1. Nanosatellite Industry Overview
October 2013 Update
•1

2. Content of the Presentation
• Introduction
• Trends and Hot Topics
• Myths Vs. Facts
2

3. Cut to the Chase
• COTS in LEO has proven to be eminently capable … yet
end-users exhibit strong reluctance to use it.
• Community has not learned the lesson of PC vs. Mac
• Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough … If you aim for
perfect in nanosats, you will miss the cost-effective
solution
• Like PCs, CubeSats are disposable
Andrew E. Kalman, President & CTO, Pumpkin, Inc.
Director, SSDL, Stanford University, July 2012
3

4. Introduction (1)
• Satellites are categorized by their weight
according to the following key:
– Less than 1 kg: Pico satellite
– Less than 10 kg: Nano satellite
– Less than 100 kg: Micro satellite
• Recently NASA AMES changed the scale
– Less than 5kg: Pico satellite
– Less than 50kg: Nano satellite
– Less than 200 kg: Micro satellite
Credit: NASA
4

5. Introduction (2)
• Nanosatellite Market growing rapidly
–
–
–
–
Cubesats: Conception in 2000
First missions launched in 2003
10-20 projects in 2004
>250 projects ongoing now (estimate)
• Change of users from educational
and institutional to application
focused
5

6. Nano/Micro satellite Future programs
6
Credit: SpaceWorks Nano/Microsatellite Market Assesment

7. Analysis per sector
7

8. CubeSatShop – The “AMAZON” of the Industry
8

9. Getting to space
9

10. Or like this
10

11. Trends and Hot Topics

12. CubeSat Generations
• 1st : Modern Sputniks
• 2nd : Utility of the 3U is demonstrated
• 3rd : More power, attitude control &
determination, propulsion
• 4th : Constellations
• 5th : AI collaborative entities
12

13. Trends / Hot Topics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
13
Earth Imaging
Space Weather
(Android) PhoneSats
More & Better Power
Faster Comms
AIS/ADS-B
Propulsion at Last!

14. Enabling Technologies: Communication
• Biggest bottleneck perceived
– €/bit is metric to be optimized for effective systems
• Current downlinks fairly slow
• S-Band emerging for payloads
– Up to 1-5 being deployed and used
– Up to 22 Mbps offered by L-3
22Mbps S-band transmitter
• Move to X-Band and beyond before 2015?
• More powerful platform can support these higher
data rate systems
14
8 dBi S-band Patch antenna

15. Transceivers for Cubesats
15

16. X-band 50Mbps transmitter
16

17. Miniature Deployable High Gain
Antenna - Boeing
17

18. Miniature Deployable High Gain
Antenna - Boeing
18

19. Why deploy if you can…. Inflate ?
19
Credit: MIT

20. Patch Antennas
20

21. SMDC-ONE
21

22. Ka !! The ISARA Project (NASA)
• 100 Mbps communication in Ka
• 35 db antenna gain
• Unique “PopUp” Feed
22

23. Optical Communication ?
23

24. AeroCube-OCSD:
1.5U Optical communication
24

25. Enabling Technologies:
ADCS
• New generation of ADCS products enables
• better performance
• Heritage:
– Magnetic determination & control
• Now:
–
–
–
–
25
Magnetic, Star tracker determination
Earth horizon sensors, gyros also available
Magnetorquer, reaction wheels
Integrated ADCS packages incl CPU

26. Focus on ADCS
iADCS-100 from BST
26
Main sensor: STR
Main actuators: RW
Accuracy: <0.1 deg 3 sigma
Automatic pointing: Yes
MAI-400 from MAI
Main sensor: ES+SS
Main actuators: RW
Accuracy: <0.1 deg 3 sigma
Automatic pointing: Yes

27. Focus on Propulsion
27

28. Enabling Technologies:
PhoneSat
28

29. STRaND-1
29

30. Is this a valid Business ?

31. Planet Labs – 28 EOS
31

32. NanoSatisfi – Satellites on Demand
32

33. ADS-B
33

34. Myths Vs. Facts

35. Myth #1: Nanosatellites Reliability
Myth: Nanosatellites are not reliable, Their success rate
is less than 50%
Fact: Success rate of Nanosatellite projects for the last
five years is stable >80%
• Nanosatellites Industry is complex, and incorporates
industrial, research and academic institutes
• Discussing “Nanosatellites Reliability” without taking
into account who manufactured the satellites is like
discussing “automobile reliability” while comparing
BMW to TATA

36. Are COTS Reliable enough ?
•
CubeSat
• source: Wikipedia Cubesat page

37. Myth #2: Components Reliability
Myth: COTS are not reliable, They are the cause for failures
Fact: Components are very reliable, the problem is
workmanship
• Two thirds of the projects are done by amateurs with no
experience in space standards AIT
• Technical analysis presented @2011 small sat conference
showed most failures are related to workmanship
• Components are getting better all the time
– This is a competitive market with several leading manufacturers
pushing for constant quality improvement of products

38. Most satellites are being built by amateurs
Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look: Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University

39. Myth #3: Nanosatellites don’t last long in space
Myth: Nanosatellites that reach space last for several
months and than die
Fact: There are nanosatellites that launched almost a
decade ago and are still operational
• COTS are now RAD tolerant up to 20 Krad
• Computers are Latchup and SEU protected
• Low cost allow redundancy
– Several items in a satellite
– Several satellites (mission redundancy)

40. Mission Lifetime for Nanosatellites
•
Satellites active since 2003
– Cute-1
– CubeSat XI-IV
– RS-22
•
Satellites active since 2005
– Cubesat XI-V
•
Satellites active since 2006
– GeneSat-1
•
Satellites active since 2008
– Cute-1.7 + APD II
– Delfi-C3
– SEEDS II
•
Satellites active since 2009
–
–
–
–
•
PRISM
SwissCube
BEESAT
ITUpSAT1
Average mission lifetime = 40 months
source of data: Cubesat page at the AMSAT web page

41. Summary
• About 65% of nanosatellites projects are being built by
amateurs “responsible” for most of the failures
– “Flagships” launching more than one satellites have a success
rate of 52 out of 59
• Workmanship is the main cause for failures
– Communication system failures are often due to bad wiring and
not transmitter or receiver failures
– Power system failures mostly occur due to connection loss
between solar panels and batteries
• Quality of subsystem is constantly improving
– Number of manufacturers is rising, especially in Europe
– Economical constraints derived meticulous QA
– Competitiveness in the market manifests in the form of better
quality products
• Size doesn’t matter
– Use of proven methodologies especially during AIT is a MUST

42. Inspiring words – Bob Twiggs
42

43. Thank you

44. Sources of Information
•
25 Years of Small Satellites
–
•
Attack of the CubeSats: A Statistical Look
–
•
Jeroen Rotteveel, ISIS- Innovative Solutions in Space
Nano/Microsatellite Market Assessment, February 2013
–
44
W. Dan Williams, Busek Co. Inc
Beyond CubeSats: Operational, Responsive, Nanosatellite Missions
–
•
Andrew E. Kalman , President & CTO, Pumpkin, Inc. Director, SSDL, Stanford University
Propulsion Solutions for CubeSats
–
•
Matt Bille, Paul Kolodziejski, Tom Hunsaker – Booz Allen Hamilton
Nine Years and Counting – A Nanosatellite Designer's Perspective
–
•
Jordi Puig-Suari, Roland Coelho – California Polytechnic State University; Scott Williams, Victor Aguero, Kyle
Leveque, Bryan Klofas – SRI International
Distant Horizons: Smallsat Evolution in the Mid-to-Far Term
–
•
Michael Swartwout – Saint Louis University
Recent CubeSat Launch Experiences on U.S. Launch Vehicles
–
•
Siegfried Janson – The Aerospace Corporation
Mr. Dominic DePasquale , Director of Washington D.C. Operations, Dr. John Bradford, President, SpaceWorks
Engineering