TAMPA, Fla. — The shift toward standardized, modular satellite platforms that can serve as the foundation for multiple missions is reshaping the role of vertical integration in the industry, manufacturers said Feb. 4 during the SmallSat Symposium in Silicon Valley.
Instead of designing a unique satellite for each mission, companies are increasingly adopting a common platform and swapping out payloads to meet different customer needs.
This shift is refueling a long-running debate over whether owning every part of the supply chain is the most effective way to control cost and performance in the space industry.
While some, like SpaceX and Rocket Lab, are doubling down on in-house production to ensure tight control over supply chains and manufacturing timelines, others are leaning on a diversified supplier base to balance standardization with flexibility.
“We deliberately made a shift in the strategy from [building] a lot of one to having a common base that could be used for multiple missions,” Debra Facktor, head of Airbus U.S. Space Systems, said on a panel at the conference, organized by Satnews Events.
Once responsible for churning out hundreds of identical broadband satellites in partnership with low Earth orbit operator OneWeb, Airbus’ mass manufacturing plant in Florida now builds spacecraft for a range of missions, including platforms for interconnected satellites that Northrop Grumman is contracted to deliver to the Space Development Agency (SDA).
“Philosophically, I like having resilience in the supply chain,” Facktor said, “and having a global supply chain that is strong in many ways, because each supplier is going to be the best that they are at their technology.
“They will do investments, they’ll do technology refresh — get the right kind of skillsets and processes to improve over time, and then I don’t have to do that.”
A company like Airbus then can rely on its suppliers to come up with competitive options, she said, although she acknowledged these companies first need a strong demand signal with predictability.
Vertical integration merits
Vertical integration made a lot of sense when Airbus was focused on building identical satellites for OneWeb, Viktor Danchev, chief technology officer for Bulgaria-based microsatellite specialist EnduroSat, said on the panel.
“But it gets much more complex when you have different spacecraft, and especially if you try the multi-mission,” Danchev continued.
“And if you don’t have such a huge constellation to commit upfront into it, it becomes a huge expense in the beginning, which is basically crippling your ability to become cash positive at some point.”
Brad King, CEO of propulsion provider Orbion Space Technology, noted how SpaceX’s success is often seen as validation of the vertical integration strategy in the space industry.
“I don’t know that that’s necessarily true,” King said. “I think it’s a bit of an artifact of the times.”
When SpaceX was first gaining traction, he said the company had to bring capabilities in-house because suppliers either didn’t exist or were too risky to rely on.
“Most vertical integrations are the result of being hurt by a supplier,” he said. “So if you’re very good at doing it yourself, you can consider vertical [integration]. Or if there isn’t a viable supply chain, or you’ve been hurt, I think it goes vertical, but I don’t think it is a virtue in and of itself.”
Now, with the rise of modular satellite platforms and growing supplier maturity, thanks in part to the SDA investing in space infrastructure, King said there are more viable buy options in the market than ever before.
Multi-mission, multi-opportunity
Danchev pointed to the growing preference for a baseline satellite bus with configurable options as a key driver of the shift toward multi-mission spacecraft.
“As long as you have this list of options, it’s a very good opportunity for the customer to configure” to pay only for the capabilities they care about, he said, while still getting to orbit faster than designing a satellite for a single mission from the ground up.
Facktor noted how advances in satellite designs and launch capabilities have also eliminated the need for every satellite to carry multiple payloads.
“Back in the day, when we had limited launch options, you had one opportunity to launch” to meet a business case, she said, and for geostationary orbit satellites with a 15-year design life “you’re going to put every single possible payload that you could think of because you might not get another chance.”
That has changed over the past two decades, driven by advancements in launch capabilities, technology miniaturization and the growing role of software in enhancing hardware performance.
“I don’t have to have every single possible payload on one satellite,” Facktor added, “and I don’t also have to have every constellation have all the same satellites.”
This flexibility is enabling satellite operators to optimize their fleets, combining specialized and multi-mission spacecraft in ways that would not have been feasible in the past.
