What You Missed On The Vector Episode 14: Enabling the Cislunar Economy through In-Space Service, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM)

Written by: Morsiell Dormu

Stay connected with the Vector Community! Visit us here to sign up for the Vector Newsletter for quarterly updates, news, and stories, or opt into monthly updates about The Vector Podcast, featuring thought leaders in space, entrepreneurship, and innovation. You can even suggest topics or speakers for the podcast. Don’t miss out—subscribe today!

 

Episode Transcript:

Kelli Kedis Ogborn:

Hello everyone and welcome to the Vector where we discuss topics, trends and insights shaping the global space ecosystem. I am your host Kelly, and today is all about IAM in space servicing, assembly and manufacturing, a seemingly niche industry, but is also serving as a backbone for the growth of the space ecosystem. Joining me in this conversation are two gentlemen that I am very excited to have because their company is really on the forefront of enabling this growth and this architecture within low earth orbit. So joining me today is Joerg Kreisel who is chairman and co-founder of iboss and also Secretary of Confers. Jorg is a seasoned professional with over 35 years of experience in the space industry and is actively engaged in several space related startups and investor boards across the globe. He specializes in technology commercialization and his journey into the space sector dates back to 1987 when he played a crucial role in supporting the founding and early years of Rapid Eye as well as when he co-founded jk, which is a consulting company dedicated to innovative and commercial activities within the space industry.

Since the year 2000, JK has been a key player in on orbit servicing and active debris removal, and this has really catapulted York as a specialist and really a recognized leader within the IAM portfolio. And he also holds international patents for modular space systems concepts. More recently in 2017, he helped co-found IBOs, which is aiming to revolutionize space infrastructure by promoting modularity and plug and play capabilities through specialized interface and building block technologies In his spare time, he is a frequent speaker at international events, a university lecturer, a i a associate fellow, as well as involved in many other global aerospace organizations. Jorg, welcome for thank you for joining us today and also joining us is Thomas A. Scherva, who is CEO and co-founder of iboss. He is a structural mechanics expert and he specializes in spacecraft design and weight optimization using genetic and machine learning algorithms.

He completed his mechanical engineering studies with a focus on aerospace engineering at Achin University in Germany. And after earning his diploma, he worked as a full-time research engineer at the Institute of Structural Mechanics and lightweight design. Thomas was a member and eventually was appointed the chief engineer of the institute, which developed modular satellite architectures under three major DLR grants for the Iboss joint project, which happened from 2010 to 2018. And during his tenure at the institute, he really developed extensive knowledge that carried into his role as CEO of Iboss. Thomas is currently conducting a PhD research project centered on the development and application of deep learning neural networks to forecast the mechanical responses of lightweight structures, which is really, really fascinating. And so thank you both for joining me today. I think your perspectives and especially your history engaging in the I a portfolio, but also the broader aspects of the tech and business side of space will really make this a productive conversation.

So let’s kick this off. As I mentioned in the beginning, IAM obviously is a term that you guys talk about a lot. It really permeates a lot of what you do professionally on a daily basis, but it’s not really something that outside of this niche area people really know about. They actually conceptually do know about it, but as an industry I think it’s a little less known. And Iboss really is at the forefront of a lot of this because I know the company’s mission is really to promote modularity but enable this plug in place space infrastructure, which people in the industry know is really critical to enabling its growth and really how the industry needs to progress for future movement. And so Thomas, I want to start with you to talk a little bit about iboss. We mentioned its roots in the university and the institute in particular, but where did you really see the value in spinning this off to create a separate company and how do you see the technology really enabling this IAM portfolio and ecosystem?

Thomas A. Scherva:

Yes, so thank you Kelli for your question and introduction. Yeah, so IEM in space satellite servicing, assembly and manufacturing. And when back in 2017, the Iboss project started as funded by the DLR in Germany. The whole concept was about making satellites more modular and repairable upgradeable and to be able to still reshape a satellite in space after you launched it because this is something what is not possible up today. And the basic idea is that if you have a satellite in space, which has a problem is broken, it’s old that you can still repair it by adding a module, upgrading it by adding a module. And all this needs some kind of interface let’s say, or some kind of rules of the road or some kind of on orbit servicing, robotics, et cetera. And we as a company, let’s say in the course of this project, we developed all these technologies surrounding on orbit servicing. And one of the key components was the interface we are right, which is right now our product which allows to do right to do this, to somehow attach something in space by robotic means or to take apart stuff and do some kind of modular modularity in space. And this of course allows a new systems, new satellite systems, new possibility, new businesses and the whole ecosystem of new architectures.

Kelli Kedis Ogborn:

And to that point in Jorg, I’m curious your perspective on this because Thomas, you’re right. I mean this modularity and really it’s an iterative approach because if you think about other industries like automotive industries and cell phone industries, the technology is constantly improved upon and in space we should also have that ability that when you put something up it can be iterated and improved on, especially to allow new capabilities that are going to continue to be necessary but also are critical for growth. And York, you’ve been dealing with space commercialization for a very long time and with this opportunity and with this technology in particular, what does it enable us to do that we haven’t been able to do before up until this point?

Joerg Kreisel:

Well, it enables a range of things. And I think first of all, we need to acknowledge that the next big thing and what drives release space is future space infrastructure and associated logistics.

And we have built systems and conducted missions for a long time in the same way based on the same design principles, the same operational models and kops as well as slowly emerging business models. And this can change totally if we considered modular architectures. Modular architectures, we always like to talk about what is in space. It starts on the ground if we are able to compose and build things out of building blocks, building blocks, and then also make systems fit a rocket. Today we built systems which fit a fairing in a rocket. Now we could put something together and if it doesn’t work, we bring it up and then put it together in space. And then in space it kind of gives us tremendous opportunities all the way from warehousing to kind of systems, upgradable systems as Thomas mentioned. And in the context of this, a very critical element is such an interface which then has a couple of multiple functionalities all the way from mechanical connection to transferring power data and if what you like and that will help a lot, it boils down to the legal principle.

All this can be discussed in different ways and there’s multiple projects on all over the globe and some of them for a long, long time. At the end of the day we are talking about increasing mission flexibility and we can do things better on ground, we can do things in space and alongside the introduction of modular architectures in space systems, we will see evolving new business models as well. We see kind of different design philosophies as very clear because design is different but also different business models but also be in between different operational models, even modular operation, operation of payloads versus operation of buses, of satellites and so forth. So Iza is really a game changing movement.

And it’s interesting. I want to pull on what you talked about about mission flexibility and this builds into I think a broader movement and sort of moment in time where we are in space because for a long time and a lot of IAM is talking about low earth orbit architecture infrastructure, but really the industry is now talking toward this sis lunar economy and everything built within it. And mission flexibility means different things to different people because as you discuss this ecosystem, there’s national security priorities, there’s civil priorities, there’s commercial priorities, and all of that is sort of mixed into one. But missions are somewhat similar. They just might have different outcomes. And so I know from the plug and play aspect, if you could just pull on that a bit more because I think your Lego analogy is really, really spot on. And when you and I and Thomas too, when you were showing me the interface initially, I thought it was really interesting how you’re able to know friend info when they’re trying to dock on different areas for this sort of mission flexibility and mission output. So could you touch a bit upon that?

Kelli Kedis Ogborn:

Yeah, sure. So our interface is able to connect three things or even four. So first of all, if you have the mechanical connection because you need some kind of rigid interface to connect to the Lego parts in space, the building blocks in space, but then you have also a power transfer and also a data transfer. And even later we have also an option for thermal transfer. But let’s say before coupling to each other, you need some kind of agreeing that the one is both actors like each other and want to connect to each other. So we have decided for an optical interface, so our interface transfers dawa wide optical device and this optical interface even works in some distance up to 10 centimeters distance. And so the interface one is saying, hello, here, I’m, can I connect to you? And the other one is agreeing and if it’s agreeing, it prepares the interface, the mechanical part in a way so that the other can dock and connect to this interface. If the interface is not willing to dock because they didn’t agree in this handshake, then the interface can drive to some kind of posture where it prevents that the other interface can attach and enter the other interface. So this is our basic idea behind having some extra security in this domain. Of course, after the interfaces have data connection, we can start transferring power. Of course we have a rigid connection and we can also start transferring high data rates in the gigabit per second domain.

Joerg Kreisel:

And Jorg, I’d love for you to pile on about that in terms of this sis lunar space now because we’re betting on eventualities, but people are designing their business models for scalability toward that future 3, 5, 7 years. And how do you see this infrastructure play shaking out or also maybe some of the mission sets that are not necessarily on the docket but are going to be really critical that are going to need this sort of technology?

Thomas A. Scherva:

That is a very good question because first of all, we have to also take into account that for all this we need robotics. So we are talking not only the space systems, but we also talk robots. For some people this is one thing, no it’s not because the robotics world is a kind of different discipline, so systems are being designed. So that is what to add to what Thomas was saying, that our interfaces also can be a robotic and effector on a robot foot or whatever you name it. So our mission is to create the missing link to bring together all these different types of systems. Part of the systems are core systems which kind of then have a functionality, that’s what they, they’ve been built for, be it communication satellites or whatever you name it. And the author is a support infrastructure alongside certain logistics. And that can be servicing, assembly, manufacturing. We’re not going into the details. It’s sort of like a big tree.

And so what is it the systems would need to, I think, and that brings us back to the modularity aspects, we are convinced there will be economy of scale effects by using similar parts principles and then sort of coming over time. Of course for the time being, it’s going to be different. That’s like in the early days of computers coming to standards. And we have seen it in the IT world, in computer IT hardware. In the beginning nothing fit together, a thousand cables, different plugs and that thing couldn’t work with the other one. If it was broken, it couldn’t connect a print, all these kind of things. I’ve gone through this period now it doesn’t matter. You just put together what you want. And that is a bit what we want to help bring to those systems. But in our role in the iar Luna world, we are convinced we can be an enabler. So we want to help others put something on the table, a little interface and to help them do a better job or to improve, enhance their systems.

Joerg Kreisel:

Yeah. I want to pull on this thread that you talked about quickly, but I do want to actually bring in a comment that was made in the chat because I want to make sure that we’re all on the same page. So somebody wrote that an interface that has to be on the vehicle and that ad system complexity seems prohibitive. How would you respond to that

Thomas A. Scherva:

Thomas?

Kelli Kedis Ogborn:

So I believe so we offer different types of interfaces. So we have an active interface which has a motor and gears and is driving, but we have offer also a passive interface if required or even very thin option of this interface, which where the impact of mass is very, very small. So we can go down to for the passive side to 200 grams even. And even below with if you just mill it directly into your structure, we can go below a hundred grams. So I think the step, or let’s say the challenge to equip satellites in space with such interface just to be sure to be able to service them in the future is a small, very small price to pay. And of course right now the satellite space, they don’t have this interface and it’s clear that our interface or our idea of modular spacecraft is something for the next future or let’s say for the coming satellite systems.

And it makes also sense because if you are thinking that right now a lot of things are changing in space, we are coming from hundreds or 1000 satellites in orbit now to tens of thousands satellites in orbit. And now this is the shift of this paradigm shift because it makes no sense to have road assistance service on the highway for five cars, but as soon as you have thousands of cars on the highway, then a road assistant and makes sense and this service makes sense, this ecosystem is building up and growing. But of course you have to prepare it with, in our case, with the interfaces and to robotics and the services.

Thomas A. Scherva:

And to add to that, if I may very briefly, the question is very valid and the answer is also valid. But the point is what I’ve personally observed over the years, there’s always been that discussion, yes and no came about the service on orbit servicing modularity, building blocks and interfaces. And one argument, a counter argument has always been there was a mass penalty, additional complexity for the system, et cetera, et cetera. It is not really true depending on how you design a system. And we did that once in a whole kind of iboss project with many kind of institutions we’ve sort of rebuilt in such a modular approach. And it was like the mass penalty was below 10%, but we could bring in more payload, even more transponders. So it depends really the particular mission. So there is no such general and no it works or not. And also particularly economically because economically things will change since we are moving from building those systems to no, we are talking already satellite as a service, we will one day if we’re talking interface we will talk something like connection as a service. So it’ll break up into many, many different fields.

Well,

Joerg Kreisel:

And I imagine what it comes down to is it’s extending use but also adapting use. Because one of the themes that both of you keep talking about is this future eventuality where space is going and we need to meet the challenges now, but we also need to start designing for what the future could look like and that is something that we need to start integrating. And Jorg, I want to come back to this concept. You talked about economies of scale because that is really the critical piece to this, especially with space. And as we talk about the commercialization of space and the sis lunar economy, certainly that’s where we need to get to. We can’t keep being iterative. It has to be integrative. The architecture needs to be able to serve now, prepare for the future. And I’m curious when it comes to the i a ecosystem, because a lot of concepts have been talked about, there’s interfaces, there’s the proliferation of satellites, there’s the robotics demonstrations and development that needs to happen, there’s refueling, there’s all of these various parts.

How does that industry come together? So you mentioned standards, which is critical obviously, but other things that come to mind is different funding models because there’s a lot of different businesses that are part of this integrative portfolio. The perceived risk of course, because while a lot of these companies that are within the IAM entity have demonstrated proven capabilities, they still are sort of seen in their infancy by maybe more stayed players. And so how do we move toward this economy of scale and really get past this demo prototype stage and really to get to some sort of scalable infrastructure.

Thomas A. Scherva:

Yeah, so I’m glad you mentioned a couple of very important terms in this context because first of all, this will not happen overnight

And we need to make sure that not a bunch of space players run forward too fast. My personal belief is it has to be a lesser small approach. You mentioned risk, there’s tremendous risk. Everything we put in spaces risk, right? It’s risky, very challenging. And then the further we go out beyond Leo, CS, Luna and beyond to the celestial bodies and maybe on surfaces, and that is also where the modular architectures can work all the way to rovers on the moon and further off and maybe kind of exploration infrastructure someplace government, there’s huge risk. The regulatory regimes are not totally sorted out. Actually we are far from being there, but all these things are sort of converging. Everybody’s working on it. And I personally believe it takes sort of simple demo missions to build trust. We also know that a very important player in the whole industry insurance, they want to see things work.

So we need to create trust and confidence amongst the I insurers, but also in particular also amongst the investors. So there is for sure a call for governments to helping taking this first step prior to going broader. The one or other private sector investor may join and want to come on board early to maintain a particular upside in a particular field better than others other than that, that we believe is the way forward. So what does that mean? You mentioned for instance, ecosystem, different business models, this economy of scale. How will it come? There are commercial proposals out for privately operated space stations where people can bring payloads to operate and these type of things. There’s several of those and a very, very good concepts. And so I think it’ll grow gradually. And that is another thing where we have seen in space in the past over the last many decades that sometimes we were trying to jump too far or systems or activities in the first step were too complex. Simplicity in the first step and then slowly building up things will help. They will take by the hand all the surrounding players or drivers like regulatory, legal, insurance funders. We also need to educate more a broader base of financiers all the way from specialty financing to straight equity. And that is a new thing. So that is in essence governments have to help. In the first job, we see very interesting approaches in different parts of the world, particularly in your home country and then taking it from there. And certainly I believe other space agencies but also industry will buy into this concept over time.

Joerg Kreisel:

Let’s do with

Thomas A. Scherva:

The only last question is how long will it take? And here we need to make sure that things will not take too long. The space industry in the past was pretty good in delays, in budget overruns, and that has to change.

Joerg Kreisel:

Let’s stick with your theme of simplicity because you pointed out two particular words that seem simple, but they’re anything but space. So trust and risk. And I want to dive into a couple of those because I completely agree with you. It’s one of those where it’s sort of a chicken in the egg. You have to have a healthy risk portfolio or risk appetite to allow for the innovation to demonstrate to scale, to then get the trust in the system to be able to build. But sometimes trust can be, trust means different things to different people. And so Thomas, I’m curious for you and then I want to throw it back to your, do you establish trust just through technical proficiency? So obviously through being able to provide time over time, demos that work and iteratively prove out your concept, or is it also a narrative issue? Because York, as you know, when it comes to space commercialization and when you’re dealing with private initiatives and government led initiatives, a lot of it is the strategy and some of the other stuff that’s going to enable risk or sorry, going to enable trust. And so I’m curious which will get you further along. And Thomas, let’s start with you with the technical proficiency in building trust.

Kelli Kedis Ogborn:

Yes. So I think this trust thing has of course two pages. So first of all, you have to create trust in the technology by demonstrations. But demonstration missions, for example, we had the opportunity to demonstrate our interface in 2023 onboard international space station in the course of a US mission, D IU funded with partners of us from the company Sky Corp. And this of course is one first step of let’s say creating technical trust to show that it works. The next approach is that we are right now, we’re not there yet with our product. So right now we are selling lab models and our idea or our approach is to distribute as many lab models to different institutions, research institutions, companies, universities as possible so that they start making their experiences with it. They’re playing with it, doing robotic manipulation, doing modular spacecrafts, creating new ideas, giving us feedback and tell us, yeah, you have to improve maybe here a bit.

We had issues with that. Oh this works fine, can you do this and this? And this of course creates some kind of let’s say community, which is dealing with this idea of modular spacecrafts and is also providing us with extra knowledge but also create some kind of trust between the partners and that at the end, the product is suited for everybody who needs these capabilities. So this is maybe the technological part of the trust. On the other hand, trust also comes from let’s say, or the business side of trust comes from drawing a picture and idea of how this ecosystem is building up in the future and how important it is right now to create the capabilities, the technological capabilities, but also the government issues and insurance issues and all this other stuff to be able to create this future ecosystem. But I think can add also that,

Thomas A. Scherva:

Yeah, I would add to this, I’m kind of hitchhiking a bit and moving from the tech to the non-tech side, this modular architecture, something considers also new risks and new systems. At the moment, two things come together or a service, service another system. We are talking compound spacecraft. So for that time being at least, and that brings a lot of even technical challenges, let’s put it that way. So we are talking a new ball game on one end side. Another thing is, and now coming back from this to trust building and building confidence with the various stakeholders, with all this modular architectures I arm and what we were talking about for the last half an hour, this brings in kind of needs new vertical expertise in certain subsets and areas and that is a steep learning curve for everybody on the table. And then on a business and ecosystem development side, what does a trust thing mean?

So we have, as Thomas pointed out, we are kind of currently distributing laboratory models, but we have put our stuff in space and it worked. So it was flown in the US mission. So we are, and now let me use one word which is important. I think we are real, we have real stuff that worked in space and now from here we want to help move and grow further. I think building trust in today’s world and we very much appreciate the new space movement, which is really shows tangible results and way forward since around about 2015 in big numbers you also see a lot of PowerPoint companies. So where is the distinction? Where who builds what with whom? How much money is thrown after what? And then kind of building this feedback between all the stakeholders where the real trust is being built and where progress is being made.

Even for companies which are advanced, it’s still difficult. So I think the industrialization, which basically is on the move or in the making bigger time, I’m not talking about the staling satellites, but I’m talking kind of larger systems further out for that. It’ll bring a new culture for sure. It’ll bring a new culture also with new players, imagine you have building blocks which are going doing something in space, payloads, whatever it is. If we are talking building blocks and modular building blocks, which are pretested be qualified, others can put stuff inside people which have nothing to do with space because a showstopper for the time being is payload integration. And everybody who has a sexy thing is getting really, really shocked when they see what payload integration means. But imagine the concept of an app store. You provide a framework, people get this kind of programming environment, which is the building block and there’s modular architecture and they could put something inside.

Joerg Kreisel:

Absolutely. I mean that

Thomas A. Scherva:

New industries, new industries, new players from around the world.

Joerg Kreisel:

Absolutely. Well, and that goes back to the concept I said in the beginning that ICM seems niche, but it really is a backbone for all of the infrastructure and engagement that we want to have in space. And to your point about payload interface, it really comes down to access because that is what’s getting a lot of people excited that might not be part of the space industry now or space ecosystem, but know that there’s a pathway for them to engage. And I love that you inserted the topic of being real and these PowerPoint companies because as we’ve seen, and this potentially does go down into trust and risk, is that the industry is moving past hype, which is great into this real conversation of companies that have been there, done that flown, that demonstrated product market fit and have the ability to scale quickly and integrate into existing architectures and business models, but also get some sort of return on investment.

So we really are seeing this environment that is a little bit more pragmatic while also building toward this future because IAM is enabling this really exciting future, but it has to be rooted in real technological progression, which you guys laid out. Last question from me before, I want to open it up to any more audience questions and any other points you want to make is this concept of stakeholders and it’s come up a lot in different ways and York particularly as you were talking about how this ecosystem is going to evolve. So government enabled, private led paradigm I think is a concept that permeates a lot of the space industry with different verticals building out and with IAM in particular, how do you think these domains will shift in the years to come? And the reason I bring it up is we do have a lot of listeners that are entrepreneurial, young companies are interested in getting into space. We also have a lot of existing space companies, but I always try to dispel that private alone is a myth that the government still plays a critical role and especially with IAM, very critical. How do you see this evolving in terms of the push and pull of who will lead, who will follow, and how do you think that’ll change over time? Open to both of you

Thomas A. Scherva:

Since we are from Europe, Germany, the lead, the leader, it’ll be led by the United States. That’s very clear for a number of reasons and that is a chance, it’s a huge kind of joker for the US but also a tremendous opportunity for people around the world to join in with particular expertise. So we see procurement schemes changing in the United States, things getting faster, it’s more flexible. It’s about delivering, not about kind of painful reporting. So these type of things. So everything’s changing, things going quickly. We can tell we have benefit not directly, but via a partner in the United States. So we have benefit from A DIU activity and we see others now we see how things are working with many others, so we have good contacts with space force and others. So I think those organizations will help change this a lot. And it is about kind of bringing the right things to space, but there’s still this disconnect between the vision, the technical expertise, even the pioneering prototyping of startups, then all the way to the full commercialization, which is operation of a company.

Of course that is a general challenge for everybody. You have to do it well, but here we are talking and that is where we are concerned also production, production, quality management in these type of things. So similar to car industry, so business models, we can lent probably all the innovation which comes from it, but we can learn a lot from aviation for car industry. So we as Iboss, we have gone through the process with great partners to build our, we have a process in place to build our interface in series. This has been a bit kind of hindrance with the pandemic and a couple other things which are geopolitically happening right now, but in principle it works very well. Most of the space companies and players and we have gone through the experience that we’re talking about it, they don’t even know how to build things five times that they work and on the long run and then for a good price. And that here totally new worlds coming together because if you’re talking, IM to enable the future space infrastructure and associated logistics we are talking serious or mass production about. And the more we go down from system to subsystem component level, the more lot sizes of single units we’re having, and that is something which, that’s a different DNA

Joerg Kreisel:

That

Thomas A. Scherva:

Is not embedded in the established traditional space sector and not even in most of the new space companies.

Joerg Kreisel:

It’s going to definitely not only change the infrastructure, but change the way that people think about scaling into the future and working. And Thomas, in our last minute, minute and a half together, what would you add to the conversation either about the shifting paradigm or anything else about the i a portfolio that people should know?

Kelli Kedis Ogborn:

Let’s say coming back to the title, I think that we have to see that there’s a completely different ball game between when talking about RO Geo or SIS Luna, and if you go in the direction of sis Luna, every component, every satellite, every part you bring that far is worth really a lot. And as soon as something is not working has a problem or has to be upgraded in lunar orbit, then really it, it’s really getting painful to throw something away there. The, let’s say the common business model nowadays in Leo talking about Leo is having one of a kind satellites or let’s say more constellation of satellites and use them as throw away items. So you just replace them, they’re quite cheap, you send them up there, then they’re broken after five years, and then you return them to earth, burned them up in the atmosphere and then you send some new satellites up there.

Right now, this is maybe a feasible business model, even if I think that we can still change something in this, even in LEO, because we can really rethink satellites. Also for Leo in geo, this game changes because again, here the big satellites, communication satellites, they have real value. And if you lose some of them because of a minor component, you’re really losing money and talking about sis lunar. This is a completely different ball game. You want to be able in lunar orbit to use what you have already there. Maybe you have some kind of spare parts, some spare batteries, and you can say, Hey, can I use this components for the other spacecrafts? I’m just lacking this and this component on the space station, on the gateway, on a lunar surface. And as soon as you are able to use what is already there or reuse it because you have some kind of standard connector, standard USB connector for spacecraft up there, then you are really making, you are saving a lot of tremendous amount of money and tremendous amount of resources. I think this is very, very important to point out, especially talking about una,

Joerg Kreisel:

That was a really phenomenal way to lay out not only the need for adaptability and modularity, but also the critical capabilities, right? LEO satellites a lot more disposable with geo. Also, those satellites serve very critical functions. So if those go out or if you need to extend them, it’s not the same as losing a constellation in low earth orbit and losing a bit of connectivity for a while. But I think the consequences are much larger. And thank you for building out the orbits and their functionality and sort of how it all plays together. I really want to thank you both for joining this conversation today. It really laid out a great framework for why i a is important and really the considerations for its growth and the companies involved in it, and really how iboss is a critical component to enabling that growth and connectivity. So thank you for sharing your time and expertise with us.

Kelli Kedis Ogborn:

Thank you. Thank you, Kelly invitation. Thank you.

Joerg Kreisel:

Great. Well thank you. And to our viewers, appreciate you tuning in from all over the world and please remember that there’s a place for everyone in the future space ecosystem. See you next time.

 

---

Related Articles

---

Listen to the Podcast

Enabling the Cislunar Economy Through ISAM

---