Satellite Programs: Secure On-Site Engineering Decisions
Developing satellite systems demands deep technical expertise and decisions that can withstand the highest levels of scrutiny. In a secure on-site environment, engineering teams used TransparentChoice to evaluate critical choices—such as power systems, launchers, and orbital strategies—through structured, evidence-based models. This ensured rigorous, transparent decisions without ever compromising security.
The Challenge
Designing satellites involves many interdependent technical choices with high stakes for performance, integration, cost, and risk. Teams needed to decide between options for power regulation, launchers, and orbital transfer strategies.
Beyond the technical complexity, decisions had to balance manoeuvrability, mass, ease of implementation, supplier dependencies, reliability, and programmatic risks. Traditional methods often gave too much weight to the most vocal experts, undermining balanced evaluation.
On top of this, all collaboration had to happen within a secure on-site environment, where external tools and outside support were not possible, making it even harder to achieve transparency and alignment across disciplines.
Our Approach
Each major decision was supported by a bespoke prioritization model built in TransparentChoice. The models captured key technical features, integration challenges, complexity, performance, reliability, and risk, while treating cost as a constraint rather than a driver—consistent with AHP best practice.
To comply with stringent security requirements, TransparentChoice was deployed entirely on-site. The system was fully contained within the secure environment, with no external connections and no possibility for TransparentChoice staff to access data or infrastructure. Updates, maintenance, and support were all delivered through controlled on-site processes, managed exclusively by the internal engineering team.
Workshops were run securely on site, enabling concurrent engineering across disciplines. System engineers, program managers, and domain specialists collaborated with structured criteria guiding the discussion. This allowed evidence-based evaluation and transparent trade-offs to replace opinion-led debates—without ever compromising the security of the environment.
The Results
Satellite programs gained a clear and trusted framework for making critical engineering decisions. Teams could transparently weigh trade-offs between performance, risk, and feasibility, ensuring alignment across departments.
The secure, internally managed process accelerated decision making while reducing bias, allowing better choices to be made with strong buy-in from all stakeholders.
Ultimately, engineering teams were able to deliver faster, more robust outcomes with greater confidence—reducing the risk of costly missteps in long-term satellite programs.
"TransparentChoice means that we no longer just listen to the loudest person in the room"
Download the full case study
Prefer a printable copy? Download the PDF — or preview it below.