(Part 1 of a 3-article series)
Designing hardware for space is never a solo discipline. Every antenna flying on a satellite is the result of constant dialogue, compromise, and iteration between engineers who do not speak the same “technical language” by default, but who must ultimately converge on a single, robust solution. Unlike terrestrial systems, space hardware must work perfectly the first time, in an environment that offers no possibility for repair, adjustment, or intervention. Every assumption, every interface, and every trade-off must be validated long before launch.
At Anywaves, antenna design sits at the crossroads of multiple disciplines: RF, mechanical, thermal, materials science, manufacturing, and systems engineering. To explore what truly makes a good space engineer today, and why interdisciplinary collaboration is not optional but foundational, we sat down with Gautier Mazingue, RF Team Manager, and Mathias Nicolle, Mechanical-Thermal Team Manager at Anywaves.
This discussion is published as a three-part article series, each focusing on a key dimension of space antenna engineering:
- Part 1 (this article) explores the skills, mindset, and professional reality of space engineers in the context of “NewSpace”.
- Part 2 will dive into the day-to-day collaboration between RF and mechanical-thermal teams, and why compromise is at the heart of antenna design.
- Part 3 will focus on the full lifecycle constraints of space hardware, from storage on Earth to survival in orbit.
Together, these articles aim to provide an authentic, experience-based view of space engineering, as it is actually practiced, not as it is often idealized.
Before discussing tools, processes, or technologies, we started with a fundamental question: what defines a good space engineer today?
In your opinion, what defines a good space engineer today?
Gautier Mazingue (RF):
A good space engineer is first and foremost someone who is scientifically rigorous – as must be any engineer really. What differs here is that, in space, you don’t get a second chance. You can’t go on-site to debug or adjust a system once it’s launched. Every assumption, every design choice, must be justified with a solid scientific approach.
And of course, English is mandatory. Space is an international industry by nature, projects, customers, documentation, reviews, everything happens in English.
Mathias Nicolle (Mechanical-Thermal):
I would add that good communication skills are just as important. Space systems are inherently multidisciplinary. You rarely work only within your own field. Being able to explain your constraints, understand those of others, and work toward a shared solution is fundamental.
Beyond hard skills, curiosity is essential. The space environment introduces constraints you don’t have on Earth, microgravity, radiation, atomic oxygen, vacuum, contamination, outgassing. You must understand them early and constantly challenge your design against these realities.
Understanding the Hidden Complexity of Space Engineering
Space engineering is often perceived as highly specialized, but many of its most critical challenges are underestimated by non-specialists.
What aspects of your job are most underestimated by non-specialists?
Gautier Mazingue:
The impact of the other discipline. Because RF engineers and mechanical engineers are trained very differently, it’s easy to underestimate how much one field constrains the other.
In space, that’s a mistake. RF performance depends heavily on mechanical geometry and environment. Mechanical robustness depends on RF-driven shapes and materials. You cannot treat them separately.
Mathias Nicolle:
Exactly. Antennas are particularly sensitive systems because they radiate. Their performance depends not only on their internal design but also on everything around them. Assuming that RF or mechanics can be “adjusted later” is one of the biggest misconceptions.
Motivation, Constraints, and Engineering Intuition
Despite (or perhaps because of) these constraints, space engineering remains a highly motivating field.
What motivates you in such a complex and constrained field as space?
Mathias Nicolle:
The multiphysics aspect is extremely stimulating. Space is a hostile environment, you are constantly fighting against it. Vacuum, radiation, temperature extremes, space does not want your system to survive.
There is also a huge gap between a theoretical RF design and a product that actually works in orbit. Bridging that gap is challenging, but that’s precisely what makes it rewarding.
Gautier Mazingue:
Constraints are where creativity emerges. When RF, mechanical, and thermal constraints collide, you are forced to invent solutions you would never have imagined otherwise.
There is also an important “engineering intuition” aspect. You rely on simulations and tools, of course, but you don’t always have unlimited time. Experience helps you make the right trade-offs, to know what really matters and where you can take calculated risks.
Experience, Methods, and Best Practices
While intuition plays a role, it is grounded in structured methods and accumulated experience.
Do you rely on specific checklists or best practices in your daily work?
Mathias Nicolle:
Yes, very much so. In mechanical-thermal engineering, we rely heavily on lifecycle checklists. They act as a compass to ensure no critical step is forgotten, venting holes in cavities, compatibility with vacuum, thermal paths, assembly constraints, and so on.
Gautier Mazingue:
RF is less straightforward. Antenna topology choices are highly variable and context-dependent. Over time, you build your own library of reference designs, past projects, and trusted textbooks. Experience plays a major role, sometimes the decision comes from intuition: this topology will be more robust, simpler to integrate, or easier to qualify for space.
Looking Ahead: NewSpace and the Evolution of the Engineer’s Role
The space sector is evolving rapidly, and with it, the expectations placed on engineers.
How has NewSpace changed your profession?
Gautier Mazingue:
Anywaves was born during the NewSpace era, so for us it is the baseline. What has changed is the customer mindset, with a stronger focus on series production, recurrence, and volume. The “COTS” (commercial off-the-shelf) approach has become the norm for most players, as a way to reduce lead times and capitalize on flight heritage.
Mathias Nicolle:
There is still tension between legacy processes and NewSpace approaches. But antenna sizes and platforms are evolving, larger satellites, flatter architectures, and new form factors like disk-shaped platforms.
Is miniaturization still the main trend?
Both:
Not exclusively.
Mathias Nicolle:
After years of aggressive miniaturization, with formats such as 3U and 6U CubeSats, the industry is now seeing the emergence of larger platforms and new satellite architectures. As mentioned earlier, disk-shaped satellites are a good example of this shift, offering large, flat surfaces where subsystems and antenna elements can be stacked and integrated more efficiently.
Gautier Mazingue:
As access to space has become more democratized, miniaturization at all costs is no longer the primary driver. Performance now matters more, whether in terms of RF capabilities, payload efficiency, or overall system robustness. This evolution naturally influences antenna design, pushing toward solutions that balance size, performance, and integration rather than minimizing volume alone.
Conclusion: A Natural Transition Toward Collaboration
This first part highlights a clear reality: there is no such thing as a “solo” space engineer. Scientific rigor, experience, intuition, and communication are all essential, but they only truly make sense when disciplines work together.
In Part 2 of this series, we will explore how this collaboration plays out in practice, focusing on the relationship between RF and mechanical-thermal engineering, the trade-offs they face daily, and why compromise is not a weakness, but a core engineering skill.
Next article coming soon: RF and Mechanical-Thermal Engineering: Why Compromise Is the Core of Space Antenna Design
