The race to expand satellite networks is beginning to expose a second bottleneck beyond orbital crowding: radio spectrum. As satellite filings multiply and RF congestion worsens, interference is becoming a more serious constraint for Earth observation, communications and scientific research.
That is helping push laser communication from a technical niche toward a strategic alternative. Because optical links rely on tightly focused beams rather than radio waves, they are less vulnerable to interference and can carry far more data under the right conditions. Astrolight, a European space technology company, is among the firms trying to turn that promise into operational infrastructure.
Its laser communication system has been integrated into the satellite of the ESA-funded ERMIS project, aimed at strengthening civil space capabilities, including precision agriculture. The company has also announced the deployment of an optical ground station in Greenland, which it sees as a critical Arctic node for faster and more reliable satellite links in applications ranging from Earth observation to disaster response.
In an interview with Korea IT Times, Laurynas Mačiulis, CEO of Astrolight, discussed how laser communication differs from RF, why Greenland matters, and what it will take for optical networks to move from demonstration to broader adoption.
Why is laser communication harder to jam
Q1. In plain terms, how does laser communication differ from RF links in orbit and from ground-to-space?
“A lasercom link is inherently more resistant to jamming because it is highly directional. In general, the stronger and more concentrated a signal is, the harder it is to jam. To intercept a laser link, an adversary would need to physically interfere with the narrow beam path, which is difficult because the beam is invisible. Even if an adversary managed to get close enough to identify the laser link, doing so would still be operationally challenging and would likely be detected quickly.
By contrast, traditional RF signals spread over a wide area, which makes them relatively easy to intercept from long distances, even with simple jamming equipment.”
Where the “up to 100x more data” claim becomes realistic
Q2. You mention “up to 100x more data.” Under what conditions is that realistic, and what are the typical throughput ranges Astrolight targets today?
“The ‘up to 100x more data’ potential is realistic under the right conditions, like the line of sight and clear skies, but it also depends on the specific use case and system architecture. Today, many Earth observation satellites using RF are limited to links of a couple of hundred megabits per second or, with more sophisticated equipment, around one gigabit per second. By contrast, laser communication has already demonstrated far higher performance. NASA’s TeraByte InfraRed Delivery, or TBIRD, for example, demonstrated data rates of 200 gigabits per second.
Another challenge is the atmosphere. For high-rate optical downlinks, very small detectors are required, but atmospheric distortion makes their use more difficult. This is why adaptive optics and other advanced technologies are necessary. These solutions already exist, but they remain expensive and are still maturing toward broader industrial use.
For Astrolight’s solutions specifically, depending on the available power on the satellite side and conditions on the receiver side, the throughput of our terminals can be scaled to hundreds of gigabits per second. Today, we focus on downlink applications in the range of roughly 2.5 to 10 gigabits per second, which is already sufficient for many use cases. But over time, the direction is toward higher throughput, of course.”
What stands between demos and adoption
Q3. What’s the practical path from demos to wide adoption across commercial constellations? What’s the main blocker: cost, standardization, terminals, regulation, or ground infrastructure?
“The practical path for laser-based communication solutions from demonstrations to wide adoption across commercial constellations depends on the ability to quickly prove that the technology works in real operational conditions.
One of the biggest challenges for companies developing new technologies is surviving the valley of death before adoption happens. It takes years to build trust in a new capability, and substantial investment is needed long before any contract is awarded. You first need to convince the end user, which means getting the product to a point where they can see it working and trust it. In practice, that often means building much of the product yourself, without being able to rely on procurement support early on.
For smaller companies and innovators, that creates a serious barrier, because they need substantial capital to reach that stage. In Europe, this is starting to change, but compared with the U.S., investment in these technologies, from both governments and venture capital, has been very limited. The situation is improving, but it remains a big challenge.
At the same time, procurement agencies are overwhelmed. There is now huge pressure to build up capabilities across Europe, and demand has surged, yet agencies are struggling to scale their processes at the same pace, creating clear bottlenecks. Large prime contractors can afford to wait because they have enough financial resources. And again, for smaller innovators, that becomes a major problem.
What could help solve the issue is the adoption of fast-track procurement solutions for new and frontier technologies. These do not necessarily need to be large contracts — they could be smaller, reducing the risk for governments while allowing the process to move faster. That would help young companies to receive feedback earlier and improve and mature their products much faster.
Another blocker is infrastructure. For decades, communications systems have been built around radio frequency technology. As a newer solution, laser communication requires existing infrastructure to be retrofitted so it can integrate into the broader communications network.”
Why Greenland is a critical optical node
Q4. Why is Greenland a “critical location” for an optical ground station, and what does “Arctic coverage” enable that existing networks struggle to deliver?
“With the OGS in Greenland, Astrolight will provide the first commercially viable high-throughput optical space-to-Earth data link for satellites and create the first strategic optical communications coverage in the Arctic. This will serve space agencies, government institutions, and commercial satellite operators that focus on acquiring optical, hyperspectral, radar, and infrared imaging data for uses such as telecommunications and Earth observation, including ship tracking, disaster monitoring, and search and rescue operations.
In the longer term, the OGS in Greenland represents the first step toward a wider global network of optical ground stations. The ambition is not to stop with one site, but to build a network of OGSs able to provide high-throughput communications to Europe’s satellite networks, including IRIS², as well as other constellations. In addition, it could contribute to the European Space Agency’s HydRON project.
Greenland is a particularly important starting point because it is one of the more extreme operating environments. If we can prove that the system performs reliably there, it will demonstrate the durability and readiness needed to operate in Arctic conditions and in other challenging environments as well.”
How optical helps in disaster response
Q5. In emergency response and disaster management scenarios, what specific failure points does optical help mitigate, and what would a resilient hybrid RF+optical architecture look like?
“Laser communication offers a significant advantage by enabling data transmission speeds up to 100 times faster than RF. This makes it possible to transmit a wide range of data, including high-resolution Earth observation imagery, much more quickly, which is critical for faster decision-making in emergency response and disaster management.
The biggest impact will come from inter-satellite links. By enabling satellites to connect directly to one another, we can achieve near real-time connectivity, allowing for almost immediate transmission of information. This is already being explored in programs in Europe and the US, and we’re planning to demonstrate this capability in 2027 with our ATLAS laser terminal. In contrast, connecting satellites through RF is challenging due to the vast distances and interference from the growing number of satellites in orbit.
In a hybrid system, laser communication would provide a reliable solution for linking satellites in space, for transmitting high-resolution data to optical ground stations, and for enabling high-capacity gateway links for satcom constellations, while RF would remain essential for other transmissions — direct-to-device and consumer connectivity, or as a backup to lasercom.
A high-throughput optical backbone in space could also provide an alternative to undersea fiber cable connections if those are damaged, whether by natural disaster or intentional disruption. That is another reason why resilient hybrid architectures will become increasingly important in the future.”
Optical’s role in space sustainability
Q6. How do you see optical communications affecting space sustainability overall — does it reduce RF pressure, create new coordination needs, or shift where congestion shows up?
“Optical communications will play a big role in improving space sustainability by easing the pressure on the increasingly crowded RF. Since optical links operate in a different spectrum and don’t require RF licenses, they help avoid many of the interference and capacity issues that RF brings as the number of satellites in space grows.
At the same time, laser communication doesn’t eliminate the need for coordination. As more networks adopt inter-satellite optical links, we’ll need new frameworks and standards to ensure interoperability of laser-based systems.
When it comes to interference in space, wider adoption of laser communication is unlikely to contribute to it. Laser links don’t interfere with RF signals, and they typically don’t interfere with each other either because they are very narrow and directional.”
