From Marginal Utility to Disruptive Research Platforms

SSC04-II-5 University-Class Satellites: From Marginal Utility to 'Disruptive' Research Platforms

Michael Swartwout Washington University in St. Louis

18th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Logan, UT 10 August 2004 Student Satellites Have Not University Satellites: Marginal Utility Changed The World (!) or Disruptive? • Students (by definition) don’t know how to build satellites • Professional payloads & launch providers don’t trust student- built satellites (and shouldn’t) • Missions constrained by the academic cycle (and turnover) • Student-built satellites are usually low-capability, high- margin spacecraft without compelling payloads

Swartwout University Satellites: The Hypothesis Marginal Utility or Disruptive? Advances in electronics technology could enable universities to serve (or disrupt) the satellite community by demonstrating new components and missions on short-development-cycle, high- risk “university-class” spacecraft.

Universities have not exploited their inherent strengths: enthusiasm, inexperience and tolerance for risk (e.g. “freedom to fail”).

Swartwout University Satellites: Def. 1: University-Class Satellite Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • Working definition – Self-contained device with independent communications, command & control – Untrained personnel (i.e. students) have key roles in design, fabrication, integration and operations – Training is at least as important as the rest of the mission • Excluded (by definition) – Many, many satellites with strong university participation (especially as science PI) – Most Amateur satellites • Exclusion does not imply lack of educational or disruptive value!

Swartwout University Satellites: Def 2: Disruptive Technology Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • Definition (courtesy our conference organizers) – Fundamentally alters the way in which a task is performed – Examples: cell phones & electronic mail – For spacecraft: not only a shift in mission from big to small, but a shift in how a mission is approached at all • How do you find disruptive technologies? – Test bold and risky ideas – Impose unreasonable constraints • Why bother to be disruptive? – Altruistic: Enable new kinds of missions and services – Self-serving: Move universities from the margins

Swartwout University Satellites: Def. 3: Freedom to Fail Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • Experimental failure is a fundamental (necessary?) element of the university experience • Universities have the freedom to try bold or risky concepts – Main mission objectives: learning & training – A failed vehicle is not a failed mission • Not a freedom to be stupid!

Swartwout University Satellites: Review of University-Class Missions Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • 50 university-class spacecraft since 1981 – 30 since 2000 – 12 more by the end of 2004 (mostly CubeSats) • 28 universities in 15 countries – Only 9 schools have flown multiple missions – That number may grow in the next two years • Most (40) were under 55 kg • About 1/4 (13) experienced significant failures • Only half (24) were technology/science missions – 16 of those built by 10 universities with significant government sponsorship

Swartwout So Why Aren’t University-Class University Satellites: Marginal Utility Spacecraft “Disruptive”? or Disruptive? • They can’t afford (or don’t want) to be disruptive – Education goals can be met without a “real” payload – Want to fly? Then design & build it the normal way! • They can’t compete with the big boys – Traditionally-built student satellites should always underperform compared to professional spacecraft – Universities can afford to fail, but mission sponsors cannot • They burn out – Most education-only missions are the school’s first (and last) – Successful programs become professional (e.g. Surrey) – The rest stick with standard practice to win launches

Swartwout The Things You Do For Launch: University Satellites: Marginal Utility Two Schools of Thought or Disruptive? • CubeSat approach: Go tiny, use collective bargaining – Hordes of 1-kg spacecraft in 3-pack launchers – Launch costs: about $100,000/Cube – If these next few work, there will be a lot more CubeSats (there may be a lot more, regardless) • Everyone else: Government sponsorship – In the U.S. (civilian): University Nanosat class (30 kg, AFRL/NASA) – Outside the U.S.: “Flagship” universities (Tsinghua, Technical University of Berlin, University of Rome, KACST, etc.)

Swartwout Recipe for a Disruptive University Satellites: Marginal Utility University-Class Spacecraft or Disruptive?

GoodGood CredibleCredible DisruptiveDisruptive MissionMission = SpacecraftSpacecraft + IdeaIdea Ingredients Common Very Common Comm. Short Large Very Small Launch Protocols / Duration Operational Spacecraft Interface Stations Mission Margins Fast & Easy to Build 3333 ves

i Easy to Launch 33 ect j Easy to Operate

b 3333

O Compelling, Risky/Novel Mission

Swartwout University Satellites: Disruptive: OPAL (Stanford) Marginal Utility or Disruptive?

• Orbiting Picosat Automated Launcher – Started 1995, Launched January 2000 – 23 kg “mothership” for 6 picosats – Operational until June 2002 • Disruptive Act #1: Proof-of-concept for DARPA/Aerospace picosats – Led to PICOSAT flights on MightySat 2.1 –Led to DARPA MEPSI • Disruptive Act #2: CubeSat Program – 10 cm3, 1 kg spacecraft

Stanford SSDL – Cal Poly P-POD (3-CubeSat launcher) – Explosion of school spacecraft building • 25 schools launched university-class spacecraft (1981-2003) • 15 schools will launch CubeSats by the end of 2004; 14 first-timers • About 50 university CubeSat programs

Cal Poly internationally

Swartwout University Satellites: Not Disruptive: Sapphire (Stanford) Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • Sapphire – Started 1994, Finished 1998 – Launched September 2001 (USNA/STP) –20 kg – Still operational • Traditional University-Class Mission – Student selected payloads: THD detectors, digital camera, voice synthesizer – After-the-fact payloads: autonomous Stanford SSDL operations, amateur radio digipeating, student training

Swartwout University Satellites: Might Be Disruptive: Bandit Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • Inspector spacecraft – Experiment on Akoya (University Nanosat 3 - AFRL/NASA) – 1 kg “flying camera” – Repeatable docking – Autonomous operations WUSTL –Image-based navigation • Possible disruption – Autonomous operations – Useful missions on extremely small platforms – Useful space engineering research on university-class spacecraft

WUSTL

Swartwout University Satellites: Conclusions Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • University-class spacecraft – Excellent teaching tools, occasional research tools – Short-cycle, “disposable” spacecraft are an opportunity for universities to exercise their freedom to fail – Suggestion: choose and choose wisely! • Manage flight-safety risk, tolerate mission risk • Predicting the future… – Most likely disruption: the small satellite industry itself – Keep an eye on CubeSats • This was an engineering discussion; what about universities on the science side?

Swartwout University Satellites: Acknowledgments Marginal Utility or Disruptive? • Christopher Kitts, Freddy Pranajaya, James Cutler, Brian Engberg, Jonathan Chow • The design teams for all 50 university-class spacecraft (and counting!) • Launch providers (e.g. Space Test Program)

• Any errors in university-class satellite descriptions or classification are mine

Swartwout SSC04-II-5 University-Class Satellites: From Marginal Utility to 'Disruptive' Research Platforms

Michael Swartwout Washington University in St. Louis

18th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Logan, UT 10 August 2004 University Satellites: University-Class Missions, 1981-2000 Marginal Utility or Disruptive?

Mission Primary Mass Duration Mission Launch Spacecraft Primary School(s) (kg) (months) Type 1981 UoSAT-1 (UO-9) University of Surrey (UK) 52 98 Science 1984 UoSAT-2 (UO-11) University of Surrey (UK) 60 249 Comm 1985 NUSAT Weber State, Utah State University (USA) 52 20 Tech 1990 WeberSAT (WO-18) Weber State (USA) 16 97 Comm 1991 TUBSAT-A Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 35 159 Comm 1992 KITSAT-1 (KO-23) Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 49 78 Tech 1993 KITSAT-2 (KO-25) Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 48 98 Comm 1994 TUBSAT-B Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 40 1 Tech? 1994 BremSat University of Bremen (Germany) 63 12 Science 1996 UNAMSAT-B (MO-30) National University of Mexico 10 0.03 Comm 1997 Falcon Gold US Air Force Academy 18 1 Tech 1997 RS-17 Russian high school students 3 2 Edu 1998 TUBSAT-N Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 9 46 Tech 1998 TUBSAT-N1 Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 3 20 Tech 1998 Techsat 1-B (GO-32) Technion Institute of Technology (Israel) 70 52 Science 1998 PO-34 PANSAT Naval Postgraduate School (USA) 70 68? Comm 1998 SO-33 SEDSAT University of Alabama, Huntsville (USA) 41 12? Tech 1999 Sunsat (SO-35) University of Stellenbosch (South Africa) 64 23 Comm 1999 DLR-TUBSAT Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 45 63 Science 1999 KITSAT-3 Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 110 63 Tech 2000 ASUsat 1 Arizona State University (USA) 6 0.03 Edu 2000 Falconsat 1 US Air Force Academy 52 1 Edu 2000 JAWSAT (WO-39) Weber State, USAFA 191 1? Tech 2000 Opal (OO-38) Stanford University (USA) 23 29 Tech 2000 JAK Santa Clara University (USA) 0.2 0 Edu 2000 Louise Santa Clara University (USA) 0.5 0 Science 2000 Thelma Santa Clara University (USA) 0.5 0 Science Premature loss of operations (or Still operational Semioperational Nonoperational severely degraded operations)

Swartwout University Satellites: University-Class Missions, 2000-2004 Marginal Utility or Disruptive?

2000 Tsinghua-1 Tsinghua University (China) 50 48? Edu 2000 SO-41 Saudisat 1A King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia) 10 40? Comm 2000 SO-42 Saudisat 1B King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia) 10 40? Comm 2000 UNISAT 1 University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy) 12 ?? Edu 2000 TiungSAT-1 (MO-46) ATSB 50 40 Edu/Science 2000 Munin Umeå University / Luleå University of Technology (Sweden) 6 3 Science 2001 PCSat 1 (NO-44) US Naval Academy 12 35 Comm 2001 Sapphire (NO-45) Stanford, USNA, Washington University (USA) 20 35 Edu 2001 Maroc-TUBSAT Technical University of Berlin (Germany) 47 34 Science 2002 Kolibri-2000 Space Research Institute (Russia) 21 2 Edu 2002 SO-50 Saudisat 1C King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (Saudia Arabia) 10 17? Comm 2002 UNISAT 2 University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy) 17 18? Edu 2003 AAU Cubesat University of Aalborg (Denmark) 1 2 Edu 2003 CanX-1 University of Toronto (Canada) 1 0 Edu 2003 CUTE-1 Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan) 1 13 Edu 2003 DTUsat Technical University of Denmark 1 0 Edu 2003 XI-IV University of Tokyo (Japan) 1 13 Edu 2003 MOST University of Toronto (Canada) 60 13 Science 2003 QuakeSat Stanford University (USA) 3 13 Science 2003 STSAT-1 Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 100 9? Tech 2004 Naxing-1 (NS-1) Tsinghua University (China) 25 4 Tech 2004 UNISAT 3 University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Italy) 12 1 Tech 2004 SaudiSat 2 KACST (Saudia Arabia) 15? 1 Comm? Premature loss of operations (or Still operational Semioperational Nonoperational severely degraded operations)

Swartwout