Optical-Engine Architecture Review

Resolve the next
optical-engine decision.

Before committing to a terminal design, compare the wavelength, power and integration choices that determine how much useful data it can deliver.

Request a 20-minute fit review Download the review brief

01 / THE DECISION

A specific engineering question.
A usable answer.

01

More wavelengths, or a higher rate per wavelength?

Compare usable payload, optical power allocation and the assumptions required to close each candidate link.

02

Where is the margin going?

Separate propagation, pointing, receiver and integration assumptions. Identify which uncertain input can change the decision.

03

What should the first hardware test settle?

Define the measurement, baseline and acceptance question before buying or packaging the next prototype.

02 / THE HANDOFF

Built for your
design review.

The study is organized around one mission case and the decision your team needs to make.

  1. Architecture comparison

    Up to three agreed variants, with common inputs and an explicit account of what changes between them.

  2. Editable model and assumptions

    Input register, units, calculation basis and sensitivity analysis. Assumed values remain distinguishable from supplied measurements.

  3. Decision memo and test definition

    A concise recommendation, the conditions that could reverse it, and the evidence needed for the next hardware decision.

  4. Technical review and one revision

    A review with your team and one consolidated revision within the agreed scope.

This engagement covers architecture analysis. Hardware purchases, laboratory measurements, coherent-modem development, qualification and standards certification are separately scoped. Schedule begins after the agreed inputs are available.

03 / WHAT THE WORK LOOKS LIKE

See the shape
of the answer.

This example shows the decision logic and evidence structure. A scoped study replaces the template with your requirements and the resulting analysis.

Read the evaluation brief
SPACEWDM / DECISION MEMOILLUSTRATIVE TEMPLATE

Does a second wavelength justify its integration cost?

Comparison
One-channel and two-channel candidates under the same mission geometry, total optical-power constraint and payload definition.
Decision test
Determine whether aggregate delivered payload improves after multiplexing loss and per-channel receiver margin are accounted for.
Evidence to resolve
Actual integration loss, receiver operating envelope, power allocation and measured payload delivery under the agreed conditions.
Result format
Recommended candidate, sensitivity to unresolved inputs, and the measurement that could change the recommendation.

Template only. No customer data, measured performance or completed architecture study is represented here.

04 / START WITH THE CONSTRAINT

Bring one decision.
We’ll scope the analysis.

A 20-minute fit conversation to identify the question, available inputs and whether an architecture review can help.

Focused on the engine. Accountable for the evidence.
We bring terrestrial DWDM experience, reproducible modeling and mission requirements into the same engineering review.

SpaceWDM is a research-stage optical-engine company founded by Lloyd E. Clark, PhD, with Ciena DWDM experience, Tellium technical training and defense systems engineering experience. Architecture models and test software are developed; laboratory hardware remains under development.

  1. 01Your mission and the engineering decision
  2. 02Target delivered payload and link range
  3. 03Known aperture and power limits, or what remains unknown

No detailed drawings are needed to start. Use a high-level, non-sensitive summary; detailed technical exchange can be scoped separately.

Email the three-line brief

Opens your email app. Or write directly to lc@federal.ai.