DOCSLIB.ORG

A Survey of Cubesat Communication Systems: 2009–2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A Survey of CubeSat Communication Systems: 2009{2012 Bryan Klofas (KF6ZEO) SRI International [email protected] Kyle Leveque (KG6TXT) CubeSat Research, LLC. [email protected] April 2013 Abstract This paper is a short survey of the communication subsystems of CubeSats successfully launched into orbit between the Minotaur 1 launch in May 2009 and the ELaNa-6/NROL- 36 launch in September 2012. Detailed information about the radios, data rates, antennas, and ground stations is included. The transition from amateur satellite service to experimental service for US CubeSats is discussed. We make recommendations to increase the chance of communications success. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 United States Licensing Requirements4 3 Recommendations6 4 Satellite Comparison6 5 Satellite Detail 10 5.1 Minotaur-1......................................... 10 5.1.1 AeroCube-3..................................... 10 5.1.2 CP6......................................... 11 5.1.3 HawkSat-1..................................... 11 5.1.4 PharmaSat..................................... 11 5.2 ISILaunch 01/PSLV-C14.................................. 12 5.2.1 BEESAT-1..................................... 12 5.2.2 UWE-2....................................... 13 5.2.3 ITUpSAT1..................................... 13 5.2.4 SwissCube...................................... 13 5.3 H-IIA F17.......................................... 14 5.3.1 Hayato....................................... 14 5.3.2 Waseda-SAT2.................................... 15 5.3.3 Negai-Star...................................... 15 5.4 NLS-6/PSLV-C15...................................... 15 5.4.1 TIsat-1....................................... 16 5.4.2 StudSat....................................... 16 5.5 STP-S26........................................... 17 5.5.1 RAX-1........................................ 17 5.5.2 O/OREOS..................................... 18 5.5.3 NanoSail-D2.................................... 18 5.6 Falcon 9-002......................................... 19 5.6.1 Perseus (4)..................................... 19 5.6.2 QbX (2)....................................... 19 5.6.3 SMDC-ONE.................................... 20 5.6.4 Mayflower...................................... 20 5.7 ELaNa-1/Taurus XL.................................... 21 5.8 PSLV-C18.......................................... 22 5.8.1 Jugnu........................................ 22 5.9 ELaNa-3/NPP....................................... 22 5.9.1 AubieSat-1..................................... 23 5.9.2 DICE (2) *..................................... 23 5.9.3 HRBE........................................ 24 5.9.4 M-Cubed...................................... 25 5.9.5 RAX-2........................................ 25 5.10 Vega VV01......................................... 25 5.10.1 Xatcobeo...................................... 26 2 5.10.2 ROBUSTA..................................... 26 5.10.3 e-st@r........................................ 26 5.10.4 Goliat........................................ 27 5.10.5 PW-Sat....................................... 27 5.10.6 Masat-1....................................... 27 5.10.7 UniCubeSat-GG.................................. 28 5.11 ELaNa-6/NROL-36..................................... 28 5.11.1 SMDC-ONE (2).................................. 29 5.11.2 AeroCube-4 (3)................................... 29 5.11.3 Aeneas........................................ 30 5.11.4 CSSWE....................................... 30 5.11.5 CP5......................................... 30 5.11.6 CXBN........................................ 31 5.11.7 CINEMA...................................... 31 5.11.8 Re.......................................... 32 6 Conclusion 33 Bibliography 34 3 1 Introduction This paper is an update to an earlier survey of CubeSat Communications [1]. The current paper surveys the communications subsystems on CubeSats launched from May 2009 to September 2012, clearly showing that the communication system is one major limiting factor for CubeSats. Chapter 2 describes some of the licensing requirements for CubeSats built by US developers. Chapter 3 provides recommendations for new and existing CubeSat teams to increase their chances of a successful project. Chapter 4 is a condensed table of all the CubeSats described in Chapter 5 of this paper, which details the communication subsystems of the 49 CubeSats launched from May 2009 to September 2012. 2 United States Licensing Requirements As identified in 2002 [2,3], spectrum licensing takes the longest amount of time for CubeSat communications, often longer than building and testing the satellite. Until 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was content to let CubeSats use the amateur satellite service, even if they didn't follow all of the amateur radio regulations in Part 97. The CubeSat licensing issue was brought to the forefront during the launch of ELaNa-3/NPP in October 2011. For a variety of reasons, the FCC did not file the correct international notification paperwork with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for the CubeSats on this launch. Several days before launch, the ITU notified the FCC about this. The CubeSat teams scrambled to fill out all the paperwork, and all documents were submitted to the ITU before launch [5]. Due to this mix-up, the FCC became more active at the CubeSat Summer Workshop during the Small Satellite Conference in Logan, Utah, in August 2012. A representative from the FCC suggested that most CubeSat teams should get an experimental license instead of amateur, based on Section 97.113, which prohibits any type of payment to the licensee or control operators of the spacecraft [4]. FCC met in November 2012 with representatives from NASA, NRO, and the CubeSat commu- nity to prevent this licensing issue in the future. The results of this meeting are contained in FCC Public Notice DA-13-445A1, \Guidance on Obtaining Licenses for Small Satellites." This document touches on who is eligible to apply for a license, how to apply, what documents are required, orbital debris mitigation, and post-launch notifications. Figure1 shows a flow diagram, based on this FCC Public Notice and communication with FCC employees, for determining which license CubeSat teams should apply for. These documents and charts reflect one interpretation of the views of the FCC, and are not applicable to US Government- funded and -operated satellites (licensed by the NTIA) or to international CubeSats. 4 Note: This flow chart is for United States CubeSat teams only. Rules and processes in other countries will differ. Determine Comm NTIA licensing process US Government Yes NTIA Start System through sponsoring owned & operated Requirements † Authorized government agency satellite? † Comm System Requirements: Required link margin No Satellite Data rate/modulation schemes FCC Commercial Yes Communications Allocation/frequency band Licensed Purpose? Identify coordination requirement Part 25 Transmitter power (ground and satellite) Receiver sensitivity (ground and satellite) Radiation pattern/satellite pointing No Capable ground stations/locations Not done by Annex X of IARU Satellite Specification CubeSats before; need path finder Experimental Lifetime Amateur radio No Radio No Yes less than 6 purpose and no Service months? money involved? Part 5 Amateur Satellite Yes 7.3 §9 Service Part 97 Gather frequency Experimental authorization STA Gather frequency inputs * authorization §5.61 inputs * Receives frequency I Using Amateur Yes A coordination request R Satellite Service 8 to 10 months before U frequencies? ǂ ǂ Amateur Satellite CubeSat integration Service Frequencies: C Various HF o o No 144-146 MHz r Discussions on d 435-438 MHz i appropriate n 1260-1270 MHz Uplink frequency, bandwidth, a Contact and 2400-2450 MHz t i power, etc. o coordinate with 3400-3410 MHz n primary and NTIA 5650-5670 MHz Uplink users in band P 5830-5850 MHz Downlink r If frequency and o and Higher bandwidth usage are c e appropriate, IARU s provides coordinated s frequencies Receives inputs * 6 months before integration and adds * Frequency Authorization Inputs from CubeSat Developer: SpaceCap, etc. IARU coordination letter (if applicable) Radio manufacturer details Frequency/modulation details ( C Prepares separate F RF power/antenna details u C applications; each Satellite mission/payload b C team reviews and e Ground station details S approves application L ODAR inputs: a a · DAS t u I n · Explosion/collision probability n c Submits separate t · Post-mission disposal (25-year rule) h e applications 5 months g · Re-entry probability (confirmation that no debris survise P r before integration on reeentry) a O behalf of each team t C o r ) Tracks separate FCC notifies ITU, and Bryan Klofas applications through if no objections, Launch Version 12 FCC and relays grants Frequency questions to team Authorizations April 2013 Figure 1: United States licensing flow chart. 5 3 Recommendations Based on the the research for this paper, we have several recommendations for CubeSat developers with respect to their communications subsystem. Our earlier recommendations are still valid [1]. Timeframe: Teams should begin thinking about frequency licensing of their satellites when the project starts, even before any hardware has been designed or purchased. For non-government teams in the US, the FCC is encouraging an experimental license, with IARU coordination letter if applicable (see previous section). Licensing often takes one year or more. Command
Recommended publications
  • A Survey and Assessment of the Capabilities of Cubesats for Earth Observation

    A Survey and Assessment of the Capabilities of Cubesats for Earth Observation

    Acta Astronautica 74 (2012) 50–68 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro Review A survey and assessment of the capabilities of Cubesats for Earth observation Daniel Selva a,n, David Krejci b a Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA b Vienna University of Technology, Vienna 1040, Austria article info abstract Article history: In less than a decade, Cubesats have evolved from purely educational tools to a standard Received 2 December 2011 platform for technology demonstration and scientific instrumentation. The use of COTS Accepted 9 December 2011 (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) components and the ongoing miniaturization of several technologies have already led to scattered instances of missions with promising Keywords: scientific value. Furthermore, advantages in terms of development cost and develop- Cubesats ment time with respect to larger satellites, as well as the possibility of launching several Earth observation satellites dozens of Cubesats with a single rocket launch, have brought forth the potential for University satellites radically new mission architectures consisting of very large constellations or clusters of Systems engineering Cubesats. These architectures promise to combine the temporal resolution of GEO Remote sensing missions with the spatial resolution of LEO missions, thus breaking a traditional trade- Nanosatellites Picosatellites off in Earth observation mission design. This paper assesses the current capabilities of Cubesats with respect to potential employment in Earth observation missions. A thorough review of Cubesat bus technology capabilities is performed, identifying potential limitations and their implications on 17 different Earth observation payload technologies. These results are matched to an exhaustive review of scientific require- ments in the field of Earth observation, assessing the possibilities of Cubesats to cope with the requirements set for each one of 21 measurement categories.
  • New Voyage to Rendezvous with a Small Asteroid Rotating with a Short Period

    New Voyage to Rendezvous with a Small Asteroid Rotating with a Short Period

    Hayabusa2 Extended Mission: New Voyage to Rendezvous with a Small Asteroid Rotating with a Short Period M. Hirabayashi1, Y. Mimasu2, N. Sakatani3, S. Watanabe4, Y. Tsuda2, T. Saiki2, S. Kikuchi2, T. Kouyama5, M. Yoshikawa2, S. Tanaka2, S. Nakazawa2, Y. Takei2, F. Terui2, H. Takeuchi2, A. Fujii2, T. Iwata2, K. Tsumura6, S. Matsuura7, Y. Shimaki2, S. Urakawa8, Y. Ishibashi9, S. Hasegawa2, M. Ishiguro10, D. Kuroda11, S. Okumura8, S. Sugita12, T. Okada2, S. Kameda3, S. Kamata13, A. Higuchi14, H. Senshu15, H. Noda16, K. Matsumoto16, R. Suetsugu17, T. Hirai15, K. Kitazato18, D. Farnocchia19, S.P. Naidu19, D.J. Tholen20, C.W. Hergenrother21, R.J. Whiteley22, N. A. Moskovitz23, P.A. Abell24, and the Hayabusa2 extended mission study group. 1Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA ([email protected]) 2Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Kanagawa, Japan 3Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan 4Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan 5National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan 6Tokyo City University, Tokyo, Japan 7Kwansei Gakuin University, Hyogo, Japan 8Japan Spaceguard Association, Okayama, Japan 9Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan 10Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea 11Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan 12University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 13Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan 14University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Fukuoka, Japan 15Chiba Institute of Technology, Chiba, Japan 16National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Iwate, Japan 17National Institute of Technology, Oshima College, Yamaguchi, Japan 18University of Aizu, Fukushima, Japan 19Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA 20University of Hawai’i, Manoa, HI, USA 21University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 22Asgard Research, Denver, CO, USA 23Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, AZ, USA 24NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA 1 Highlights 1.
  • View Conducted by Its Standing Review Board (SRB)

    View Conducted by Its Standing Review Board (SRB)

    Science Committee Report Dr. Wes Huntress, Chair 1 Science Committee Members Wes Huntress, Chair Byron Tapley, (Vice Chair) University of Texas-Austin, Chair of Earth Science Alan Boss, Carnegie Institution, Chair of Astrophysics Ron Greeley, Arizona State University, Chair of Planetary Science Gene Levy, Rice University , Chair of Planetary Protection Roy Torbert, University of New Hampshire, Chair of Heliophysics Jack Burns, University of Colorado Noel Hinners, Independent Consultant *Judith Lean, Naval Research Laboratory Michael Turner, University of Chicago Charlie Kennel, Chair of Space Studies Board (ex officio member) * = resigned July 16, 2010 2 Agenda • Science Results • Programmatic Status • Findings & Recommendations 3 Unusual Thermosphere Collapse • Deep drop in Thermospheric (50 – 400 km) density • Deeper than expected from solar cycle & CO2 4 Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) unlocking the secrets of Noctilucent Clouds (NLCs) Form 50 miles above surface in polar summer vs ~ 6 miles for “norm79al” clouds. NLCs getting brighter; occurring more often. Why? Linked to global change? AIM NLC Image June 27, 2009 - AIM measured the relationship between cloud properties and temperature - Quantified for the first time, the dramatic response to small changes, 10 deg C, in temperature - T sensitivity critical for study of global change effects on mesosphere Response to Gulf Oil Spill UAVSAR 23 June 2010 MODIS 31 May 2010 ASTER 24 May 2010 Visible Visible/IR false color Satellite instruments: continually monitoring the extent of
  • A Monte Carlo Analysis for Collision Risk Assessment on VEGA Launcher

    A Monte Carlo Analysis for Collision Risk Assessment on VEGA Launcher

    ARTIFICIAL SATELLITES, Vol. 51, No. 1 – 2016 DOI: 10.1515/arsa-2016-0004 A MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS FOR COLLISION RISK ASSESSMENT A Monte Carlo analysis for collision risk assessment on VEGA ON VEGAlauncher LAUNCHER payloads PAYLOADS and LARES AND LARES satellite SATELLITE G. Sindoni Sapienza Universit`a di Roma, Scuola di Ingegneria Aerospaziale, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] I. Ciufolini Universit`a del Salento, Dip. Ingegneria dell’Innovazione, Lecce, and Centro Fermi, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] F. Battie ELV s.p.a. e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. This work has been developed in the framework of the LARES mission of the Italian Space Agency (ASI). The LARES satellite has been built to test, with high accuracy, the frame–dragging effect predicted by the theory of General Relativity, specifically the Lense–Thirring drag of its node. LARES was the main payload in the qualification flight of the European Space Agency launcher VEGA. A concern arose about the possibility of an impact between the eight secondary payloads among themselves, with LARES and with the last stage of the launcher (AVUM). An impact would have caused failure on the payloads and the production of debris in violation of the space debris mitigation measures established internationally. As an additional contribution, this study allowed the effect of the payload release on the final manoeuvers of the AVUM to be understood. Keywords: LARES, VEGA, launchers, space debris, collisions. 1. INTRODUCTION On February 13, 2012, the European Space Agency’s VEGA qualification flight inserted into orbit the LARES (LAser RElativity Satellite) satellite (Ciufolini et al.
  • Istanbul Technical University Institute of Science And

    Istanbul Technical University Institute of Science And

    İSTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY « INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DESIGN STUDY OF A COMMUNICATION SUBSYSTEM AND GROUND STATION FOR ITU-pSAT II M.Sc. Thesis by Melih FİDANOĞLU Department : Institue of Science and Technology Programme : Defence Technologies JANUARY 2011 İSTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY « INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DESIGN STUDY OF A COMMUNICATION SUBSYSTEM AND GROUND STATION FOR ITU-pSAT II M.Sc. Thesis by Melih FİDANOĞLU (514071013) Date of submission : 20 December 2010 Date of defence examination: 24 January 2011 Supervisor (Chairman) : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gökhan İNALHAN (ITU) Members of the Examining Committee : Prof. Dr. İbrahim ÖZKOL (ITU) Prof. Dr. Metin Orhan KAYA (ITU) JANUARY 2011 İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ « FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ ITU-pSAT II İÇİN İLETİŞİM ALTSİSTEMİ VE YER İSTASYONU TASARIM ÇALIŞMASI YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ Melih FİDANOĞLU (514071013) Tezin Enstitüye Verildiği Tarih : 20 Aralık 2010 Tezin Savunulduğu Tarih : 24 Ocak 2011 Tez Danışmanı : Doç. Dr. Gökhan İnalhan (İTÜ) Diğer Jüri Üyeleri : Prof. Dr. İbrahim Özkol (İTÜ) Prof. Dr. Metin Orhan Kaya (İTÜ) OCAK 2011 FOREWORD First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Gökhan İnalhan for the opportunity to work in the fantastic setup of Control and Avionics Laboratory and to work with the research team here. I would like to thank ITU-pSAT II project team including Emre Koyuncu, Melahat Cihan, Elgiz Başkaya and Soner Işıksal for being my project teammates. Also, my sincere thanks goes to Control and Avionics Lab's fellow labmates, including, but not limited to, Serdar Ateş, Oktay Arslan and Nazım Kemal Üre. A special thanks goes to TÜBİTAK. Without their contributions, this project would not be possible.
  • Orbital Lifetime Predictions

    Orbital Lifetime Predictions

    Orbital LIFETIME PREDICTIONS An ASSESSMENT OF model-based BALLISTIC COEFfiCIENT ESTIMATIONS AND ADJUSTMENT FOR TEMPORAL DRAG co- EFfiCIENT VARIATIONS M.R. HaneVEER MSc Thesis Aerospace Engineering Orbital lifetime predictions An assessment of model-based ballistic coecient estimations and adjustment for temporal drag coecient variations by M.R. Haneveer to obtain the degree of Master of Science at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Thursday June 1, 2017 at 14:00 PM. Student number: 4077334 Project duration: September 1, 2016 – June 1, 2017 Thesis committee: Dr. ir. E. N. Doornbos, TU Delft, supervisor Dr. ir. E. J. O. Schrama, TU Delft ir. K. J. Cowan MBA TU Delft An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. Summary Objects in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) experience low levels of drag due to the interaction with the outer layers of Earth’s atmosphere. The atmospheric drag reduces the velocity of the object, resulting in a gradual decrease in altitude. With each decayed kilometer the object enters denser portions of the atmosphere accelerating the orbit decay until eventually the object cannot sustain a stable orbit anymore and either crashes onto Earth’s surface or burns up in its atmosphere. The capability of predicting the time an object stays in orbit, whether that object is space junk or a satellite, allows for an estimate of its orbital lifetime - an estimate satellite op- erators work with to schedule science missions and commercial services, as well as use to prove compliance with international agreements stating no passively controlled object is to orbit in LEO longer than 25 years.
  • Probes to the Inferior Planets – a New Dawn for Neo and Ieo Detection Technology Demonstration from Heliocentric Orbits Interior to the Earth’S?

    Probes to the Inferior Planets – a New Dawn for Neo and Ieo Detection Technology Demonstration from Heliocentric Orbits Interior to the Earth’S?

    PROBES TO THE INFERIOR PLANETS – A NEW DAWN FOR NEO AND IEO DETECTION TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION FROM HELIOCENTRIC ORBITS INTERIOR TO THE EARTH’S? 2011 IAA Planetary Defense Conference 09-12 May 2011 Bucharest, Romania Jan Thimo Grundmann(1), Stefano Mottola(2), Maximilian Drentschew(6), Martin Drobczyk(1), Ralph Kahle(3), Volker Maiwald(4), Dominik Quantius(4), Paul Zabel(4), Tim van Zoest(5) (1)DLR German Aerospace Center - Institute of Space Systems - Department of Satellite Systems Robert-Hooke-Straße 7, 28359 Bremen, Germany Email: [email protected], [email protected] (2)DLR German Aerospace Center - Institute of Planetary Research - Department Asteroids and Comets Rutherfordstraße 2, 12489 Berlin, Germany Email: [email protected] (3)DLR German Aerospace Center - Space Operations and Astronaut Training - Space Flight Technology Dept. 82234 Oberpfaffenhofen-Wesseling, Germany Email: [email protected] (4)DLR German Aerospace Center - Institute of Space Systems - Dept. System Analysis Space Segments (SARA) Robert-Hooke-Straße 7, 28359 Bremen, Germany Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (5)DLR German Aerospace Center - Institute of Space Systems - Department of Exploration Systems Robert-Hooke-Straße 7, 28359 Bremen, Germany Email: [email protected] (6)ZFT Zentrum für Telematik Allesgrundweg 12, 97218 Gerbrunn, Germany Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT With the launch of MESSENGER and VENUS EXPRESS, a new wave of exploration of the inner solar system has begun. Noting the growing number of probes to the inner solar system, it is proposed to connect the expertise of the respective spacecraft teams and the NEO and IEO survey community to best utilize the extended cruise phases and to provide additional data return in support of pure science as well as planetary defence.
  • Cubesat Data Analysis Revision

    Cubesat Data Analysis Revision

    371-XXXXX Revision - CubeSat Data Analysis Revision - November 2015 Prepared by: GSFC/Code 371 National Aeronautics and Goddard Space Flight Center Space Administration Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 371-XXXXX Revision - Signature Page Prepared by: ___________________ _____ Mark Kaminskiy Date Reliability Engineer ARES Corporation Accepted by: _______________________ _____ Nasir Kashem Date Reliability Lead NASA/GSFC Code 371 1 371-XXXXX Revision - DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD REV DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE LEVEL APPROVED - Baseline Release 2 371-XXXXX Revision - Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Statement of Work 5 3 Database 5 4 Distributions by Satellite Classes, Users, Mass, and Volume 7 4.1 Distribution by satellite classes 7 4.2 Distribution by satellite users 8 4.3 CubeSat Distribution by mass 8 4.4 CubeSat Distribution by volume 8 5 Annual Number of CubeSats Launched 9 6 Reliability Data Analysis 10 6.1 Introducing “Time to Event” variable 10 6.2 Probability of a Successful Launch 10 6.3 Estimation of Probability of Mission Success after Successful Launch. Kaplan-Meier Nonparametric Estimate and Weibull Distribution. 10 6.3.1 Kaplan-Meier Estimate 10 6.3.2 Weibull Distribution Estimation 11 6.4 Estimation of Probability of mission success after successful launch as a function of time and satellite mass using Weibull Regression 13 6.4.1 Weibull Regression 13 6.4.2 Data used for estimation of the model parameters 13 6.4.3 Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the Reliability function and the estimates based on the Weibull regression 16 7 Conclusion 17 8 Acknowledgement 18 9 References 18 10 Appendix 19 Table of Figures Figure 4-1 CubeSats distribution by mass ....................................................................................................
  • FASTSAT a Mini-Satellite Mission…..A Way Ahead”

    FASTSAT a Mini-Satellite Mission…..A Way Ahead”

    Proposed Abstract: Under the combined Category and Title: “FASTSAT a Mini-Satellite Mission…..A Way Ahead” Authors: Mark E. Boudreaux, Joseph Casas, Timothy A. Smith The Fast Affordable Science and Technology Spacecraft (FASTSAT) is a mini-satellite weighing less than 150 kg. FASTSAT was developed as government-industry collaborative research and development flight project targeting rapid access to space to provide an alternative, low cost platform for a variety of scientific, research, and technology payloads. The initial spacecraft was designed to carry six instruments and launch as a secondary “rideshare” payload. This design approach greatly reduced overall mission costs while maximizing the on-board payload accommodations. FASTSAT was designed from the ground up to meet a challenging short schedule using modular components with a flexible, configurable layout to enable a broad range of payloads at a lower cost and shorter timeline than scaling down a more complex spacecraft. The integrated spacecraft along with its payloads were readied for launch 15 months from authority to proceed. As an ESPA-class spacecraft, FASTSAT is compatible with many different launch vehicles, including Minotaur I, Minotaur IV, Delta IV, Atlas V, Pegasus, Falcon 1/1e, and Falcon 9. These vehicles offer an array of options for launch sites and provide for a variety of rideshare possibilities. FASTSAT a Mini Satellite Mission …..A Way Ahead 15th Annual Space & Missile Defense Conference Session Track 1.2 : Operations for Small, Tactical Satellites Mark Boudreaux/NASA
  • Astrobiology in Low Earth Orbit

    Astrobiology in Low Earth Orbit

    The O/OREOS Mission – Astrobiology in Low Earth Orbit P. Ehrenfreund1, A.J. Ricco2, D. Squires2, C. Kitts3, E. Agasid2, N. Bramall2, K. Bryson4, J. Chittenden2, C. Conley5, A. Cook2, R. Mancinelli4, A. Mattioda2, W. Nicholson6, R. Quinn7, O. Santos2, G. Tahu5, M. Voytek5, C. Beasley2, L. Bica3, M. Diaz-Aguado2, C. Friedericks2, M. Henschke2, J.W. Hines2, D. Landis8, E. Luzzi2, D. Ly2, N. Mai2, G. Minelli2, M. McIntyre2, M. Neumann3, M. Parra2, M. Piccini2, R. Rasay3, R. Ricks2, A. Schooley2, E. Stackpole2, L. Timucin2, B. Yost2, A. Young3 1Space Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA [email protected], 2NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA, 3Robotic Systems Laboratory, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 4Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, Sonoma, CA, USA, 5NASA Headquarters, Washington DC, USA, 6University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 7SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA, USA, 8Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA Abstract. The O/OREOS (Organism/Organic Exposure to Orbital Stresses) nanosatellite is the first science demonstration spacecraft and flight mission of the NASA Astrobiology Small- Payloads Program (ASP). O/OREOS was launched successfully on November 19, 2010, to a high-inclination (72°), 650-km Earth orbit aboard a US Air Force Minotaur IV rocket from Kodiak, Alaska. O/OREOS consists of 3 conjoined cubesat (each 1000 cm3) modules: (i) a control bus, (ii) the Space Environment Survivability of Living Organisms (SESLO) experiment, and (iii) the Space Environment Viability of Organics (SEVO) experiment. Among the innovative aspects of the O/OREOS mission are a real-time analysis of the photostability of organics and biomarkers and the collection of data on the survival and metabolic activity for micro-organisms at 3 times during the 6-month mission.
  • Highlights in Space 2010

    Highlights in Space 2010

    International Astronautical Federation Committee on Space Research International Institute of Space Law 94 bis, Avenue de Suffren c/o CNES 94 bis, Avenue de Suffren UNITED NATIONS 75015 Paris, France 2 place Maurice Quentin 75015 Paris, France Tel: +33 1 45 67 42 60 Fax: +33 1 42 73 21 20 Tel. + 33 1 44 76 75 10 E-mail: : [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Fax. + 33 1 44 76 74 37 URL: www.iislweb.com OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS URL: www.iafastro.com E-mail: [email protected] URL : http://cosparhq.cnes.fr Highlights in Space 2010 Prepared in cooperation with the International Astronautical Federation, the Committee on Space Research and the International Institute of Space Law The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs is responsible for promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space and assisting developing countries in using space science and technology. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs P. O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel: (+43-1) 26060-4950 Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5830 E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.unoosa.org United Nations publication Printed in Austria USD 15 Sales No. E.11.I.3 ISBN 978-92-1-101236-1 ST/SPACE/57 *1180239* V.11-80239—January 2011—775 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT VIENNA Highlights in Space 2010 Prepared in cooperation with the International Astronautical Federation, the Committee on Space Research and the International Institute of Space Law Progress in space science, technology and applications, international cooperation and space law UNITED NATIONS New York, 2011 UniTEd NationS PUblication Sales no.
  • The O/OREOS Mission—Astrobiology in Low Earth Orbit

    The O/OREOS Mission—Astrobiology in Low Earth Orbit

    Acta Astronautica 93 (2014) 501–508 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro The O/OREOS mission—Astrobiology in low Earth orbit P. Ehrenfreund a,n, A.J. Ricco b, D. Squires b, C. Kitts c, E. Agasid b, N. Bramall b, K. Bryson d, J. Chittenden b, C. Conley e, A. Cook b, R. Mancinelli d, A. Mattioda b, W. Nicholson f, R. Quinn g, O. Santos b,G.Tahue,M.Voyteke, C. Beasley b,L.Bicac, M. Diaz-Aguado b, C. Friedericks b,M.Henschkeb,D.Landish, E. Luzzi b,D.Lyb, N. Mai b, G. Minelli b,M.McIntyreb,M.Neumannc, M. Parra b, M. Piccini b, R. Rasay c,R.Ricksb, A. Schooley b, E. Stackpole b, L. Timucin b,B.Yostb, A. Young c a Space Policy Institute, Washington DC, USA b NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA c Robotic Systems Laboratory, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA d Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, Sonoma, CA, USA e NASA Headquarters, Washington DC, USA f University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA g SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA, USA h Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA article info abstract Article history: The O/OREOS (Organism/Organic Exposure to Orbital Stresses) nanosatellite is the first Received 19 December 2011 science demonstration spacecraft and flight mission of the NASA Astrobiology Small- Received in revised form Payloads Program (ASP). O/OREOS was launched successfully on November 19, 2010, to 22 June 2012 a high-inclination (721), 650-km Earth orbit aboard a US Air Force Minotaur IV rocket Accepted 18 September 2012 from Kodiak, Alaska.