's just development cycles and technology pushes just a lag in terms of what the systems are capable of. So as technology on ground progresses, we are also challenged in space to try to do our best to keep up with that demand in terms of data, in terms of availability, and in truth, also in terms of the dynamism. So I think that has certainly put a pressure into more longstanding developments. What I will say, however, is that to me, it doesn't mean that there is no place for a longstanding mission in the space domain.

I think there are still a lot of examples of instances where either a particular mission is extended beyond its lifetime and we can still extract useful information from it or useful services, as well as bigger satellite missions where the intended use spans over a larger number of years. It's not always sensible to think about three, four, five, six launches every now and then as a way to bridge your business case. So it is very sensible and dependent on the business case that you're trying to close. But there's certainly a push on the technology that more and more businesses are trying to leverage. And that to me is what is reducing the cycles. The final point that I will make on that is small sets were not so much of a thing at the entry of the century and they have become increasingly popular over the years, bringing miniaturization and higher capable platforms over the years. These are much more by nature,

these are much more flexible and modular systems that adapt better to changing technologies. So I think small sets also play a big role in terms of how that paradigm has shifted from bigger and bulkier systems to more nimble system of systems. Maybe we can talk a little bit about Phantom itself and some of the technology and the challenges you mentioned, you know, propulsion as a big one, that there is a big propulsion

need to sustain those kind of orbits. So there are other aspects of the platform that are challenging to, you know, take what we've been doing before at four or five, six, 700 kilometer orbits and bring it down to, you know, sub 300 or changes to any individual components or things that become hard operationally to handle at that altitude yeah so so there are there are multiple things that that uh both play in in the realm of challenges and advantages um we're flying lower so we have a bit of a more benign environment for radiation. So that opens up a possibility for us to explore a more hybrid approach towards use of commercial components of the shell versus hard components

and try to find the right balance that would allow us to tackle the performance that we want without breaking the bank. In terms of the platform in itself, there's also other elements like drag. When you don't concern yourself with drag and you don't optimize your operations with respect to that variable, you will find that you will decay very quickly. And so the attitude of the spacecraft with respect to the airflow, if I could call it air, is really just articles floating in and out of the velocity vector of the satellite. But it really is relevant and you need to account for it a lot more than what you would do with a LEO satellite. And how you plan maneuvers,

how you take that into your advantage, for example, as a braking element to decrease on demand the satellite altitude. It's an element that you can use in favor, but it also can act against you. So control, concept of operations. And then lastly, how you manage with unforeseen situations, how you plan for failure and recovery of the spacecraft under an anomalous circumstance is also quite critical. It's maybe less intuitive for LEO mission development. But when you are in a regime that will eat away your altitude by the minute, then you really need to think this through and anticipate how your recovery strategy is going to be shaped.

On the aerodynamics side, how does that play out in the world of satellites? I see the render. It looks like it has some sort of nose cone style thing on it, which is quite bizarre and obviously Saberstat is completely off in that domain it looks like a pirate ship or some sort of imperial cruiser it's got a whole different look going on but this is more of a satellite-shaped satellite I guess some would say, so what are those changes

that you made to handle that situation better? Yeah, so we have done quite a few activities to optimize the aerodynamics of it. One of the early actions is, of course, you want to minimize your frontal area. But then there are other elements that play a part in terms of how the particles interact with the spacecraft. elements that play a part in terms of how the particles interact with the spacecraft. And that's where we have looked a bit more in detail to see how that is best optimized for the regime where we operate. It looks a little bit more satellite-y, but I will say that whereas a nominal satellite development typically forces you to look into aspects like mass and volume as one of the drivers, you simply are constrained by a launcher

envelope and you want to fit into that. And aircraft engineering typically is driven by aerodynamics and mass as well. Phantom has been that rare instance in satellite development where you are actually in that mixed domain and you are forced to look at aerodynamics as part of the holistic design approach. So even if it doesn't look like it, there's quite a bit of effort and work behind the scenes in terms of how to optimize the shape and the angles of the spacecraft. In combination with our approach to try to minimize as much as possible the recurring costs of the platform for future missions. So there's also an element there of us thinking about how are we going to replicate this in a sensible way for future missions. How does that design play into the use cases of the bus, right? If you've got some sort of imaging application that's going to be doing a lot of very precise pointing and slewing and need certain slew rates or if you're doing communications that need to be pointed in a certain direction you know beams going where you want them and not in other places are those moments

in time where you kind of like break out of the aerodynamic flow and then you after that after that task is done you kind of go back to the resting state? Or is there a more integrated design so that you're able to accomplish those tasks while still maintaining the attitude that is most helpful? I will say that everything that we're looking into for the design approach that we're taking is to minimize those instances where we have to break out of the minimum drag configuration. we have to break out of the minimum drag configuration. We can do it, and that can be applied to the operator's advantage. But the system is being designed in a way that this does not become a need. So how do you pull off imaging in that case? Is it kind of better tasking so that you are able to get the image you need

while staying as close to that attitude as possible and that constrains the targets that you can hit? It's a little bit about the accommodation exercise and also understanding how the payload design aligns

to the platform specification. So we are closely discussing with potential instrument suppliers, depending on the mission needs, to account for these requirements in terms of field of view, accommodation

constraints, and applying them to what we want the platform to be able to allocate. So we take that into account and we're also defining a concept of operations that allows us to maintain a minimum drag orientation throughout the most of the nominal operations. You mentioned that you're working with other suppliers for different components on these platforms as well. You mentioned that you're working with other suppliers for different components on these platforms as well. Is there a framework that you've got in place for what percentage of Redwire components you want these platforms to be and where you're okay going out to work with other people? Is that something that you want to grow from wherever you are now to 100% someday? Or is it more kind of mission specific than that? Well, maybe a little bit inherited from our history in certainly the European front.

We have a very good strength of being horizontally integrated, which gives us a lot of freedom in terms of the subsystem design and basically components that we can pick and choose to allocate in the platform. So we try to leverage that as much as possible for the spacecraft. Yes, we have partners and agreements with certain players. We have also longstanding relationship with suppliers across multiple spacecraft missions. These are treated on a case-by-case basis

and depending on the general objectives of the particular mission. So it's not something that we are forced to implement for one and all missions. It's something that varies from from development to development you've mentioned a few times though how this has grown out of the european arm of all this so can you explain a little of the separation there and and you know why there's why you've got phantom and you've got saberset and these platforms that are kind of in

their own markets and what the expectation is in terms of crossover or is it just kind of like buying a couple lottery tickets to see which one works out the best uh well the the not just looking at it for by the shape of of the spacecraft which i'm sure you you've looked at the at the renders. They are a bit of a different flavor. The teams are at the moment not collaborating purposefully. So these are missions that are reflecting needs and drivers as well as customers in their own domain. And we want to be respectful of that. At the same time, this also opens up the possibility at a company level to specialize in multiple areas around this domain.

And if the need comes for a customer to want to harness that and enable a full Redwire mission, we are in a position to respond to that challenge. In terms of the spacecraft itself, these are two different beasts. In terms of the spacecraft itself, these are two different beasts. One is more targeting critical needs and really more massive and volumetric type of payloads and mission profiles. SchemeSat in itself is something that we have worked with Thales and then resulted in Phantom. We want the platform to be compatible with as many small launchers as possible. So the shape of the spacecraft is also intentional in that respect to maintain compatibility with specific launchers and allowing that flexibility of operations.

In terms of the operational domain, SaberSat leverages some technologies that SchemeSat and Phantom will not be implementing, at least not for the moment. And that basically divides a bit the operational regime as well for us to be able to cover anywhere from very, very low altitudes to all the way to LEO and beyond with our more traditional spacecraft. is the design of the platform is in a way not just optimized for VLEO, but it also is that there's not a practical reason why it couldn't be enabled for a use in LEO environment. So we also carry a tank with us, a propellant, which allows us to serve higher altitude missions.

There the aer dynamics become less relevant, but the system is still able to perform in those regimes. So it is an intentional approach to our portfolio that allows us to cover a wider range of needs across it. You mentioned the sizing there and its adaptability with different launchers. you mentioned the sizing there and its adaptability with different launchers um i think i read that it was yeah 50 kilogram payloads and then the spacecraft itself you know rounds out to something around 300 um so just that gives us a sense for i guess you could fit an electron if you're going to the right orbit uh they're they're in that range right now so everything from that to you know find a slot on a SpaceX transporter, if you can.

Were there particular launchers that you were looking at? Was this Vega because of the European market? Was it certain rideshare slots on an Ariane 6 or something like that? Or was it just knowing that payload range for where most of the market is working these days? Yeah, so Vega is certainly one of the drivers for Phantom in terms of launch compatibility. There could be instances where Vega is just not the right choice, either time-wise or because of the envelope. And there we can seek to expand the platform capabilities slightly compared to the standard. slightly compared to the standard. But yeah, there's generally a wish within the European domain to maintain compatibility with some of these upcoming

small satellite launchers. And that has been part of the considerations. And as Omar has very rightfully put it, they are not really that similar with orders of magnitude difference in terms of the power that they are targeting as well as the type of payloads that they can carry. The other aspect you're talking about there was some of the differences between SkimSat itself, the mission and Phantom. And maybe we can dive deeper into the heritage there.

And what exactly was the partnership with Thales? And what did Phantom kind of extract from this program to then hopefully go on to flourish as its own product line? Yeah, so there is an ongoing intent and collaboration with Thales, which we're very happy to continue and where we are continuing to progress. The intention there is to provide a European framework

solution where our customers can go and find a one-stop shop. The contribution that we are bringing in is part of Belgium's contribution into SchemeSat. In that respect, from the platform

point of view, we have a series of subsystems where we are collaborating also directly with TALIS, where they are also supporting from an propulsion area where they are seeking to specialize. And we're quite happy with the progress that we're making. We are at the moment looking into some of the critical pre-developments and some key analysis that needs to be performed before we can kick in into high gear and move into the implementation. The launch side of things I'm also curious about with VLEO, are there any changes to deployments or any any changes that some of these operators

if you've had these conversations so far um you know that i guess i'm just curious how the deployment goes for these kind of things do you want to get dropped off at the typical location that these launchers would drop off in leo do you want to get dropped off a bit lower do you want to get dropped off where they get dropped off and use your not ideal direction of pointing to drop down yourself so that you're able to get the best ride to space? What are those considerations?

I think that's part of the key elements that we're trying to tap into and to refine as we move forward with Scheme Set. The strategy on deployment will be different from mission to mission and will depend also on the appetite for risk of the specific customer on the mission. Initially, we will

expect to be deployed at a higher altitude where we can safely perform the commission of the spacecraft and from there we drop to a nominal altitude for the operations. Once we have managed to evaluate this profile and feel a lot more comfortable, there could be a possibility for us to then deploy that a bit closer to nominal operational altitude. Are there aspects to the design as well that would lend itself to stacking a bunch of these together? If somebody wanted a VLEO constellation, would Phantom be adaptable to that mindset as well? Yeah, I think so.

I don't think there's anything that would directly prevent us from serving that type of market. And certainly for low latency communication architectures or for when you talk about a multi-satellite constellation for ISR with some more persistent coverage type of needs, this is certainly something that we are hoping to serve with Phantom. For sure, it's one of the key uses that we are anticipating. I just thought of this question. I didn't even have this written down in my notes before. So you can tell me if it's too of the key uses that we are anticipating. I just thought of this question.

I didn't even have this written down in my notes before. So you can tell me if it's too off the wall. But this feels like one of those programs where someone might get the itch to be like, well, there's atmospheres at Mars and Venus too. Maybe this would be a good platform for, you know, maybe Peter Beck's entry capsule doesn't work out the best for Venus or something. And maybe they don't want to float a balloon. But maybe we can fly a skim sat kind of thing and dip into Venus a bit.

Has that ever come up? Well, I will say that we'd be more than happy to look into this if we had the chance. I don't know that we have purposely looked into this. Atmosphere in Mars is, of course, a lot thinner and scarcer compared to Earth. So observing satellites are already flying a lot lower. We are, however, looking into deep space implementation

and interplanetary missions as part of our push to continue innovating in our traditional satellite platform. So from the point of view of our more traditional ROVA-like P200 spacecraft, we are intentionally going further and further in terms of the use cases that we're exploring at the moment. What are the, you know, I guess for future thinking, right? You've got SkimSat is probably taken a lot of the attention right now, but what are the ideal customers for a platform like Phantom?

Is it tuned specifically for a certain segment of the market or type of market, or is the goal to be very general? No, so the platform is being envisioned and indeed purposely developed to serve a scientific community, but it also has capabilities and design elements that would allow us to serve more security type of customers.

So there is also a push there to look into things like data encryption, things like onboard security elements, autonomy, and so on, that would impact more in a defense and security type of domain. So from a customer perspective, we are actively engaging with customers across the aisle. These are indeed more institutional in nature, as well as engagement on the commercial side for potential uses.

What's the thing I should have asked about Phantom that I've completely ignored at this point? I don't know. I think part of what I find quite rewarding of this path that we've taken is it is quite unique in the way that we approach design development and the elements that we have tried to implement for innovation into our platforms. It is, in a way, a path that feels somewhat natural for us as a company that has embraced and continued to deliver in the performance realm of things.

So we work and we go after one of and first of its kind type of things. We work and we go after one of first of its kind type of missions. This is something that is right up our alley in that respect, but somehow it remains being a challenge. It's quite rewarding and I think our engineering team is quite excited to

work in this. It's just not something that comes out every other day. It keeps the fun on everything and anything that we do awesome well it's been really cool to dig into this a bit i'm excited to watch the mission and and see where else phantom goes uh so thanks so much for hanging out thank you very much and it's a pleasure thanks again to jp for hanging out and talking all about v leo and phantom on the show and thanks to the red hanging out and talking all about VLEO and Phantom on the show. And thanks to the Redwire crew and Omar for setting up these conversations.

It's been cool to talk about the VLEO side of things and what they're working on over there. Had a good time diving in, getting some of my questions answered. So hope you enjoyed it as well. And before we get out of here, I want to say thank you to everyone who supported Main Engine cutoff over at mainenginecutoff.com slash support there are 850 some of you at this point and a couple of new ones hanging out over at substack i mentioned that last week but i'm putting the headline shows up on substack now so if you're more of a substack type mainenginecutoff.substack.com is where to head for that or you can just head to mainenginecutoff.com slash support, which will take you to Patreon right now, but I'm putting up a new page there

so you'll get all the info on that in whichever one you head to. But I do want to say thank you to the 33 executive producers of Main Engine Cutoff who made this episode possible. Thanks to Joel, the Astrogators at SCE, Warren, Russell, Eunice, Stealth

Julian, Pat from KC, Will and Lars from Agile Space, Benjamin, Tyler, Harrison, Lee, Steve, Theo and Violet, Jan, Matt, David, Bob, Ryan, Donald, Pat, Chris, Josh from Impulse Space, Better Everyday Studios, Fred, Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut, Frank, SmallSpark Space Systems, and four anonymous executive producers. All of you are the reason that I do this show, that you make it possible to continue doing the show and growing it into different areas, doing really good interviews like this. So if you like what I'm doing here, head over there, help support the show and get Miko headlines in your life. It's a great

way to stay up on the space news. I just did a really long show after all sorts of launches and launch failures and interesting stories, Starliner and all the updates that you need. So head over there, check out the show. I think you'll enjoy it. It's a great way to stay up on the news and support what I'm doing here. So thank you all so much for your support. Thanks for listening. If you've got any questions or thoughts, hit me up on email, anthony at managementcutoff.com.

On Twitter at wehavemiko. On Mastodon, if you're still hanging out there these days, at miko at spacey.space. But otherwise, thanks for listening, and I'll talk to you soon.