The Integration of Commercial Space

by JP Kurkowski, CMO AI Corp. 2020

The Commercial Space Industry is moving very quickly...

As we begin a new decade, the Commercial Space Industry is on the forefront of taking “that next big step” to truly commercializing space for business and tourism and making it as common as all the other business and tourist enterprises on Earth today.

One just needs to listen or read the news to learn a commercial space company is performing a new test (either in conjunction to a contract with NASA, the government or on their own) to progress a particular effort one step closer to the end goal. Additionally, many smaller new “startups” have appeared filling niche needs or introducing new technology.

Various types of “space assets” are being developed and/or released to fulfill the various needs. Launch systems, capsules , plane/shuttle type vehicles, nano satellites, space stations, landing vehicles , all to be used for various missions, both manned and unmanned.

The common denominator

With large and small commercial space companies and the various types of space assets entering the field, there is one common denominator among them. They all rely on mature Engineering and Maintenance organizations for their success. From conception, to manufacturing, to their mission deployments and eventual decommissioning, space assets rely on engineering and maintenance organizations to keep them operating as designed, modified/upgraded as required.

Currently with the collaboration of governments, space entities and a whole array of commercial companies are each working on specific projects. Another common denominator (and term) in this space (if you pardon the pun) are the terms “integrate/integration”. There is a need for many space assets (and their commercial companies) to integrate in various ways. Commercial capsules need to dock to the international space station as one example. Customers of commercial launch service providers need to integrate their products/payload with a launch vehicles as another example.

Under its “Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities” program NASA is fostering the development of new commercial space-related capabilities.

NASA has made great strides in space knowledge and experience with its various programs since Mercury and leading up to its newest efforts under the general heading of “Commercial Space”. Besides collaborating with various commercial companies,, it has been using its past knowledge and experience working with contractors and is applying it to “integrating” with commercial companies on specific missions/projects contracts. The latest being the Artemis Program with it bold ambitions and aggressive schedules. Challenges we have not witnessed since the 1960’s. Toys time however, it is not about governments “racing” against one another, but countries around the world “joining” one another to attain common goals, with space agencies such as NASA (being a leader) and more freeing sharing much of its experience with other countries and commercial space companies in what is being tagged a/the new “Commercial Space Economy”.

With all of the various parties needing to work together to achieve the common goals, “integration” of many factors becomes one of the critical success factors. “Integration misalignment” being a notable risk.

Integration Misalignment

We define integration misalignment as when two or more parties are working on a mission/project/effort towards a common goal. It may be a single space asset or several assets that need to work together. In either scenario they need to integrate to meet the goal. If they do integrate but overlook something critical in the overall processes, it can cause a critical failure at a later time. This is “integration misalignment”.

The NASA and aviation industry has provided us with two good examples of integration misalignment to make the point. When Apollo 13 had a failure of an oxygen tank on the command module, the astronauts needed to move from the command module to the lunar lander to survive. Two different companies made the command module and the lunar lander. Both used common technology to scrub C02 from the air. When three astronauts had to move to the lunar lander, after a period of time, it was discovered the C02 scrub modules were at capacity sooner then anticipated due to three astronauts being in the lander vs two it was designed for. (for its lunar mission). There were extra C02 scrub modules in the command module, however, somewhere in the integration process it was overlooked the C02 modules in the lunar lander were round and the ones in the command module were square. Such a scenario was never considered. Fatal consequences were avoided when engineering and maintenance types came up with a” work around” to connect square modules to the stem in the lander.

During Development, two halves of the Airbus A380 were being developed through a collaboration between 16 sites spread across 4 different countries (all in the same company, Airbus). When the two halves were brought together at a single location to join and assemble, it was discovered complex wiring harnesses were too short to connect throughout the airframe. It was discovered that two different versions of CAD software were used by two (basic) groups. This integration misalignment, was luckily not a failure that initially could cause fatalities, but it did cause the aircraft’s entry into service to be delayed by almost 2 years and the project was several billion dollars over budget.

While similar oversights such as in the two examples above theoretically could happen in today’s commercial space sector, we have not heard of any similar (and luckily not fatal) failures in our current endeavors. We have hopefully learned from the past and improved integration practices as well as testing (which seems to be the case)

Planning Space Maintenance for the (near) Future... Today

As we move quickly to more assets and people accessing space, we need to highlight the importance of integration at various levels, but particularly engineering and maintenance functions related to the various assets and missions. We observe an industry need to look at the array is commercial space activities in play today and set a level of integration principles for all parties involved.

A simple example would be for parties to assess and confirm critical systems that could cause loss of life if they fail. They should then make the best effort to avoid integration misalignment, particularly “in space” or planetary missions, if there are redundant systems (or spare parts) available on the asset, connected to the asset or nearby. Using the two misalignment examples above, if multiple companies were involved in the manufacturing of the assets, effort needs to be made to anticipate scenarios of critical system failures. Possible temporary or permanent repairs on said failed systems should be analyzed, particularly related to compatibility/interconnection of fittings and/or parts across critical systems.

Additionally, on missions related to commercial habitats for humans, in space or planetary environments, maintenance, in conjunction with engineering groups, need to plan the maintenance, regimes, modifications or upgrades to critical assets and be able to demonstrate “integrations with other parties as well as the compatibility/interconnection of fittings and/or parts across critical systems.

At the deepest level of the maintenance and engineering disciplines, “Planning” is primary to successful function and availability of assets in ones charge. Today, Planning tomorrow’s maintenance for commercial space assets needs to begin now to at the highest level drilling down to the detailed level.

At the highest level policies and/or standards that can be used across commercial space enterprises need to be developed related to engineering and maintenance. Practices such as “docking” or “landing” unmanned assets as “critical parts” “stockrooms/warehouses” should be considered to become leading/best practices on manned missions. Drilling down, general designs for critical systems that use “common” (by today’s standards) technologies should be collaborated and primary elements such as connectors/fittings replaceable elements be standardized as much as possible.

While there are many similarities between maintenance and engineering practices on Earth today, there are numerous differences in how maintenance in commercial space assets is/will be performed tomorrow. This does not infer that the differences are so great that things need to “restart from the beginning”. We will save this for another discussion however. What is done and standardized here on Earth today can be used and “adjusted” for the unique differences needs of commercial space maintenance and engineering practices. Any identified gaps can then be filled.

These are but a few simple examples of ways the maturing commercial space industry can begin “planning” tomorrow space maintenance “today”