OrbitalHub

Every propulsion revolution has been delayed not by imagination, but by power. The impulse engine, as envisioned in the previous chapter, does not fail because it lacks elegance or theoretical structure. It fails because the universe is expensive. Momentum, when accumulated coherently and continuously, demands energy on a scale that chemical bonds cannot provide. Even fission, with all its density, struggles to sustain the electrical output required for persistent non-Newtonian thrust architectures.

Yet history shows a recurring pattern: once a conversion mechanism is understood, power generation eventually catches up. Steam engines awaited coal refinement. Electric motors waited for grids. The impulse engine has been waiting for fusion.

Fusion is not simply a larger power source—it is a fundamentally different one. It converts mass directly into energy through nuclear binding forces, releasing orders of magnitude more energy per unit mass than any chemical process. For decades, fusion was framed as a terrestrial dream: massive tokamaks, national laboratories, multi-decade timelines. That framing is now obsolete.

Compact Fusion: From Monumental to Modular

A quiet transformation has occurred in fusion research over the past two decades. Advances in superconducting magnets, plasma modeling, materials science, and power electronics have collapsed the scale of viable fusion systems. What once required buildings may soon fit inside a shipping container—and eventually, a spacecraft hull.

Several companies are actively pursuing compact fusion-based electrical generation. Commonwealth Fusion Systems is leveraging high-temperature superconductors to dramatically shrink tokamak designs. Helion Energy is developing pulsed fusion systems that directly convert fusion energy into electricity without steam cycles. TAE Technologies is exploring field-reversed configurations optimized for steady-state operation and minimal neutron output. General Fusion is pursuing magnetized target fusion using mechanical compression. First Light Fusion focuses on inertial confinement using projectile-driven implosions.

While none of these systems are yet flight-ready, the trajectory is clear. Fusion is transitioning from centralized infrastructure to modular energy generation. The key metric is not net grid gain, but power density per unit volume—exactly the parameter spacecraft engineers care about.

Fusion as an Electrical Engine, Not a Reactor

For propulsion purposes, fusion’s greatest advantage is not thermal output, but electrical availability. The impulse engine does not need heat; it needs controlled electrical power to pump quantized momentum states, maintain magnetic cavities, and synchronize stimulated impulse emission.

Future fusion generators designed for spacecraft would bypass traditional heat engines entirely. Direct energy conversion—via inductive coupling, charged particle capture, or magnetohydrodynamic extraction—would feed high-voltage, high-current power buses. These buses would supply the impulse nacelles continuously, without combustion cycles, exhaust plumes, or fuel depletion curves.

In this architecture, fusion is not the engine. It is the heart.

Integrating Fusion and Impulse Propulsion

The spacecraft that emerges from this synthesis is unlike any vehicle humanity has built. At its core sits a compact fusion generator, magnetically isolated and structurally decoupled from the hull. Surrounding it are power conditioning systems: superconducting loops, pulse modulators, and energy buffers that smooth the inherently dynamic nature of fusion output.

Mounted along the spacecraft’s longitudinal axis are impulse nacelles—self-contained impulse cavities where impulson transitions occur. These nacelles do not emit exhaust. There is no plume, no reaction mass, no erosion. The thrust vector is defined entirely by internal field geometry and phase synchronization across the nacelle array.

Because thrust is not tied to propellant flow, acceleration becomes a function of power availability rather than fuel mass. Low but continuous acceleration—millimeters per second squared sustained for weeks—produces velocities unattainable by chemical means. Interplanetary travel times collapse from months to weeks. Orbital mechanics shifts from ballistic arcs to controlled trajectories.

Thermal Management and Structural Considerations

No system is without losses. Fusion generators produce waste heat. Impulse cavities dissipate energy through imperfect coherence. The spacecraft must radiate heat efficiently, relying on large-area radiators integrated into the hull or deployable structures. Unlike chemical engines, heat is the primary limiting factor—not thrust.

Structurally, the absence of exhaust simplifies design while introducing new constraints. The spacecraft experiences uniform internal stresses rather than localized thrust loads. Vibration is minimal. Mechanical fatigue is reduced. Long-duration missions become not just possible, but routine.

Radiation shielding remains critical, particularly for neutron-producing fusion reactions. Advanced materials, layered magnetic shielding, and active field shaping mitigate exposure to both crew and electronics. Over time, aneutronic fusion pathways may reduce this burden further.

The Implications for Solar System Expansion

The true significance of fusion-powered impulse propulsion is not speed—it is accessibility. When spacecraft are no longer limited by propellant mass, mission design changes fundamentally. Cargo vessels can spiral gently between worlds, carrying infrastructure rather than fuel. Habitats can be assembled in situ. Asteroid resources become reachable without launch windows dictating feasibility.

Mars ceases to be a one-way commitment. The outer planets stop being distant outposts. The Kuiper Belt becomes a frontier rather than a boundary.

Colonization, in this context, is not a rush—it is a gradient. Continuous propulsion enables continuous presence.

A New Philosophy of Motion

What binds this trilogy together is a philosophical shift. The LASER showed that energy could be disciplined into coherence. The impulse engine extends that discipline to momentum itself. Fusion provides the endurance required to sustain it.

This is not science fiction propulsion in the sense of hand-waving miracles. It is speculative, yes—but structured. It extrapolates from known physics, respects conservation laws, and builds incrementally from proven principles. It does not eliminate difficulty; it relocates it—from brute force to precision engineering.

If such a spacecraft ever leaves the shipyard, it will not announce itself with flame. It will depart silently, accelerating so gently that its crew will feel nothing at all. And yet, over time, it will outrun every rocket humanity has ever built.

The age of throwing mass away will end not with an explosion, but with a realization: energy, when properly ordered, is enough.

The LASER taught us that energy does not need to explode outward to be useful. It can be channeled. It can be persuaded to exit matter in an orderly way, carrying not just energy but intent—direction, phase, and stability. Once that lesson is fully absorbed, a more radical question emerges naturally: if energy can be converted into coherent light, can it be converted into coherent impulse?

Impulse, unlike light, is inseparable from momentum. To generate thrust is not merely to release energy, but to bias momentum in one direction. Classical propulsion achieves this brutally, by ejecting reaction mass. But the LASER never ejects electrons, atoms, or mirrors. It rearranges internal transitions and extracts a directional effect. The conceptual leap is to imagine a device that does the same for momentum itself.

This blog post explores a speculative but structured idea: an impulse-conversion device that mirrors the physics of a LASER, built not around photons, but around a new, short-lived particle whose decay releases quantized momentum rather than electromagnetic radiation.

Introducing the Impulson

At the heart of this concept lies a hypothetical particle, provisionally named the impulson. Like the photon, the impulson is not imagined as a permanent constituent of matter, but as a transient excitation—a carrier released during a controlled energy transition.

In this model, the impulson emerges when a system transitions between two quantized momentum-coupled energy states. Just as an electron dropping to a lower orbital releases a photon with energy ΔE = hν, the impulson would be emitted when a bound excitation drops to a lower momentum eigenstate, releasing a discrete amount of impulse Δp.

Crucially, this impulse is not random. It is emitted along a preferred axis defined by external field geometry. The impulson does not scatter isotropically. Its defining feature is directional bias.

The impulson is assumed to be extremely short-lived, decaying almost immediately into the surrounding vacuum field or spacetime structure. Its value lies not in persistence, but in the momentum it transfers to the emitting system at the moment of release.

Quantized Momentum Transitions

In conventional quantum mechanics, momentum is continuous while energy is quantized. However, when particles are confined in structured potentials—crystal lattices, waveguides, magnetic traps—momentum states can become discretized through boundary conditions.

The impulse engine concept exploits this principle. Instead of confining electrons in atomic orbitals, it confines collective excitations—possibly quasiparticles, spin-aligned plasma states, or exotic vacuum-coupled modes—within a structured electromagnetic cavity. These excitations possess metastable states with different momentum coupling strengths.

An external electrical input pumps the system into a high-energy, high-momentum-coupled state. When a transition is triggered—analogous to stimulated emission—the excitation drops to a lower state and emits an impulson. Conservation laws are satisfied because the system recoils in the opposite direction, acquiring a minute but real impulse.

Individually, these impulses are negligible. Collectively, if synchronized and amplified, they form thrust.

Stimulated Impulse Emission

The LASER’s power comes from stimulated emission, not spontaneous emission. The same principle applies here. Spontaneous impulse transitions would average out, producing no net thrust. Directionality requires stimulated impulse emission, where an existing momentum bias encourages further transitions to align with it.

This is where magnetic fields play a central role. A strong, structured magnetic field defines a preferred axis and breaks symmetry. Within this field, impulson-emitting transitions are more likely to occur along the field gradient. The magnetic field does not generate thrust directly; it acts as a selection rule, enforcing coherence across many emission events.

The result is an impulse cavity, functionally analogous to an optical resonator. Instead of mirrors reflecting photons, magnetic and electromagnetic boundaries reinforce a specific momentum direction. Impulsons emitted off-axis are suppressed or reabsorbed. Only those aligned with the thrust vector contribute constructively.

Energy Conversion, Not Momentum Creation

As with the LASER, a central misconception must be avoided. The impulse engine does not create momentum from nothing. It converts stored or supplied energy into directed momentum transfer. Electrical energy raises the system into excited states. Controlled transitions release impulse. Losses appear as heat, radiation, or incoherent emissions.

The efficiency challenge is severe. The energy required to produce even micro-newtons of thrust via quantum impulse conversion is enormous. But the LASER faced similar skepticism in its infancy. Early devices were inefficient curiosities. Only after decades of refinement did LASERs become practical power converters.

The impulse engine is not a replacement for chemical rockets. It is a different class of machine altogether—one optimized for continuous, long-duration thrust without reaction mass.

Possible Physical Realizations

How might impulsons arise physically? Several speculative pathways exist, each rooted in known physics but extended into uncharted regimes.

One possibility involves plasma-bound quasiparticles whose dispersion relations couple energy states to directional momentum under strong magnetic confinement. Another explores spin-aligned vacuum excitations, where transitions between polarized vacuum states produce directional recoil. A more radical model invokes curved spacetime micro-couplings, where localized stress-energy fluctuations briefly store and release momentum.

None of these models are proven. All require experimental validation. But they share a common structure: quantized states, controlled transitions, directional selection, and coherent amplification.

The Birth of the Impulse Engine Concept

What matters most is not which model survives, but that the architecture mirrors the LASER’s logic. Energy input creates population inversion. A cavity enforces directionality. Stimulated transitions dominate. Output is coherent—not light, but impulse.

The impulse engine, if realized, would not roar. It would hum. Thrust would emerge not from violence, but from order—billions of microscopic nudges aligned into a macroscopic push.

This reframing of propulsion is subtle and unsettling. It suggests that spaceflight need not rely on throwing mass away, but on persuading energy itself to lean.

In the final chapter of this trilogy, the remaining obstacle is addressed directly. Even the most elegant impulse engine is useless without power. And the power required to bend momentum at scale is staggering.

Fortunately, another long-dismissed idea is finally stepping out of theory and into engineering reality.

The story of the LASER does not begin with light, but with order. It begins with a quiet question that physicists asked long before the first ruby rod ever flashed: Can energy be persuaded to behave? Light, after all, is usually unruly—emitted in all directions, across many wavelengths, with no sense of coordination. The LASER represents humanity’s first convincing answer to that question: yes, energy can be disciplined, if one understands the rules deeply enough.

At its core, a LASER is not a light generator. It is a transducer, a device that converts energy—electrical, chemical, mechanical, or even nuclear—into coherent electromagnetic radiation. This distinction is subtle but critical. Light is not created from nothing; it is released when stored energy is forced into a very specific pathway. The LASER is the machinery that builds that pathway.

The Quantum Origin of Coherent Light

To understand how a LASER works, one must step into the quantum architecture of matter itself. Atoms and molecules possess discrete energy levels. Electrons bound to a nucleus are not free to occupy arbitrary energies; instead, they exist in quantized states. When an electron transitions from a higher energy level to a lower one, the energy difference is released as a photon. The frequency of that photon is precisely determined by the energy gap between the two states.

This process—spontaneous emission—happens constantly in nature. It is responsible for the glow of incandescent bulbs, flames, stars, and nebulae. But spontaneous emission is chaotic. Each photon is emitted independently, with a random phase and direction. A LASER requires something far more restrictive: stimulated emission.

Stimulated emission, first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1917, occurs when an incoming photon interacts with an excited atom and induces it to release a second photon that is identical to the first—same frequency, same phase, same direction, same polarization. This is the foundational mechanism of the LASER. Once stimulated emission dominates, light stops behaving like a spray and starts behaving like a marching column.

Population Inversion: Defying Thermal Equilibrium

Under normal conditions, more atoms occupy low-energy states than high-energy ones. This is a consequence of thermodynamics. For stimulated emission to overwhelm absorption, the system must be driven into an unnatural configuration known as population inversion, where more atoms exist in an excited state than in the ground state.

Achieving population inversion requires external energy input—this is where conversion begins. Depending on the LASER design, energy may be injected electrically, optically, chemically, or mechanically. Flash lamps, electrical discharges, radio-frequency fields, or even chemical reactions can “pump” energy into the gain medium, lifting electrons into metastable excited states that persist long enough to be exploited.

The LASER cavity—typically composed of two mirrors facing each other—then imposes spatial order. Photons traveling along the cavity axis are reflected back and forth, repeatedly stimulating emission. Photons that deviate from this axis escape or are absorbed. Directionality is not accidental; it is enforced.

The Resonant Cavity: Geometry as Physics

The resonant optical cavity is more than a container—it is a filter, an amplifier, and a sculptor of energy flow. Only specific wavelengths that satisfy the cavity’s boundary conditions can survive. This results in narrow spectral linewidths and extraordinary coherence lengths, sometimes spanning kilometers.

One mirror is nearly perfectly reflective; the other is partially transmissive. When the amplification exceeds losses, coherent light escapes through the output coupler. What emerges is not raw energy, but energy that has been shaped—spectrally, spatially, and temporally.

This is the defining triumph of the LASER: energy conversion with precision control.

A Brief History of LASER Devices

The first functioning LASER was demonstrated in 1960 by Theodore Maiman using a synthetic ruby crystal pumped by a flash lamp. The ruby LASER was inefficient and pulsed, but it proved the concept decisively.

Soon after, Ali Javan and colleagues developed the first gas LASER, the helium–neon LASER, which introduced continuous-wave operation and remarkable frequency stability. Carbon dioxide LASERs followed, capable of converting electrical energy into infrared light with efficiencies exceeding 20 percent—a milestone that made industrial cutting and welding possible.

Solid-state LASERs evolved rapidly, incorporating neodymium-doped crystals such as Nd:YAG. Semiconductor LASERs, pioneered by researchers including Robert Hall and Nick Holonyak Jr., brought LASER technology into the microscopic domain. Today, diode LASERs convert electrical energy directly into coherent light and are embedded in everything from fiber-optic networks to consumer electronics.

Each of these devices differs in medium and pumping mechanism, yet all share the same architecture: energy input → population inversion → stimulated emission → coherent output.

The LASER as an Energy Conversion Machine

A persistent misconception is that LASERs “produce” light. In reality, they redirect energy already present in the system. Electrical power becomes electron excitation; electron excitation becomes photon emission; optical confinement turns emission into coherence. Losses manifest as heat, spontaneous emission, or scattered photons.

Seen through this lens, a LASER is not fundamentally different from a turbine or generator. Where a turbine converts kinetic energy into rotation, and a generator converts rotation into electrical current, a LASER converts stored or supplied energy into a highly ordered electromagnetic field.

This framing matters because it elevates the LASER from a tool to a template. It demonstrates that with the right quantum transitions, the right confinement geometry, and the right feedback mechanisms, energy can be converted into not just light—but _structured output_ with direction, phase, and purpose.

Why the LASER Matters Beyond Light

The LASER’s true legacy is conceptual. It proved that quantum systems could be engineered, not merely observed. It showed that coherence is not a fragile curiosity, but a resource. Modern technologies—from atomic clocks to gravitational wave detectors—are descendants of this realization.

More importantly, the LASER provides a blueprint: identify a quantized transition, engineer population inversion, enforce directional amplification, and extract usable output. Light was simply the first domain where this strategy succeeded.

The implications extend far beyond optics. If energy can be converted into coherent photons, what else might it be converted into? Momentum? Impulse? Spacetime perturbations?

Those questions remain unanswered—for now. But the LASER stands as proof that the boundary between raw energy and structured force is not fixed. It is negotiable, provided one is willing to negotiate at the level of fundamental physics.

In the next chapter of this story, that negotiation will leave the domain of light entirely—and attempt something far more ambitious.

Today we are joined by Yasunori Yamazaki, Chief Business Officer at Axelspace. Axelspace are pioneers of microsatellite technology advancing the frontiers of space business, reimagining traditional ways of using space, and creating a society where everyone on our planet can make space part of their life.

Orbital Hub: Axelspace’s goal is to advance the frontiers of space business. How is Axelspace making space more accessible?

Yasunori Yamazaki: Our vision is to bring the space technology down to earth for universal access, empowering everyone with actionable earth observation data to make smart decisions.

O.H.: Could you share any details about innovative technologies used by Axelspace when designing and building satellites?

Yasu: We have been developing satellites for more than 11 years now, experimenting with various methods and implementing new technology to constantly improve and innovate. This trial and error itself is a new concept in our industry as the cost of making a mistake is prohibitive from an investment perspective.

O.H.: What is the approach used by Axelspace for microsatellite design? Do you use custom designs specific to each mission or a modular design that allows reuse and minimal mission specific customization?

Yasu: The designing process depends on the mission. For unique purposes, we will start with a whiteboard, deep diving into the problem and figuring out the most efficient and effective way of delivering the solution. We are also in the process of constructing an orbital infrastructure, based on proprietary modulated satellite, GRUS, to bring down the cost of manufacturing, thus passing on the savings to the users of the data.

O.H.: What payload types can be integrated with Axelspace microsatellites?

Yasu: Most anything can be carried by our microsatellites, as we can build from small to large satellites. The largest we have successfully deployed into space is a 200 kg satellite, which is a fantastic platform to carry most any payloads, but in a radically cost effective way.

O.H.: What type of stabilization is used by Axelspace microsatellites?

Yasu: We don’t comment on specific internal technology.

O.H.: What type of propulsion systems are integrated with Axelspace microsatellites? Are they mission specific?

Yasu: We don’t comment on specific internal technology.

O.H.: Is Axelspace designing and manufacturing only remote sensing microsatellites?

Yasu: We have been focusing on perfecting our expertise on remote sensing microsatellites. As we are market driven company, our limitation is not technology, but true market demand. Our business team is constantly monitoring the trends in the market and ready to dive into any direction when the time is ripe.

O.H.: Any plans for deep space exploration missions? Could the current bus be repurposed for a deep space mission?

Yasu: We are open for any mission, as long as there is a concrete market and sustainable paying clients. The company never works on a technology, without concrete business visibility.

O.H.: Remote sensing satellites are usually deployed on Sun-synchronous polar orbits. This leads to crowded LEO and increased collision risks above the polar regions. What end-of-life strategies are Axelspace missions using?

Yasu: As a constellation player, we are conscious of EOL operation and complies with the international guidelines on securing the sustainable usage of our orbits.

O.H.: What is AxelGlobe?

Yasu: AxelGlobe is a web based platform to access earth observation data from our proprietary satellite, GRUS, to empower anyone with actionable data to make smart decision.

O.H.: Launching and managing a fleet of 50+ microsatellites in LEO must be a challenging endeavour. Can you elaborate on some of these challenges? How is Axelspace tackling them?

Yasu: Absolutely! There is no shortcut in implementing space technology. To be successful in this business, these are the 4 most important simple, yet critical points to cover:

1. Transformational IDEA to bring value to the market
2. Proven Engineering to bring IDEA into product
3. Solid Financial Resource to bring product into reality
4. Paying clients to have a sustainable business model

To achieve the above, we have inspiring leadership team that brings IDEA to the table, experienced engineer team that can convert anything into a product, insightful finance team to secure the funding and powerful business team to generate revenue for the TEAM.

O.H.: What does the future hold for Axelspace holding? Any exciting plans to share with our readers?

Yasu: When we started the company 11 years ago, no one believed that a startup can actually do anything meaningful in the space industry. Now, after years of hard work, we have 5 operating satellites in space. Next year, we have 4 more confirmed launches and will continue to deploy every year. As a pioneer in the commercial microsatellite world, we will keep working hard and focus on engineering for good.

Today we are joined by Logan Ryan Golema, Founder & Principal, and Vishal Singh, Chief Scientist at Lunargistics. Lunargistics is the Space Division of Hercules Supply Chain Protocol, and it is aiming to provide swift logistics in cislunar space. Logan and Vishal were kind to answer a few questions about Lunargistics and the supply chain in the cislunar space.

Orbital Hub: How big of a risk are the counterfeit components in the aerospace supply chain?

Logan Ryan Golema: You’d be surprised, I know I was. The Aerospace industry has three types of companies; those that make their own parts, those that buy their parts, and those that sell parts. And some of them do all three! These industries are often involved with local manufacturers hence the risk of fraud is very high.

Vishal Singh: More often than not everything is OK and well documented, but when there’s a mistake or a fraudulent document on a fake part disaster can happen. Those disasters can be catastrophic as any aerospace structures when in air or in orbit can take lives on land catastrophically. So if a fraudulent document or some error comes it is a man made disaster. When we talk about a space mission; an inch of error in calculation due to fraudulent documents can lead to a war between States or even worse taking lives of thousands of innocents.

O.H.: How is blockchain technology used to mitigate the risk of counterfeit components in the aerospace supply chain?

L.R.G.: Blockchain solves a lot of issues; from fraudulent documents to manufacturing and maintenance of Airplanes to rockets. It is like providing a birth certificate and an IMEI to each component and will result in understanding the root cause of every single problem occurred while in flight or in manufacturing.

V.S.: Let’s take the example of India’s ambitious mission Chandrayaan-2, which failed probably due to failure of power and communication systems. Using the blockchain in the industry will make the “may” in the statement a definite answer to the cause of failure.

O.H.: What blockchain infrastructure is Lunargistics using?

L.R.G.: Lunargistics will be leveraging the Hercules Blockchain Protocol (https://herc.one). Onboarding existing Aerospace companies in Europe and across the globe to this powerful tool with Enterprise level APIs and high performance apps is our aim. We’re set up with the client in mind so they can focus on their mission while we handle the blockchain side of things.

O.H.: What are the defining features of this blockchain infrastructure?

L.R.G.: The interoperability and layering of modular based components. The Hercules Protocol acts sort of like a LAMP stack of old. Today with Lunargistics managing your HERC stack you’ll have:
– indisputable data integrity,
– timestamped uploads,
– files that will be accessible without fail,
– portfolios of persons involved in the manufacturing of something so small as a screw to the powerhouse of an engine.

It’s like having the birth certificate and report card of each component. By having a blockchain system based on the Hercules module will lead in minimising the failures like Israel’s moon mission and Chandrayaan-2.

O.H.: Is it possible to use a public bockchain infrastructure and, at the same time, address the privacy concerns in the aerospace industry?

L.R.G.: We’ve found a way to integrate a hybrid model of privacy while leveraging public chains. On the flip side, we do offer build outs of private infrastructure that can be available just to the client’s network. Its wholly up to the necessities of the mission and we pride ourselves in our ability to adapt.

O.H.: Is the cislunar space the first step? Does Lunargistics have plans to expand beyond that?

L.R.G.: I’d say if we can manage the market on Earth’s Cislunar space we’re doing good. Lunargistics doesn’t just have to be our Moon though. We’d love to scale to Titan or Europa when the timing is right.

V.S.: Even in the dawn of next decade we may have begun our plans of working with NEO mining companies and fulfilling needs of our the Econosphere. Our expert team has enough time to plan giving a robust buffer which will help us reach the desired goals.

O.H.: What does the near future hold for Lunargistics? Can you share any exciting plans with our readers?

L.R.G.: We’re hard at work onboarding the team that will bring us closer to our goals. As a ‘New Space’ company we’re excited to be accepted into the community by your readers.

Any aerospace companies that want to understand blockchain while keeping focused on their own mission should email us at partnerships@lunargistics.lu.

We’re also hiring! So suit up for the next mission and submit your CVs to careers@lunargistics.lu!

The complexity of aerospace systems is increasing exponentially. Both hardware and software subsystems are becoming more complex and encompassing systems’ behaviour becomes difficult to model due to the dependencies, relationships, and other interactions between their components. Predictable behaviour of complex aerospace systems translates into the reliability of each of their subsystems.

According to published reports the amount of total counterfeiting globally has reached 1.2 trillion USD in 2017, and it is predicted to reach 1.82 trillion USD by 2020. Counterfeiting affects all industries, aerospace and defence included. It turns out that identifying counterfeit components in the aerospace and defence supply chain is really challenging. In 2011 it was estimated that up to 15% of spare parts and replacement used by the US military were counterfeit. In a 9-page report dated November 4, 2016, obtained by Reuters through a freedom of information request, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) said 273 affected parts were installed in an unspecified number of Boeing 777 wing spoilers.

Having counterfeit components entering the aerospace market leads to decreased reliability of subsystems used in the aerospace industry. The consequences of using unreliable components in the aerospace and defense industries should not be underestimated or ignored for that matter. Parts that are manufactured for launch systems, spacecraft, aircraft, and weapon systems, and do not meet the required specifications should stay out of the supply chain.

There are various counterfeiting methods. Just to give an example, counterfeiting methods employed in the electronics supply chain include:

• Remarking of new or already used components with false manufacturer names, part numbers, date codes, lot numbers, quality levels. One way to identify remarked electronics is to engage the original manufacturers. However, there were cases when remarking was performed by the original manufacturer.
• Reuse of already used components. The increasing recycling of electronics is causing this trend. Certain countries import used electronics and return to the marketplace components removed from the discarded circuit boards.
• Outsourcing production to production facilities that are not employing proper testing or do not meet specifications.
• False approval markings used by manufacturers that skip the required certification process.

In order to protect itself, the aerospace and defense industry enforces quality management systems standards. The AS9100 standard is a quality management systems standard that includes requirements for aviation, space, and defense organizations. The AS9100 standard includes ISO 9001 quality management system requirements and, in addition, specifies aviation, space, and defense industry requirements. It is important to note that the requirements contained in AS9100 are complementary to existing customer or applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Also, the customer or applicable statutory and regulatory requirements take precedence. The requirements of the standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of type, size, products or services it provides.

AS9100 defines counterfeit product as “An unauthorized copy, imitation, substitute, or modified part, which is knowingly misrepresented as a specified genuine part of an original or authorized manufacturer. NOTE: Examples of a counterfeit part (e.g., material, part, component) can include, but are not limited to, the false identification of marking or labeling, grade, serial number, date code, documentation, or performance characteristics.”

How is AS9100 helping combat the acceptance of counterfeit components in the aerospace and defense supply chain? A number of AS9100 clauses provide requirements relating to the mitigation and prevention of counterfeit components. These clauses are Counterfeit Part Prevention, Control of External Providers, and Information to External Providers. The Counterfeit Part Prevention clause states: “the organization shall plan, implement and control a process appropriate to the product that prevents the use of counterfeit product and either inclusion in product(s) delivered to the customer.”

Also, the Control of Nonconforming Outputs clause requires “counterfeit, or suspect counterfeit, parts shall be controlled to prevent reentry into the supply chain. Unsalvageable and counterfeit parts shall be conspicuously and permanently marked, or positively controlled, until physically rendered unusable to prevent restoration.”

The aerospace industry continues to allow manufacturers to maintain sole responsibility for their own manufacturing records. Also, the proliferation of practices known as “source delegation” and “self-regulation” place the responsibility for supporting documentation solely in the hands of suppliers. While the above-mentioned AS9100 clauses can help alleviate some of these issues, there is an immediate need for supply chain traceability. Employing an industry-wide supply chain database and guaranteeing access to all quality-related documentation seems to offer effective means for countering counterfeit components in the aerospace and defense industry.

References and other useful links:

Counterfeit examples for electronic components

Wikipedia article on AS9100 standard

Quality digest article on AS9100 standard