Sign In

Fred Kennedy

Co-Founder and CEO @ Dark Fission Space Systems | Working towards an On Orbit Renaissance

Fred Kennedy is the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Dark Fission Space Systems, a company focused on transforming the construction, deployment, and operation of space systems. His vision includes promoting the creation of commoditized spacecraft and enhancing launch operations to facilitate the development of infrastructure in cislunar space and beyond.

Professional Background

Kennedy has an extensive background in the aerospace sector, with previous roles including:

  • Avascent Global Advisor at Avascent since August 2019.
  • Senior Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies since October 2019.
  • Founder and CEO of Salamander Space Corporation from January 2022 to April 2024.
  • President of MOMENTUS from September 2020 to January 2022.
  • Vice President of Future Missions at Astra for ten months in 2019-2020.
  • Inaugural Director of the Space Development Agency in 2019, where he led efforts to develop next-generation military space architecture.

Education

Kennedy holds a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Surrey, a Master of Arts in Business Administration from The George Washington University, and multiple degrees in Aerospace Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also completed a Master of Arts in Strategic Studies from the US Army War College.

His career reflects a strong commitment to advancing space technology and infrastructure, aiming for a significant shift in how space systems are approached and managed.1

Highlights

Jun 17 · linkedin

"Is this year’s dip in the Space Force budget a brief pause before the department begins the next phase of space investment necessary to fight and win in the future?"

What does one have to do with the other?

Maybe (just maybe) the answer isn't to simply play the same old budget game the services have been playing since time immemorial. Maybe you shouldn't assume a correlation between the size of your budget and the capability you can field.

If there were a clear correlation, the budget we've allocated to GPS's ground segment enhancements over the past couple of decades arguably should have permitted us to geolocate pretty much anything in the known universe.

In The Hill, Lt Gen (ret.) DT Thompson laments the Defense Department's 2025 budget request - saying, "The Department of Defense has rolled out its 2025 Budget Request, and someone’s asking for a cut...the request for Space Force was a 2% decrease."

So?

I'd respectfully submit that we decouple capability and total operating authority - that we put our appropriations where our public mouth is and look for efficiencies by actually leveraging commercial space offerings, rather than simply throwing performative SBIR dollars at new entrants. Act a little more like a company, and get your schedules trimmed and costs down. "My budget is bigger than your budget" games should have gone by the wayside a while back.

Thompson goes on to say, "the Space Force and U.S. Space Command submitted unfunded priority lists that exceed $1 billion. Many items on these lists are classified, but the unclassified list includes requests to fund space communications and data relay services from commercial companies." So we've dumped commercial into the unfunded ("low") priority bin, and are holding Congress hostage: "If you really wanted this commercial stuff, you'll give us a nice budgetary bump."

I know I sound like a broken record, but (maybe) we ought to turn the SDA approach loose and look for inexpensive, commercially-leveraged, short-time-to-fielding options rather than fight the good old Pentagon budget fight.

Maybe?

May 17 · linkedin

From today's New York Times (with a nod to Scott Sadler): “We’re not acquiring the counterspace capabilities at the pace we need to fight and win in space,” Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said at an Air Force budget hearing last month.

No, we're not. We're moving far too slowly. Our objective ought to be to get inside our potential adversaries' decision (i.e., OODA) loops, rapidly orbiting deterrent capability that will give bad actors pause. We founded the Space Development Agency (SDA) on that very premise. But SDA doesn't appear to have been given the remit to go work this problem. When we started out, we talked about orbiting a deterrent layer - something that would pay close and detailed attention to everything that was going on in cislunar space and - more importantly - offer a means to reach out and touch what needed reaching out and touching.

Let me humbly suggest that SDA deserves a real crack at this problem. Let's see "Semper Citius" applied to the grossly deficient story we're currently (not?) telling around achieving ubiquitous access and effects in the cislunar regime. Let's get a few tranches up and flying to help address what Chairman Rogers is so concerned about. There's no reason why we can't do that. We've got the industry base and the smarts.

Lt Gen (ret.) John Shaw noted in this same article '...that directed-energy devices based on the ground or in space would probably be a part of any future system. "It does minimize debris; it works at the speed of light,” he said. “Those are probably going to be the tools of choice to achieve our objective."' Right on. And by the way, there's absolutely no reason to be coy about any of this. That's what deterrence is all about.

We just need to go get it done and deployed. And show our adversaries just how serious we are.

Related Questions

What is Dark Fission Space Systems' mission?
What are some of Fred Kennedy's notable achievements?
How did Fred Kennedy transition from the Space Development Agency to Dark Fission Space Systems?
What innovations is Dark Fission Space Systems working on?
What is an "On Orbit Renaissance"?
Fred Kennedy
Fred Kennedy, photo 1
Fred Kennedy, photo 2
Add to my network

Location

Washington DC-Baltimore Area